Advertisement

IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA MODULE WITH PEDAGOGICAL AGENTS ON STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING AND MOTIVATION IN THE LEARNING OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY

  • Kamisah OsmanEmail author
  • Tien Tien Lee
Article

Abstract

The Electrochemistry topic is found to be difficult to learn due to its abstract concepts involving macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representation levels. Studies have shown that animation and simulation using information and communication technology (ICT) can help students to visualize and hence enhance their understanding in learning abstract chemistry topics. As a result, an interactive multimedia module with the pedagogical agent (IMMPA) named the EC Lab (Electrochemistry Lab) was developed in order to assist students in the learning of Electrochemistry topics. A non-equivalent pretest–posttest control group design investigation was carried out in order to gauge the effect of the IMMPA EC Lab on students’ understanding and motivation in the learning of Electrochemistry. Some 127 Form Four students from two secondary schools in one of the districts in Malaysia were involved in the study. Each school had one treatment group and one control group taught by the same Chemistry teacher. Instruments involved were a pre- and posttest, a pre- and post-motivation questionnaire, and the IMMPA EC Lab. Results showed a significant difference between the control groups and treatment groups in the understanding of concepts in the learning of Electrochemistry.

Key words

electrochemistry interactive multimedia module pedagogical agent 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9407_MOESM1_ESM.doc (333 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 333 kb)
10763_2013_9407_MOESM2_ESM.doc (53 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 53 kb)

