Upload
barry-mccoy
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Presenter: Yu-Chu ChenAdvisor: Ming-Puu Chen
Date: Aug. 19, 2009
The Interactivity Effect In Multimedia Learning
Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers &Education, 49(), 1147-1160.
2
Introduction
– Nowadays: the systems were generally non-interactive and with uninterrupted animations.
– Cognition perspective: the utility of incorporating interactivity in computer-based systems is that it allows the learner to influence the flow of information in terms of timing or content.
– Button-clicking to indicate the learning process.– Multiple-choice questions with meaningful feedback.
– Purpose: whether the such interactivity can actually increase learning..
3
IntroductionInteractivity and interactive computer systems
– Interactivity: (Moore, 1989; Schrum & Berge, 1997)– Student–student interaction.– Teacher–student interaction.– Student–content interaction.
– Interactive system: (Evans & Sabry, 2002)– Button or control to learner (computer initiation).– Press button or use control (learner response).– New information to learner (computer feedback).
4
IntroductionActive and passive learning hypotheses
– Active-learning hypotheses: (Jonassen; Mayer).– constructivist models of learning; students play an
active role in receiving and processing information. – Students using interactive version were better.
– Passive-learning hypotheses: (Mayer)– Information transfer model; students simply store the
knowledge in their memory.– No significant differences.
– The study contribute to the research by Mayer, Dow, and Mayer (2003), including interaction to select timing and order of explanations.
5
MethodParticipants
– 33 (22 males and 11 females) second-year undergraduates took the Computing pathway in Business and Management.
– All at the same level and pre-requisites, and without relative background. (low prior knowledge)
6
Method Materials and apparatus
– Non-interactive (NI): – A labelled diagram with no interactive features.
– Interactive (I): 3 forms of interactivity1. Pacing control.2. Two interactive self-assessment questions (ISAQs).3. Interactive simulation.
– Pre-test: a single on-screen request. – Post-test: 5 open-ended. (retention/transfer)– Both systems recorded the time taken by learners.
7
MethodProcedure
– First, the class randomly divided into two groups:1. Interactive system (I)2. Non-interactive system (NI)
– Both groups with the same conditions and completed the lesson and post-test in almost 1 h.
– Data analysis:– Significant differences between scores and timings by
one-tailed statistical tests.– Correlations by the Pearson coefficient.
8
ResultsPost-test scores
9
ResultsLesson and test timings
10
ResultsRelation between scores and timings
11
ResultsRelation between scores and timings
12
Discussiontest scores
– The test scores suggest that interactivity increases the depth of learning or understanding.
– Learners of I did not significantly increase their retention of material when given a recall test.
– Active learning hypothesis: consistent.– Passive learning hypothesis: inconsistent.– Similar result with Mayer and Chandler (2001).
– Interact to control the pace of the double presentation enabled students to reduce the cognitive load on their working memory.
13
Discussiontiming
– The time analysis here shows that students using the I system spent significantly more time on the lesson than the students using the NI system.
– Maybe engagement or personal preference.– Rieber (1990) found that animation improves
learning only when accompanied by the opportunity to practice the theory. (consistent)
– This study provides compelling to incorporate interactive features into the design of their systems at an early stage.