Multimedia, Simulations, and Learning Transfer

1,625 views
1,490 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,625
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
328
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Multimedia, Simulations, and Learning Transfer

  1. 1. Using Multimedia and Virtual Simulations to Enhance Transfer of Knowledge In Anatomy Instruction <ul><li>A Study Submitted for EPET Practicum Requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Andy Saltarelli </li></ul><ul><li>October 2010 </li></ul>
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Multimedia and virtual simulations are providing new learning contexts within which to explore learning transfer </li></ul><ul><li>Anatomy instruction is well-suited for multimedia and simulations, highly reliant on the understanding of spatial relationships and the need for safe, easy, and controlled exploration of delicate anatomical structures. </li></ul><ul><li>Thus, an experimental-control design was used to test the effects of a multimedia , and virtual simulation learning system, Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 (APR 2.0), on learning transfer in an undergraduate anatomy course. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Learning Transfer <ul><li>Basic Transfer - making a connection between a very specific piece of knowledge and an identical (or nearly identical) piece of knowledge in a new context (Thorndike, 1922) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification Transfer - being able to correctly identify anatomical structures learned during lab on a real cadaver during exams </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Meaningful Learning - learning that “ provides explanations of how something works ” (Mayer, 2003, p. 128) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explanatory Transfer - being able to explain how an anatomical system works </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Learning Transfer <ul><li>Cadaver Only Transfer </li></ul><ul><li>APR Transfer </li></ul>Cadaver Lab Cadaver Exam Identification Explanatory Transfer Source Transfer Target APR Lab Cadaver Exam Identification Explanatory Transfer Target Transfer Source
  5. 5. Multimedia Effects on Transfer <ul><li>Def. presentation of verbal and pictorial forms of information (Mayer, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical Results Mixed: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Yes - Cognitive efficiency (Cobb, 1997), harness dual-channel processing (Mayer, 2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No - Mere delivery method (Clark, 1983), no effect when instructional method controlled for (Bernard et al., 2004), overtaxes working memory (Sweller, 2005) </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Multimedia Effects on Anatomy Learning <ul><li>Two non-randomized experimental studies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mixed results (Jones et al., 1978) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multimedia better (Siegel & Foster, 2001) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>One randomized experimental study: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Key views + low learner control = highest achievement, multimedia used in all groups (Levinson et al, 2007) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Simulation Effects on Transfer <ul><li>Physical simulator vs. model-based (Winn et al., 2006), APR model-based </li></ul><ul><li>Used to increase higher order thinking (Gokhale, 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>Transfer of scientific principles to novel situations (Goldstone & Son, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Used to enhance constructivist forms of instruction (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998) </li></ul>
  8. 8. Simulation Effects on Anatomy Learning <ul><li>Two experiments with learning outcomes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>randomized 6-week study, simulation group better on exams (Hisley et al, 2007) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>non-randomized 10-week study using APR 1.0, simulation group better on exams (Nasr, 2007) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 Virtual Dissection Image Masked
  10. 10. Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 Animations Imaging (CT & MRI)
  11. 11. Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 Histology
  12. 12. Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 Self Quiz Image Masked
  13. 13. Methods <ul><li>Participants </li></ul><ul><ul><li>N = 233 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>15 lab sections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomly assigned by lab to APR or cadaver-only </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Method <ul><li>Procedures - Assignment Counter-Balanced </li></ul>Exam 1 Blood Vessels to Brain Exam 2 Cerebral Spinal Fluid APR in Lab N =115 APR in Lab N = 118 2 weeks 2 weeks Cadaver only N = 118 Exam 1 Cadaver only N = 115 Exam 2
  15. 15. Method <ul><li>Procedures - Independent Variable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional Technology: Cadaver or APR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Both viewed the same 20-minute unit introduction video </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lab scaffolds given to each with identical learning objective same order </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Both given 55 minutes to study on given instructional technology </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Method <ul><li>Procedures - Dependent Variables </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification Transfer (5 items, Cronbach ’ s alpha = .66) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., “ identify the blood vessel marked by pin number one ” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explanatory Transfer ( 5 items, Cronbach ’ s alpha = .67) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E.g., “ name the organ that pinned blood vessel number nine supplies ” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Total Score (composite of above) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Qualitative (1 open-ended question) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Results <ul><li>Quantitative </li></ul>
  18. 18. Results <ul><li>Quantitative (Exam 1 & 2 combined) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multivariate Omnibus for Condition and Exam </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Results <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Do you feel that APR Revealed software helped you to learn the material for this two-week unit? Why or why not? ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Yes (21%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Somewhat (34%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No (45%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interrater Reliability, Kappa = .82 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chi Square (2, 247) = 21.99, p < .001 </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Results <ul><li>Qualitative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Why or why not? ” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>APR Useful: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>#1 clearly pick and highlight, #2 animations, #3 “ move ” through layers </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>APR Not Useful: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>#1 need more time, #2 can ’ t transfer to cadaver, #3 needs hands-on interaction </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Discussion <ul><li>Cadaver-only students performed better than with APR on both forms of transfer </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supports “ identical element theory ” of learning transfer (Thorndike, 1922) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contrasts work on simulations finding they can reproduce contexts and elements identical to those in real world (Goldstone & Son, 2005) </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Discussion <ul><li>Direct contrast to Nasr (2007) study using APR, why? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time - 55 minutes vs. 10 weeks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>And perhaps more pre-training (Mayer & Moreno, 2003) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tech acceptance (Venkatesh, 2000) - perceived usefulness + perceived ease of use = behavioral intention to use tech </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Discussion <ul><li>Limitations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More time and better pre-training w/ APR </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better control of treatment diffusion and/or groups influencing opinions of others </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students felt somewhat forced to use APR, concern about its influence on grade (even though EC) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More formally build APR into course </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better Measures (e.g., adapt extant measure of learning transfer) </li></ul></ul>

×