References

  1. Anthony, C. (2006). Exam oriented education system, 13.10.2011. Available from http://drca.wordpress.com/2006/04/01/exam-oriented-education-system/.
  2. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, M. (2007). Transition from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers in Education, 48, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baylor, A.L. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Proceedings of Workshop on Affective Interactions: Computers in the Affective Loop, International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. Baylor, A.L. & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity and instructional role. Paper presented in International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Maceio, Brazil, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Bojczuk, M. (1982). Topic difficulties in O- and A-level chemistry. School Science Review, 64, 545–551.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, C. W. (1998). Item design considerations for computer-based testing of student learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(9), 1172–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burewicz, A. & Miranowicz, N. (2002). Categorization of visualization tools in aspects of chemical research and education. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 88, 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T. J. & Windschitl, M. A. (1998). Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 5(12), 1658–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand Mcnally College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Chang, H.H. (2005). The relationship between extrinsic/intrinsic motivation and language learning strategies among college students of English in Taiwan. Master Thesis, Ming Chuan University.Google Scholar
  13. Chou, C. Y., Chan, T. W. & Lin, C. J. (2003). Redefining the learning companion: The past, present and future of educational agents. Computers in Education, 40, 255–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarebout, G. & Elen, J. (2007). In search of pedagogical agents’ modality and dialogue effects in open learning environments. 23.7.2009, Available from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-jist/docs/vol10_no1/papers/full_papers/clarebout_elen.pdf.
  15. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B. & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doymus, K., Karacop, A. & Simsek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 671–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabel, D. (2003). Enhancing the conceptual understanding of science. Educational Horizons, 81(2), 70–76.Google Scholar
  18. Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J. & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garnett, P. J. & Hackling, M. W. (1993). Chemistry misconceptions at the secondary-tertiary interface. Chemistry in Australia, 60(3), 117–119.Google Scholar
  20. Garnett, P. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electric circuits and oxidation—Reduction equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garnett, P. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual difficulties experienced by senior high school students of electrochemistry: Electrochemical (galvanic) and electrolytic cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1079–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gois, J. Y. & Giordan, M. (2009). Evolution of virtual learning environments in chemistry education. In Enseñanza de las Ciencias, Número Extra VIII CongresoInternacionalsobreInvestigación en Didáctica de lasCiencias, Barcelona, pp. 2864–2867.Google Scholar
  23. Gustafson, K. L. & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development model (3rd ed.). NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Hamza, K. M. & Wickman, P.-O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92(1), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hasnira Embong. (2005). Pembinaan dan Keberkesanan Penggunaan Perisian Multimedia Elektrokimia Dalam Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Kimia Tingkatan 4. (Development and effectiveness of electrochemistry multimedia software in the teaching and learning of form 4 chemistry). Master Thesis, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes-Roth, B., Maldonado, H., & Moraes, M. (2002). Designing for diversity: Multi cultural characters for a multi-cultural world. 15.7.2009, Available from http://www.stanford.edu/~kiky/Design4Diversity.pdf.
  27. Hill, J. R. & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resourse-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, S. L. (2003). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach. USA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, W. L., Rickel, J. W. & Lester, J. C. (2000). Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 47–78.Google Scholar
  30. Johnstone, A. H. (1993). The development of chemistry teaching: A changing response to changing demand. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Juriševič, M., Glažar, S.A., Vogrinc, J. & Devetak, I. (2009). Intrinsic motivation for learning science through the educational vertical in Slovenia. 30.7.2012, Available from http://www.self.ox.ac.uk/documents/Jurisevicetal..pdf.
  32. Kamisah, O., & Lee, T. T. (2012). Interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agent in Electrochemistry. In I. Deliyannis, (Ed.), Interactive Multimedia (pp. 29–48). Croatia: InTechGoogle Scholar
  33. Kamisah, O., Zanaton, H. I., & Lilia, H. (2007). Sikap terhadap sains dan sikap saintifik di kalangan pelajar sains. (Attitudes toward science and scientific attitudes among science students). Jurnal Pendidikan, 32, 39–60.Google Scholar
  34. Karsli, F. & Çalik, M. (2012). Can freshman science student teachers’ alternative conceptions of ‘electrochemical cells’ be fully diminished? Asian Journal of Chemistry, 24(2), 485–491.Google Scholar
  35. Keeman (2007). Malaysia—Exam-oriented nation? 13.10.2011, Available from http://keemanxp.com/blog/2007/malaysia-exam-oriented-nation.html.
  36. Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R. & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction (4th ed.). NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, Y., Baylor, A. L. & PALS Group (2006). Pedagogical agents as learning companions: The role of agent competency and type of interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kivinen, K. (2003). Assessing motivation and the use of learning strategies by secondary school students in three international schools. PhD Thesis. University of Tampere, Finland. 6.4.2010. Available from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5556-8.pdf.
  39. Kizilkaya, G. & Askar, P. (2008). The effect of an embedded pedagogical agent on the students’ science achievement. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 5(4), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lai, S. P. (2003). Keberkesanan perisian multimedia bagi pengajaran dan pembelajaran elektrokimia (sel elektrolisis dan sel kimia): Satu kajian kes. [Effectiveness of multimedia software on the teaching and learning of electrochemistry (electrolytic cell and voltaic cell): A case study]. Master thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.Google Scholar
  41. Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, T. T. (2008). Kefahaman pelajat Tingkatan Empat mengenai Elektrokimia. (Form four students’ understanding of Electrochemistry). Master Thesis. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, T. T. & Kamisah, O. (2010). Pembinaan modul multimedia interaktif dengan agen pedagogi (IMMPA) dalam pembelajaran Elektrokimia: Analisis keperluan. [The development of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agent (IMMPA) in the learning of Electrochemistry: Needs Assessment]. Proceedings of Kolokium Kebangsaan Pasca Siswazah Sains & Matematik 2010, pp. 25, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Indris, December 22, 2010Google Scholar
