These results provide strong evidence that student attitudes towards multimedia are more positive than their attitudes towards traditional materials. Further process:While results of t-tests are reported, they followed several analyses to examine homogeneity among variables and the other variables in the study.
The one-way ANOVA was a control factor: p ≥ . 10 between semesters
Semester Vizi or CtrlTesting PeriodMeanStd.DevationFall 2010CtrlDelayed77.713212.56362 Immediate82.07768.3987ViziDelayed80.09239.5467Immediate 82.14318.70364Spring2011CtrlDelayed85.5729.52014 Immediate84.64258.58506ViziDelayed87.22655.81439 Immediate86.31047.72087
Butler ring2011icoo lposter_multimedia_learning
Multimedia Improves Learning and AttitudesDarrell L. Butler & Nathaniel S. RingDepartment of Psychological ScienceBall State University ABSTRACTOur study involved seven university academic departments. We evaluated studentbeliefs in all the departments about the role of multimedia on learning. The surveyshowed that students using multimedia had many positive attitudes aboutmultimedia. We also evaluated the impact of multimedia on learning by studyingcourse exam test scores in two courses. Exam scores were significantly higher forstudents using multimedia. However, results were not consistent over semesters.Address Correspondence to Darrell L. Butler,DLButler@bsu.edu
INTRODUCTION The popularity and capabilities of the www and related technologies, hasprovided new ways to scaffold student learning. Unlike traditional textbooks,websites can offer a wider range of media, greater interactivity, and fasterfeedback. Publishers, researchers, and others are exploring these new technologiesand some have reported positive impact (e.g., Durrington, et. al., 2006). Multimedia has the added benefit of allowing student to encode material usingboth verbal and auditory modes of memory (Paivio, 1990; Mayer & Sims, 1994).Theoretically, multimedia has the potential to be an effective learning tool, butsome researchers have argued that nonlinear path control can also lead to poororganization (Conklin, 1987; Thüring, et. al., 1995; Eveland & Dunwoody, 2001;McDonald & Stevenson, 1996). Furthermore, Sundar (2000) reported that thepresence of audio, video, and other visual imagery can have a negative effect on ausers perception of coherence. For our research, we examined the impact on a new multimedia tool calledViziswap. The tool provides a platform for creating multimedia-learning modules.The modules can include non-linear or branching capabilities that allow students toapproach the material different ways, and can provide exercises and rapid feedbackto students. Viziswap is has been designed to be pedagogically effective and thusmay not suffer from some of the issues raised by critics. We evaluate this claim intwo ways: student attitudes of multimedia and textbooks across sevendepartments and for two departments exam scores.
STUDENT ATTITUDES: STUDY 1MethodsCourse evaluations emphasize the course as a whole and/or the faculty member, but notthe materials used in the course. To develop a tool for assessing student attitudes aboutViziswap modules, we ran a number of focus groups with students in various majors to getsome ideas about the factors they thought were important in the materials they had used.Based on those focus groups, we developed a survey to assess student attitudes. The initialsurvey was then reviewed by experts in survey construction, communication, andevaluation research, and experts in pedagogy, and was revised based on theirrecommendations. It was then given to a sample of students who completed it twiceapproximately 5 days apart, and results indicated very high reliability.Procedure Survey. A total of 478 students in courses in six departments (Biology, PsychologicalScience, Criminal Justice, Personal Finance, and Journalism) completed the survey online.Three of these courses, Biology, Psychological Science, and Personal Finance, were notcurrently using the multimedia software but were planning on doing so in the future andserved as a baseline. Exams. Criminal Justice divided sections of the courses into groups using the multimediasoftware or traditional pedagogical materials. Journalism, used the Viziswap software in allsections of the course and we compared results on the same exams from the previous year.
