The Interactivity Effect In
Multimedia Learning
Presenter: Yu-Chu Chen
Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen
Date: Aug. 19, 2009
Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning.
Computers &Education, 49(), 1147-1160.
Introduction
–
–
Nowadays: the systems were generally noninteractive 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..
2
Introduction
Interactivity 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).
3
Introduction
Active and passive learning hypotheses
–
Active-learning hypotheses: (Jonassen; Mayer).
–
–
–
Passive-learning hypotheses: (Mayer)
–
–
–
constructivist models of learning; students play an
active role in receiving and processing information.
Students using interactive version were better.
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.
4
Method
Participants
–
–
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)
5
Method
Materials and apparatus
–
Non-interactive (NI):
–
–
Interactive (I): 3 forms of interactivity
1.
2.
3.
–
–
–
A labelled diagram with no interactive features.
Pacing control.
Two interactive self-assessment questions (ISAQs).
Interactive simulation.
Pre-test: a single on-screen request.
Post-test: 5 open-ended. (retention/transfer)
Both systems recorded the time taken by learners.
6
Method
Procedure
–
First, the class randomly divided into two groups:
1.
2.
–
–
Interactive system (I)
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.
7
Results
Post-test scores
8
Results
Lesson and test timings
9
Results
Relation between scores and timings
10
Results
Relation between scores and timings
11
Discussion
test 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.
12
Discussion
timing
–
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.
13