1 / 20

A New Use for Multimedia Learning in Introductory Physics

A New Use for Multimedia Learning in Introductory Physics. Gary Gladding University of Illinois July 22, 2008. AAPT Meeting Edmonton, Alberta. Introductory Physics at Illinois. Textbook. Discussion Section. Online Homework. Lecture. Collaborative Group Learning. Interactive Examples.

ddebbie
Download Presentation

A New Use for Multimedia Learning in Introductory Physics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A New Use for Multimedia Learningin Introductory Physics Gary Gladding University of Illinois July 22, 2008 AAPT Meeting Edmonton, Alberta

  2. Introductory Physics at Illinois Textbook Discussion Section Online Homework Lecture Collaborative Group Learning Interactive Examples Peer Instruction JiTT Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful How Important is this Component in Helping You Understand the Material? • About 10 years ago, we began a major reform of the way we teach introductory physics. • Big Idea: Integrate all aspects of a course using interactive engagement methods based on physics education research in a team teaching environment. • For more information on the reform, come to Tim Stelzer’s talk this afternoon at 3:15 in this same room ! • Instructional Cycle:

  3. What’s Wrong With This Picture? Textbook Discussion Section Online Homework Lecture Collaborative Group Learning Interactive Examples Peer Instruction JiTT Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful How Important is this Component in Helping You Understand the Material? • Students Do Not Value the Text • They don’t read the text either: 70% of students say that they “rarely” or “never” read the text before class. • The Initial Exposure to Material occurs in Lecture • Encourages Traditional “Teaching by Telling” Lecture Activity • Lectures can be more effective if students are prepared • Less time “telling” and more time “interacting” • JiTT informs design of peer instruction questions

  4. What to Do?? The Big Idea: Provide initial exposure to content through a web-based “multimedia learning activity” prior to lecture Multimedia Learning Works (research base) Why? More interactive “Lecture” (students better prepared) Prelecture activity is logged (improves compliance) (data-based development)

  5. Multimedia Learning • What is Multimedia Learning? • Learning from Dual Channel messages • Representations: Words and Pictures • Modalities: Auditory and Visual • What is Underlying Cognitive Theory? • Dual Channel (independent) • Limited Capacity (working memory) • Active Processing (coordinates information to create mental models) • What is the Empirical Basis? • Psychology Experiments • Instructional Message (brief explanation (500 words) of causal chain) • examples: lightning, brakes, and pumps… how do they work? • Two presentations designed to focus on some principle • example: words only vs words plus pictures (multimedia principle) • Post-Tests: • Retention: “write an explanation for how brakes work, etc..” • Transfer: “why do brakes get hot?” “what could be done to make the brakes stop the car more quickly?”

  6. Empirical Results 4/4 2/2 9/9 8/8 10/11 5/5 4/4 2/2 6/9 6/8 11/11 Effect Size ~ 1 is Large ! 2/2 Effect Size: • Principles: “Students learn better:” • Multimedia: from words & pictures than from words alone • Contiguity: when words & pictures are placed near each other (in space or time) • Coherence: when extraneous material is excluded rather than included • Modality: from animation and narration rather than animation and on-screen text • Redundancy: from animation & narration rather than animation, narration, & on-screen text.

  7. Our Implementation • Multimedia Learning Modules (MLMs) • Module contains essential content of one lecture (~ 15 minutes) • Module≈ 10 “slides” • “Slide”= Flash movie • Narration plus Animations • Student controls progress of movie (play, pause, repeat, ff, etc..) • Questions:occasionally (2-3 times/module) student is presented with a question • Student answers correctly: given explanation and can proceed • Student answers incorrectly: given feedback and a related question • Once related question answered correctly, original question is represented. • Design of modules guided by priciples of multimedia learning • Animations coordinated with Narration • No extraneous visual/auditory material • Minimal text on slide DEMO

  8. Initial Experiment • “Clinical” test(limited statistics but controlled environment) • Population: • Students near end of semester course in calculus-based mechanics • Content: Four initial units in E&M course • Coulomb’s Law • Electric Fields • Electric Flux • Gauss’ Law • Treatment Groups: (45 students completed all segments) • Multimedia Learning Module (MLM): 16 students • Scripts (from MLM): 13 students • Text (standard): 16 students • Protocol: • Students do materials and then take test • ~45 minutes per unit (study + ~16 question test) • Students return two weeks later to take retention test (37 questions)

  9. Results Raw Performance Data:

  10. Effect Size Analysis Correlate with Exam Scores from Mechanics Course Combined (Units 1 – 4) Retention Paper submitted to AmJournPhys -- now available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0405

