1 / 28

Sang Chan Weber State University Jane Strickland Idaho State University

Examining the Multimedia Redundancy Effect among Education Majors: Assessing Pedagogical Usability of Instructional Videos. Sang Chan Weber State University Jane Strickland Idaho State University. AACE, New Orleans, LA October 29, 2014. Introduction.

Download Presentation

Sang Chan Weber State University Jane Strickland Idaho State University

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. Examining the Multimedia Redundancy Effect among Education Majors:Assessing Pedagogical Usability of Instructional Videos Sang Chan Weber State University Jane Strickland Idaho State University • AACE, • New Orleans, LA October 29, 2014

  2. Introduction • Many studies (e.g., Craig, Gholson, & Driscoll, 2002; Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1999, 2000; Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001, etc.) compared redundant groups (graphics, text, and narration) with non-redundant groups (graphics and narration). • Results: Non-redundant group significantly outperformed the redundant group.

  3. Introduction • Used a short treatment time • Measured only short-term learning • Rarely used a topic of a formal course • Rarely discussed pedagogical usability

  4. Purpose • To further examine the redundancy effect by comparing posttest scores, delayed posttest scores, and usability perceptions of education majors enrolled in an online technology class. • Redundant (R): Narration, graphics, & text • Non-Redundant(NR): Narration& graphics

  5. Research Questions • Is there a significant difference in posttest scores in learning Microsoft Access 2013 between R and NR? • Is there a significant difference in delayedposttest scores? • Isthere a significant difference in pedagogical usability perceptions?

  6. Theoretical Framework • Cognitive load theory

  7. Participants • The study used convenience sampling. • 42 students participated in the study. • Female, traditional students (majority) • No students with disabilities • Native English speakers

  8. Research Design • T1: Narration, graphics • T2: Narration, graphics, and text

  9. Materials • Designed and developed the videos • Developed a posttest and delayed posttest • Adapted the pedagogical usability survey • Piloted with a small group of four

  10. Procedure • Obtained the informed consents • Assigned students randomly • Administered treatments • Completed surveys (αR= .83, αNR= .88) • Took posttest • Took delayed posttest (6 weeks later)

  11. Data Screening • Little’s MCAR, χ2 (252) = 263.08, p = .303 • Test scores • Violated normality & equal variances for the independent-t test • Outliers in test scores • Survey responses: • Met the independent-t test assumptions

  12. Data Analysis • Posttest and delayed posttest • Mann-Whitney U(adjusted α= .025) • Survey • Independent t-test (α = .05) Note: We found similar results for parametric and non-parametric tests with and without outliers.

  13. Result: 1 • No significant difference between the two treatments on posttest scores, U = 164.50, p = .489 • Small estimated effect size, r = Z/ = .11

  14. Result: 2 • No significant difference between the two treatments on delayed posttest scores, U = 118, p = .538 • Small estimated effect size, r=.11

  15. Result: 3 • No significant difference between the two treatments on survey responses, t(40) = .60, p = .549 • Small estimated effect size, d = .18

  16. Discussions • No significant differences in posttest and delayed posttest • Not consistent with previous studies (i.e., Craig, Gholson, & Driscoll, 2002; Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001) • Consistent with McNeill, Doolittle, and Hicks (2009) and Wu (2011)

  17. Discussions • Useful text: Short and easy-to-read with slow narration • “The text was so helpful in understanding the content. I have never used access [sic] before & [sic] I think it can be helpful.” • “. . . The visuals were great and i appreciate having the subtitles to keep me on track.” • “Seeing you perform the task but also having the words on the bottom helped reinforce the idea.”

  18. Discussions • Read text to reinforce narration. • Eight words, on average, per line • Processed the elements in different orders. • Anecdotally,text was useful.

  19. Discussions • Insignificant results on posttest and delayed posttest may result from: • Small sample size • Low power • High data variability • Low motivation • Prior preparations before tests

  20. Discussions • Useful aspects of the videos: • Review what was learned: “… Reviewing after each topic helped reinforce the concepts.” • Clear content and logical sequence: “It is useful that the objectives built on one another. I also thought it was helpful to see what the end product would look like.” • Multimedia elements: “I really liked the reading at the bottom of screen so I could follow along with the speaker.”

  21. Implications • Present the text slightly faster (1 or 2 seconds) than narration (120 words/minute) • Keep the text available on the screen with graphics although the narration was silent • Keep the text short (8 words) and easy to read (large font)

  22. Recommendations • Investigate such use of text • Explore ways to use text as a supporting element • Use a large sample size • Use a more reliable instrument to reduce data variability • Consider motivation: Low motivation may result in high data variability.

  23. Thank You!Q & A

  24. Revising Survey • Primary analysis: 6 subscales (75.63%) • Low reliability for some subscales • Low correlations among items • Conceptual overlapping • Unstable factor • Revised survey suggested 5 subscales.

  25. Exploratory Factor Analysis

  26. Exploratory Factor Analysis

  27. Exploratory Factor Analysis

  28. Revised Survey • Factor 1: Design Considerations (α = .84) • Factor 2: Learning Confidence (α = .96) • Factor 3: Learning Format (α = .86) • Factor 4: Learning Motivation (α = .87) • Factor 5: Multimedia Elements (α = .78) • Overall reliability α = .89 • Total variance = 75%.

More Related