Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of cross-modality and level of self-regulated learning on knowledge acquisition with smartpads

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, there has been a transition from traditional paper or computer-based learning environments to smartpad-based learning environments, which are based on touch and involve various cognitive strategies such as touch operation and note taking. Accordingly, the use of smartpads can provide an effective learning environment through cross-modality, which simultaneously integrates information using two or more sensory modalities. Based on this rationale, this study investigated the effects of cross-modality (vision and tactility) on knowledge acquisition in a smartpad-based learning environment. Interaction between different modalities and learners’ self-regulated learning (SRL) skills was also tested. Ninety-nine college students were randomly assigned to three different learning environments: paper-based, smartpad-based unimodal, and smartpad-based cross-modal environments. Students were differentiated according to high and low SRL skill levels. The findings suggest that the participants in the smartpad-based cross-modal environment significantly outperformed the participants in the smartpad-based unimodal environment pertinent to identification and comprehension knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, the participants in the smartpad-based cross-modal environment performed equally with the participants in the paper-based environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66(2), 213–224. doi:10.1080/00221309.1962.9711837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training of self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 523–535. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansavich, J. C. (2010). iPad study at USF. Retrieved September, 5(201), pp. 1–30. Retrieved from http://ipad.wiki.usfca.edu/file/view/iPad+Study+at+USF+Report.pdf

  • Byun, H., Ryu, J., & Song, Y. (2011). Research trends on digital textbook and meta-analysis on its academic achievement. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 23(3), 635–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvert, G. A. (2001). Crossmodal processing in the human brain: insights from functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 11(12), 1110–1123. doi:10.1093/cercor/11.12.1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. S., & Black, J. B. (2006). Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 64–70). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

  • Chou, P. N., & Hsiao, H. C. (2010). The effect of varied visual scaffolds on engineering students’ online reading. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and learning objects, 6(1), 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). San Francisco, C: Wiley.

  • Cooley, H. R. (2004). It’s all about the fit: The hand, the mobile screenic device and tactile vision. Journal of Visual Culture, 3(2), 133–155. doi:10.1177/1470412904044797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88–108. doi:10.1080/00461528309529266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. (1995). Multimedia myths. Australian Personal Computer, 16(10), 144–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M. (1970). Exploratory studies in the effectiveness of visual illustrations. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 18(3), 235–249. doi:10.1007/BF02768497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. State College, PA: Learning Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M. (1994). One dimension of visual research: A paradigm and its implication. In D. Moore & F. Dwyer (Eds.), Visual learning: A spectrum of visual learning. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. J. (1977). The human heart: Parts of heart, circulation of blood and cycle of blood pressure. Lecture handouts, Department of Learning and Performance Systems, Pennsylvania State University, Lehman, PA.

  • Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Miffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, H. S. (2015). Pattern of media use by graduate students. KISDI STAT Report, 15(14), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465–477. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 390–408. doi:10.1108/02640471211241663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of E-books. Displays, 30(2), 49–52. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2008.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(1), 139–161. doi:10.2190/AX2D-Y9VM-V7PX-0TAD.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. W. (2015). Does touch-based interaction in learning with interactive images improve students’ learning? The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(4), 731–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. W., Lim, K. Y., & Grabowski, B. L. (2010). Improving self-regulation, learning strategy use, and achievement with metacognitive feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 629–648. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9153-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mihem, W. D. (1996). Interactivity and computer based instruction. Journal of Educational Technology, 24(3), 225–233. doi:10.2190/9V8J-48TX-461C-DXVG.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, J. J. (1991). Perceptual integration. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 81(1), 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaers, P. R Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3

  • Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. E., Garcia, T, & McKeachie, W. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated Strategies for learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and learning, University of Michigan (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416830).

  • Reiser, R. A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: an instructional designer’s response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48. doi:10.1007/BF02299091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodicio, H. G., Sánchez, E., & Acuňa, S. R. (2013). Support for self-regulation in learning complex topics from multimedia explanations: Do learners need extensive or minimal support? Instructional Science, 41(3), 539–553. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9243-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savas, P. (2014). Tablet PCs as instructional tools in English as a foreign language education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(1), 217–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: past, present and future directions. Foundations and Trends in HCI, 3(1–2), 1–138. doi:10.1561/1100000026.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoermer, A., & Williams, L. (2012). Using digital texts to promote fluent reading. The reading teacher, 65(7), 441–445. doi:10.1002/TRTR.01065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative learning process of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun, H. J., & Moon, S. C. (2012). Factors affecting intension to use table PCs: moderating effects of smart phone use. Journal of broadcasting research, 79, 169–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3–17. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2501_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a 2015 Research Grant from Sangmyung University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sangmyung University, Seoul, Korea

    Hye Yeon Lee

  2. Department of Education, Sangmyung University, Hongjimun-2gil, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-743, Korea

    Hyeon Woo Lee

Authors
  1. Hye Yeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyeon Woo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyeon Woo Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, H.Y., Lee, H.W. The effects of cross-modality and level of self-regulated learning on knowledge acquisition with smartpads. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 247–265 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9543-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9543-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation