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.