STUDENT ATTITUDES: STUDY 1 Results Objectives 4.02 4.26 4.26 Appropriate 4.46 1. Substantially higher ratings for Up to Date 4.3 4.49 Viziswap than for traditional 3.83 Relevant educational materials. 4.49 3.85 2. No differences among departments Interesting 4.54 using traditional materials. Attention 3.87 4.51 3. No differences among departments Feedback 3.85 4.4 using Viziswap. 3.96 Helped 4.49 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Text Vizi t-test for Equality of Means between Textbooks vs Vizi (5 point Likert Scale) Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower UpperObjectives -2.189 538 .030 -.238 .109 -.453 -.023Appropriate -2.089 539 .037 -.202 .097 -.392 -.012UpToDate -2.139 538 .033 -.196 .092 -.376 -.016Relevant -6.311 538 .000 -.659 .104 -.863 -.454Interesting -7.823 538 .000 -.688 .088 -.861 -.514Attention -6.806 538 .000 -.643 .094 -.829 -.457Feedback -5.234 539 .000 -.546 .104 -.751 -.341Helped -5.275 539 .000 -.535 .101 -.734 -.335
STUDENT EXAM PERFORMANCE: STUDY 2Methods The Journalism department developed a series of standardized exams that they have usedfor several years. This class is taught as in introduction to journalism and design, over fiveweeks, three times a semester. We compared student test scores from the multimedia sectionstaught this year with the test scores of students taught more traditionally the previous year onthe four exam modules relevant for all sections. The Criminal Justice department administered an exam for the Fall and Spring academicterms. Each semester, classes were divided into two sections, one used Viziswap and the other atextbook. Students took a multiple-choice exam in class, then the same exam a week later.ResultsWe ran a One-Way ANOVA for the Journalism exams from the previous year to ensure theperformance before Viziswap was stable between classes and semesters. It was. We thn ran anindependent samples t-test using the previous year of data to the Fall class. Results from theJournalism class indicate that performance following the introduction of Viziswap wassignificantly higher in one module, but not significant for the other modules. This resultsuggests that multimedia can increase learning and in no case led to lower performance. Wethen compared the data from the Criminal Justice classes. Results indicate learning improvedoverall in the Spring compared to the Fall semester. Further, students in the Viziswap conditionimproved the greatest overall in both testing periods compared to the textbook condition.
STUDENT EXAM PERFORMANCE: STUDY 2 20.00 Results for Journalism Exams 18.00 16.00 t-test for Equality of Means for Journalism Exams 14.00 ** 12.00 Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval t df tailed) Difference Difference 10.00 Lower Upper Viziswap 8.00Principles of PreViziswap -3.315 206 .001 -1.244 .375 -1.984 -.504 6.00 Design 4.00 Gestalt -.058 211 .954 -.022 .383 -.776 .732 2.00Typography -1.288 208 .199 -.578 .449 -1.464 .307 .00Color Theory .380 208 .704 .137 .360 -.573 .847 Principles of Typography Gestalt Color Theory Design 1. Students in the Vizibook condition performed Results for Criminal Justice Exams 1% better than students not using the Vizibook, but this difference is not statistically 89 Mean Performance on Exams significant (F (1, 88) = .81, ns). 87 2. Performance on exams did differ significantly 85 across semesters. Test scores were over 5% higher in the spring. F (1,88) = 16.37, p < 83 Fall 2010 .0001, η2 = .0979). 81 Fall 2010 3. Exam scores were slightly lower in the delayed testing condition F(1, 88)= 2.04, ns, but this 79 Spring 2011 effect is not significant. Spring 2011 77 4. There were no significant interactions in the analysis. 75 Immediate Delayed
GENERAL DISCUSSION Overall this study provided evidence that students attitudes towards multimedialearning materials is more positive than their attitudes towards textbooks. Indeed, studentsindicated they were more engaged and hoped to have similar materials in the future. Weconducted a series of focus groups to gain insights from students in those classes. Studentsindicated some minor usability problems, but largely preferred a multimedia medium. We also found that multimedia could improve test performance and performed at leastas well as a textbook otherwise. In some ways we were surprised because the exams werenot designed to test the objectives of the Viziswap modules. In fact, the exams had beenwritten before the modules were created. We would expect even bigger effects if testswere specifically designed to measure learning with respect to the goals of the multimediamodules. REFERENCESConklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 209, 17-41.Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A. & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student Interactivity in an onlineenvironment. College Teaching. 54, 190–193.Eveland, W. P., & Sunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Learning from the web versus print. Communication Research, 28, 48-78.Mayer, R., & Sims, V. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory ofmultimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.McDonald, S. & Stevenson, R. J. (1996). Disorientation in hypertext: The effects of three text structures on navigation performance. Applied Ergonomics, 27, 61-68.Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.Sundar, S. S. (2000). Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 480-499.Thüring, M., Hannemann, J., Haake, J. M. (1995). Hypermedia and cognition: Designing for comprehension. Communications of the ACM, 38(5), 57-66.