  11. The REAL WORLD PHYS 212 SPRING 2008 CHANGES JiTT Preflights (formative assessment) LECTURE 75 minutes Narrative + Peer Instruction LECTURE 50 minutes Highly Interactive (8 – 10 clicker questions) What about a real course?? Clinical test looks good! BUT PHYS 212 Before SPRING 2008 MLMs implemented as “Prelectures” (initial exposure to material) JiTT Preflights (few read text)

  12. Preflight Assessment Spring08 vs Spring06-07 Spring07 vs Spring06 Spring07 Spring08 Spring06-07 Spring06 • Repeated Preflight Questions allow for assessment • 50 questions (77%) show improvement • 27 questions (42%) show > 2s improvement • 7 questions (11%) show > 2s decrease

  13. Prelecture Participation Prelecture Due one hour before Midterm We can (and will) fix these We see overall impovement in Preflight performance (as expected), but how many students are really playing the game?? Student logs indicate some students are “clicking” through prelecture without viewing movies. Percentage of students who do this increases as semester goes on… • Demands on students increase with time • Early Deadline (6pm before morning of lecture) • Animation access decreased with time WHY??

  14. Prelecture Analysis participants • Improvement for all Participants • Improvement only for Better Students previous semester • No Improvement, Confusion for Poorer Students who Participate non-participants C C C B B B A A A Analysis in Progress: Compare Participant/Non-Participant/Previous Performance on each question for 3 groups of different “ability” (i.e., grades of A, B, or C in previous mechanics course. Some Examples

  15. Exam Analysis Average Score Spring 2008 Average Score Spring 1998 We have modified the lecture experience No changes have been made to highly valued homework & discussion components Do we see any improvement in exam performance?? Low expectations: Time (Prelecture+Lecture) ~ 30% Time (Homework+Discussion) Hour Exam 1: Repeat exam from Spring 1998 <Spring 98> = 73.8 ± 0.8% <Spring 08> = 76.8 ± 0.7% Effect Size = 0.21 p = .002

  16. Hour Exam Analysis interesting Hour Exam 3: Repeat exam from Spring 2002 <Spring 02> = 70.9 ± 0.7% <Spring 08> = 71.3 ± 0.7% Hour Exam 2: Repeat exam from Spring 2001 <Spring 01> = 76.1 ± 0.9% <Spring 08> = 79.4 ± 0.8% 70.4 72.9 Effect Size = 0.05 p = .36 Effect Size = 0.22 p = .003 0.17 0.006

  17. Final Exam Analysis Final Exam B: Repeat exam from Spring 2007 <Spring 07> = 73.0 ± 1.1% <Spring 08> = 71.3 ± 1.2% Final Exam A: Repeat exam from Spring 2007 <Spring 07> = 70.9 ± 1.1% <Spring 08> = 73.4 ± 1.1% intentional interesting 70.4 72.9 Methods of combining currently under study, but it looks like a small positive effect 0.17 0.006

  18. Exam Analysis Conclusions Old Lecture (75 min) Small Improvement (ES ~ 0.2) in Exam Performance Prelecture + New Lecture (50 min) Performance on Sum of 212 Hour Exams <Participate> = 80.4 ± 1.1% <Not Participate> = 71.7 ± 1.3% 12% Increase BUT Better Students Choose to Participate? Performance on Sum of 211 Hour Exams <Participate> = 83.3 ± 0.9% <Not Participate> = 78.2 ± 1.0% 7% Increase Effect is Not All Due to Better Student Population BUT Not everyone participated in Prelecture ! Is Effect Really Bigger? Do Students Who Participate Perform Better? intentional interesting 70.4 72.9 0.17 0.006

  19. Real World Conclusions How Important is this Component in Helping You Understand the Material? Very Useful Useful Not Very Useful Text Prelecture Lecture Homework Discussion • We have changed “Lecture” Component of the Course • Added web-based Multimedia Learning Module as a “Prelecture” • Reduced Lecture from 75 min to 50 min and made more interactive • We see dramatic improvement in students’ preparation for lecture • Evidence from Preflight data • We see a “small” improvement in exam performance • Expect increase to “moderate” improvement when participation increases • Students value Prelectures !

  20. The Future?? “The future’s so bright we gotta wear shades ! “ • PHYS 212/Fall 2008 • 1000 students • revised scripts/animations • improved implementation • BEYOND.. • EyeTracker experiments to understand/improve animation

More Related