Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Multimedia, Simulations, and Learning Transfer


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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>