Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 133–146 | Cite as

Learning Online: A Comparison of Different Media Types

  • Franziska J. Kößler
  • Marco M. Nitzschner
Work-in-progress
First Online:

Abstract

Based on research about humor, foreign languages, and instructional design, in the current study we examined whether successful learning is related to using different types of media. We compared the comprehension of an economic concept in novices (N = 82) under three conditions: a Wikipedia article, a funny, and a serious YouTube video. The media were presented in English, which is a foreign language to most of the German-speaking sample. The funny video turned out to be the condition related to better success in learning while individual variables, namely learning styles and metacognitive evaluation, were controlled. Learning styles were assessed with a modified version of Kolb’s learning style inventory. Regarding metacognition, it was further found out that answering by logical thinking correlated negatively, and that answering by processing the presented material correlated positively with the number of correct answers. The article concludes with possible explanations, practical implications, limitations, and hints for future research.

Keywords

Multimedia learning Differences in learning Foreign language Learning styles Metacognition Humorous learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 15–44). Edmont, CA: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ally, M., & Fahy, P. (2002). Using students’ learning styles to provide support in distance education. In Proceedings of the eighteenth annual conference on distance teaching and learning. Madison, WI, 14–16 August 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R., & Pearson, P. (1988). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eykey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 37–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonietti, A., & Colombo, B. (2014). Learning from multimedia artifacts: The role of metacognition. In A. Antonietti, E. Confalonieri, & A. Marchetti (Eds.), Reflective thinking in educational settings—a cultural framework (pp. 55–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arp, L., Woodard, B. S., & Mestre, L. (2006). Accommodating diverse learning styles in an online environment. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(2), 27–32. doi: 10.5860/rusq.46n2.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atherton, J. S. (2013). Experiential learning. Learning and teaching. http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/experience.htm. Accessed November 05, 2014.
  7. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bariaud, F. (1989). Chapter 1: Age differences in children’s humor. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 20(15–45), 15–45. doi: 10.1300/J274v20n01_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445–457. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00014-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchert, H., & Sohr, S. (2005). Praxis des wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung; reden, schreiben, lesen, recherchieren, Grundlagen. München: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  12. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. doi: 10.1007/BF02299088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costelloe, E., Sherry, E., & Magee, P. (2006). Promoting reflection in novice programmers using a metacognitive interface with learning objects. IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2006), Barcelona, Lisboa: IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170–198). London: Macmillan Library Reference.Google Scholar
  16. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422–433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Corte, E. (2001). Instructional psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and the behavioral sciences (pp. 7569–7573). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.Google Scholar
  19. Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 247–296. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6.Google Scholar
  20. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83–87. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engle, R., Carullo, J., & Collins, K. (1991). Individual differences in working memory for comprehension and following directions. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(5), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferguson, G. (2007). The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP: Questions of equity, access and domain loss. Ibérica, 13, 7–38.Google Scholar
  24. Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned. Science (New York, NY), 323(5910), 69–71. doi: 10.1126/science.1167190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzog, T. R. (1999). Gender differences in humor appreciation revisited. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 12(4), 411–424.Google Scholar
  27. Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(6), 649–667. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90393-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonas, P. (2012). Successfully teaching with humorous videos: Videagogy©. New Horizons for Learning. http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2012/Jonas. Accessed February 05, 2015.
  29. Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: Strategies and best practices. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Kensinger, E., & Corkin, S. (2003). Effect of negative emotional content on working memory and long-term memory. Emotion, 3(4), 378–393. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.3.4.378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kleimann, B., Özkilic, M., & Göcks, M. (2008). Studieren im Web 2.0. Studienbezogene Web- und E-Learning-Dienste (HISBUS Kurzinformation Nr. 21). Hannover: Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH.Google Scholar
  32. Kolb, D. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 232–255). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Kolb, A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3. 1 2005 technical specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resource Direct. http://www.whitewater-rescue.com/support/pagepics/lsitechmanual.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2014.
  35. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of educational research, 61(2), 179–211. doi: 10.3102/00346543061002179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. doi: 10.1007/BF02299087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leucht, M., Retelsdorf, J., Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2010). Zur Dimensionalität rezeptiver englischsprachiger Kompetenzen1. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24(2), 123–138. doi: 10.1024/1010-0652/a000010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. In D. Carwright (Ed.), New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  40. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31–43. doi: 10.1007/BF02300480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moeller, J. (2000). Study to discover temperament types, communication styles, and learning styles of adult learners in nontraditional and online learning environments. In Honoring our roots and branches… our history and future. Proceedings of the annual midwest research to practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education. Madison, WI, 27–29 September 2000.Google Scholar
  44. Mundorf, N., Bhatia, A., Zillmann, D., Lester, P., & Robertson, S. (1988). Gender differences in humor appreciation. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 1(3), 231–244. doi: 10.1515/humr.1988.1.3.231.Google Scholar
  45. O’Regan, K. (2003). Emotion and e-learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 78–92.Google Scholar
  46. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x.Google Scholar
  48. Perkins, K. (1983). Semantic constructivity in ESL reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 19. doi: 10.2307/3586421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Piaget, J. (1970). The place of the sciences of man in the system of sciences. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  50. Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25–36. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Preim, B. (1999). Entwicklung interaktiver systeme: Grundlagen, Fallbeispiele und innovative Anwendungsfelder; mit 20 Tabellen. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rubin, J. (1990). Improving foreign language listening comprehension. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table (GURT) on languages and linguistics 1990—Linguistics, language teaching and language acquisition: The interdependece of theory, practice and research (pp. 309–316). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ruch, W. (2001). The perception of humor. In A. Kaszniak (Ed.),Emotion, qualia, and consciousness (pp. 410–425). Tokyo: Word Scientific Publisher.Google Scholar
  55. Ruch, W., & Forabosco, G. (1996). A cross-cultural study of humor appreciation: Italy and Germany. Humor—International Journal of Humor Research, 9(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1515/humr.1996.9.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L., & Oranje, A. (2008). Factor structure of the TOEFL® Internet-based test (IBT): Exploration in a field trial sample. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(1), 1–67. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02095.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L., & Oranje, A. (2009). Factor structure of the TOEFL Internet-based test. Language Testing, 26(1), 5–30. doi: 10.1177/0265532208097335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schacht, S., & Stewart, B. J. (1990). What’s funny about statistics? A technique for reducing student anxiety. Teaching Sociology, 18(1), 52. doi: 10.2307/1318231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sellers, V. D. (2000). Anxiety and reading comprehension in spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 512–520. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb01995.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shackman, A. J., Sarinopoulos, I., Maxwell, J. S., Pizzagalli, D. A., Lavric, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Anxiety selectively disrupts visuospatial working memory. Emotion, 6(1), 40–61. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, H. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Spencer, S., Steele, C., & Quinn, D. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stambor, Z. (2006). How laughing leads to learning. Monitor on Psychology, 37(6), 62.Google Scholar
  64. Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van Haneghan, J. P., Barron, L., Young, M., Williams, S., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. (1992). The Jasper series: An experiment with new ways to enhance mathematical thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 15–38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168–176. doi: 10.1093/elt/53.3.168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wehner, T. (2014). IHR Denk-, Lern-, und Wissensstile. http://www.pda.ethz.ch/education/fs2014/351-0792/Denkstilanalyse.pdf. Accessed July 05, 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leopold Franzens UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.German Air Force Center for Aerospace MedicineFürstenfeldbruckGermany

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options