  44. Lee, T. T. & Kamisah, O. (2011). Effectiveness of interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agent (IMMPA) in the learning of Elechtrochemistry: A preliminary investigation. Asia-Pasific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(2): Article 9Google Scholar
  45. Lee, T. T. & Mohammad, Y. A. (2009). Miskonsepsi pelajar Tingkatan Empat mengenai Elektrokima. (Form four students' misconception about Electrochemistry). Jurnal Sains dan Matematik UPSI, 1(2): 52–64.Google Scholar
  46. Lerman, Z. M. (2001). Visualizing the chemical bond. Chemical Education International, vol. 2, (August 2001), pp. 6–13. 21.4.2011, Available from http://old.iupac.org/publications/cei/vol2/0201x0006.html
  47. Lerman, Z. M. & Morton, D. (2009). Using the arts and computer animation to make chemistry accessible to all in the twenty-first century. In M. Gupta-Bhowan, S. Jhaumeer-Laulloo, H. Li KamWah & P. Ramasami (Eds.), Chemistry education in the ICT age ( (pp. 31–40). Mauritius: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lester, J. C., Converse, S. A., Kahler, S. E., Barlow, S. T., Stone, B. A. & Bhogal, R. S. (1997). The persona effect: Affective impact of animated pedagogical agents. 16.7.2009, Available from http://research.csc.ncsu.edu/intellimedia/papers/dap-chi-97.pdf.
  49. Lim, M. F. (2011). Boys and girls. Sin Chew Daily. 10.3.12, Available from http://www.mysinchew.com/node/60916.
  50. Lin, H. S., Yang, T. C., Chiu, H. L. & Chou, C. Y. (2002). Students’ difficulties in learning electrochemistry. Proceedings of the National Science Council R.O.C.: Part D, 12(3), 100–105.Google Scholar
  51. Maldonado, H. & Hayes-Roth, B. (2004). Toward cross-cultural believability in character design. 15.7.2009, Available from http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/2004/CrossCultBelievability0304/CrossCultBelievability0304.pdf.
  52. Maldonado, H., Roselyn Lee, J. E., Brave, S., Nass, C., Nakajima, H., Yamada, R., Iwamura, K. & Morishima, Y. (2005). We learn better together: Enhancing elearning with emotional characters. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning: The next 10 years! (pp. 408–417). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Melissa Ng, L.Y.A. & Kamariah Abu Bakar. (2006). Motivational belief and self-regulated learning a study on Malaysian students. In: Eras 2006 Conference. Singapore, 29–31 May 206. 7.4.2010, Available from http://eprints.usm.my/4891/1/Motivational_Belief_And_Self-Regulated_Learning_A_Study_On_Malaysian_Students.pdf.
  54. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E. & Lester, J.C. (2000). Life-like pedagogical agents in constructivist multimedia environments: Cognitive consequences of their interaction. 16.7.2009, Available from http://www.unm.edu/~moreno/PDFS/ED-MEDIA-DAP.pdf.
  56. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M. & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Moundridou, M. & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2). 26.8.2009, Available from http://thalis.cs.unipi.gr/~mariam/JCAL.pdf.
  58. Needham, R. (1987). CLIS in the classroom: Teaching strategies for developing understanding in science. Leeds: University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  59. Norsiati Mohd Ghazali (2008). Pembangunan dan penilaian perisian kursus pengajaran dan pembelajaran multimedia interaktif “analisis kualitatif garam” dalam subjek kimia. (Development and assessment of interactive multimedia teaching and learning courseware “qualitative analysis of salt” in chemistry). Master Thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  60. Oldham, V. (2003). Effective use of ICT in secondary science: Guidelines and case studies. School Science Review, 84(309), 53–60.Google Scholar
  61. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P. & Macnob, J. S. (2010). Visualizations and science. In L. M. Phillips, S. P. Norris & J. S. Macnob, Visualization in mathematics, reading and science education, models and modeling in science education, 2010, 5(2), 63–74.Google Scholar
  62. Pintrich, R. R. & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Predinger, H., Saeyor, S. & Ishizuka, M. (2009). Animated agents for language conversation training. 15.7.2009, Available from http://www.miv.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/papers/helmut-edmedia01.pdf.
  64. Qureshi, E. (2001, 2004). Instructional design models. 24.9.2009, Available afrom http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm.
  65. Qureshi, E. (2003). Instructional design models. 24.9.2009, Available from http://home.comcast.net/~elenaqureshi/IDModels.htm.
  66. Rodrigues, S., Smith, A. & Ainley, M. (2001). Video clips and animation in chemistry CD-ROMS: Student interest and preference. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(2), 9–15.Google Scholar
  67. Roziah Abdullah (2005). Pembangunan dan keberkesanan pakej multimedia kemahiran berfikir bagi mata pelajaran kimia. (Development and effectiveness of a multimedia pakage on thinking skill for subject chemistry). PhD. Thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
  68. Russell, J. W., Kozma, R. B., Jones, T., Wykoff, J., Marx, N. & Davis, J. (1997). Use of simultaneous-synchronized macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic representations to enhance the teaching and learning of chemical concepts. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(3), 330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sadiah Baharom, Ong, E.T., Marzita Putih, Sopia Mad Yassin, Nurul Huda Abd. Rahman & Muhamad Ikhwan Mat. Saad. (2009). The validation and adaptation of MLSQ aimed to assess student use of self regulated learning. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on Educational Research and Practice Enhancing Human Capital through Teacher Education, 10–11 June, Faculty of Educational Studies, UPM, Serdang.Google Scholar
  70. Sanger, M. J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997a). Common student misconceptions in electrochemistry: Galvanic, electrolytic, and concentration cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 377–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sanger, M. J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (1997b). Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: Current flow in electrolyte solutions and the salt bridge. Journal of Chemical Education, 74, 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sanger, M. J. & Greenbowe, T. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shores, M. L. & Shannon, D. M. (2007). The effects of self-regulation, motivation, anxiety, and attributions on mathematics achievement for fifth and sixth grade students. School Science and Mathematics, 107(6), 225. 6.4.2010, Available from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+effects+of+self-regulation%2c+motivation%2c+anxiety%2c+and+attributions+…-a0171211906.
  74. Slater, D. (2000). Interactive animated pedagogical agents mixing the best of human and computer-based tutors. Master Thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  75. Tan, Y. T., Loh, W. L. & Tan, O. T. (2007). Success chemistry SPM. Shah Alam: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.Google Scholar
  76. Wu, H. K. & Shah, P. (2004). Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education, 88, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Xiao, J., Stasko, J., & Catrambone, R. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of agent competence on user performance and perception. Paper presented at the Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), New York City, 24.11.2009, Available from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~john.stasko/papers/aamas04.pdf.
  78. Zanaton, H. I., Lilia, H. & Kamisah, O. (2006). Sikap terhadap sains dalam kalangan pelajar sains di peringkat menengah dan matrikulasi. (Attitudes toward science among science students at the secondary and matriculation). Pertanika Journal of Social Science & Humanities, 14(2), 131–147.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe National University of MalaysiaBangiMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversiti Pendidikan Sultan IdrisTanjung MalimMalaysia

Personalised recommendations