Advertisement

The Effectiveness of Interactivity in Computer-Based Instructional Diagrams

  • Lisa Whitman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5611)

Abstract

This study investigates if interaction between a student and instructional diagrams displayed on a computer can be effective in significantly improving understanding of the concepts the diagrams represent over viewing animated or static instructional diagrams. Participants viewed either interactive, animated, or static versions of multimedia tutorials that taught how a simple mechanical system, a lock, worked and how a complex mechanical system, an automobile clutch, worked. Participants were tested on recall and comprehension to determine which presentation style; static, animated, or interactive; greater impacts learning, and whether that impact is mediated by the complexity of the mechanical system. Participants who studied from interactive multimedia presentations demonstrating how simple and complex mechanical systems work performed significantly better on comprehension tests for both mechanical systems than those who studied from static or animated presentations. However, all participants performed similarly on recall tests. Research on the effectiveness of computer learning environments and how to optimize their potential for effective instruction through improved multimedia design is important as computers are increasingly being used for training and education.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., Wesman, A.G.: Manual for the Differential Aptitude Tests, Forms S and T, 5th edn., p. 9. The Psychological Corporation, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., Wesman, A.G.: Differential Aptitude Tests, Form S, pp. 42–47. The Psychological Corporation, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catrambone, R., Seay, A.F.: Using animation to help students learn computer algorithms. Human Factors 44(3), 495–512 (2002, Fall)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, R., McKendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., Mayes, T.: Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse – a controlled comparison. Instructional Science 27(6), 431–457 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czarkowski, S.: The effects of animation, audio, and educational Content on recall and comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Northridge (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enghagen, L.: Technology and Higher Education. National Education Association, Washington (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardy, L.H., Rand, G., Rittler, M.C.: AO H-R-R Pseudoisochromatic Plates, 2nd edn. American Optical Company, U.S.A (1957)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, T., Brain, M.: How lock picking works. How Stuff Works (2001), http://science.howstuffworks.com/lock-picking3.htm
  9. 9.
    Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N.H., Holmquist, S., Moreno, R.: Multimedia instruction: lessons from evaluation of theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 8(2), 119–150 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keller, A.: When Machines Teach: Designing Computer Courseware. Harper & Row, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kennedy, G.E.: Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 15(1), 43–61 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kozielska, M.: Educational computer programs in learning of physics by action. In: Education Media International, pp. 161–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90, 312–320 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: when reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology 94(1), 156–163 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R., Sweller, J.: Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology 87, 319–334 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators (vol. 1, NSB 04-1). National Science Foundation, Arlington (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nice, K.: How clutches work. How Stuff Works (2000), http://auto.howstuffworks.com/clutch.htm
  18. 18.
    Rigney, J., Lutz, K.A.: Effect of graphic analogies of concepts in chemistry on learning and attitude. Journal of Educational Psychology 68, 305–311 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrum, L.: Online teaching and learning: essential conditions for success! In: Distance Learning Technologies: Issues, Trends, and Opportunities, Idea Group, Hershey (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherry, L.: Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1(4), 337–365 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shute, V.J., Gawlick, L.A., Gluck, K.A.: Effects of practice and learner control on short- and long-term gain and efficiency. Human Factors 40(2), 296–311 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B.: Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 57, 247–262 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Whitman
    • 1
  1. 1.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations