Skip to main content
Log in

Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials

TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact on student performance after interactive and non-interactive tutorials using a 2 × 2 treatment-control design. In an undergraduate management course, a control group watched a video tutorial while the treatment group received the same content using a dynamic tutorial. Both groups received the same quiz questions. Using effect size to determine magnitude of change, it was found that those in the treatment condition performed better than those in the control condition. Students were able to take the quiz up to two times. When examining for change in performance from attempt one to attempt two, the treatment group showed a greater magnitude of change. Students who consistently performed lowest on the quizzes outperformed all students in learning gains.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Research Group. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf.

  • Anderson, R. P., & Wilson, S. P. (2009). Quantifying the effectiveness of interactive tutorials in medical library instruction. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 28(1), 10–21. doi:10.1080/02763860802615815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arguello, N. (2013). Secondary marketing research certificate: library collaboration with the college of business and marketing faculty. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18(4), 309–329. doi:10.1080/08963568.2013.825559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the regis libraries animated tutorials project. Part of a special issue on the proceedings of the thirteenth Off-Campus Library Services Conference, part 1, 48(3/4), 295–315. doi:10.1080/01930820802289342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, P. J., & Dickstein, R. (2002). Web tutorials and scalable instruction: testing the waters. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 330–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. England: University of Exeter. Available from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Florence: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, C. L., & Friehs, C. G. (2013). Video and HTML: testing online tutorial formats with biology students. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(3), 292–304. doi:10.1080/19322909.2013.815112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewald, N., Scholz-Crane, A., Booth, A., & Levine, C. (2000). Information literacy at a distance: instructional design issues. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 33–44. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00121-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14–27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147–1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q., & Edmonds, K. A. (2005). Mathematics and at-risk adult learners: would technology help? Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 38(2), 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mery, Y., DeFrain, E., Kline, E., & Sult, L. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of tools for online database instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(1), 70–81. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80172-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. Florence: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, S. L., & Nickel, L. T. (2005). Are online tutorials effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Research Strategies, 20(4), 389–396. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sult, L., Mery, Y., Blakiston, R., & Kline, E. (2013). A new approach to online database instruction: developing the guide on the side. Reference Services Review, 41(1), 125–133. doi:10.1108/00907321311300947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J., & Gosling, C. (2009). An evaluation of the use of “Guides at the Side” web-based learning activities to equip students in health sciences and nursing with information literacy skills. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15(2), 173–186. doi:10.1080/13614530903240486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research would look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, B., Royal, B., & Purnell, M. (2011). Using an interdisciplinary partnership to develop nursing students’ information literacy skills: an evaluation. Contemporary Nurse, 38(1–2), 122–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodard, B. S. (2003). Technology and the constructivist learning environment: implications for teaching information literacy skills. Research Strategies, 19(3–4), 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2005.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. (2009). Information literacy online tutorials: an introduction to rationale and technological tools in tutorial creation. The Electronic Library, 27(4), 684–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., Watson, E. M., & Banfield, L. (2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face instruction in academic libraries: a systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 478–484. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilana Stonebraker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stonebraker, I., Robertshaw, M.B. & Moss, J.D. Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials. TechTrends 60, 176–182 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0026-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0026-7

Keywords

Navigation