Determining the Cognitive Value of Online Interactive Multimedia in Statistics Education

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 865)


Pursuing online degrees and taking online courses, especially in complex subjects, can be challenging to many adult learners who have to juggle work, family responsibilities, and financial commitments. To better address the needs of these students, a series of online interactive learning modules informed by multimedia theory for teaching declarative and procedural knowledge were created and integrated in an online statistics course. Design and development was followed by evaluative efforts, which were conducted over a period of nine months with a total of 167 undergraduate students and six instructors. Students’ perceptions on the modules’ usability features (e.g., pace of audio presentations, ease of navigation, and layout) as well as on cognitive support and effectiveness of the modules to teach statistics were analyzed. Students and instructors’ reflections on their experiences with the modules were also gathered and analyzed. Both set of participants were overwhelmingly positive about their online learning and teaching experiences of statistics. Online courses and interactive multimedia firmly grounded in learning theories provide effective learning experiences and rich interaction with the course content. This is particularly important when teaching complex content as mathematics and statistics.


Evaluation Multimedia Statistics 

Supplementary material

470244_1_En_7_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (9.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (mp4 9629 KB)


  1. 1.
    Complete College America: Time is the Enemy of Graduation (2011).
  2. 2.
    National Center for Academic Transformation: How to Redesign a College Course Using NCAT’s Methodology (2014).
  3. 3.
    Koehler, N., Correia, A.-P., Alpay, N., LeVally, C.: Formative evaluation of a web-based multimedia intervention to support learning of statistics. In: Escudeiro, P., Costagliola, G., Zvacek, S., Uhomoibhi, J., McLaren, B.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017), vol. 1, Science and Technology Publications, Porto, pp. 92–99 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petty, N.W.: Drill and Rote in Teaching LP and Hypothesis Testing [Web log post] (2012).
  5. 5.
    Larwin, K., Larwin, D.: A meta-analysis examining the impact of computer-assisted instruction on postsecondary statistics education: 40 years of research. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 43, 253–278 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore, D.S.: New pedagogy and new content: the case of statistics. Int. Stat. Rev. 65, 123–165 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garfield, J., Chance, B., Snell, J.L.: Technology in college statistics courses. In: Holton, D., et al. (eds.) The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics at University Level. New ICMI Study Series, vol. 7. Springer, Dordrecht (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chance, B., Ben-Zvi, D., Garfield, J., Medina, E.: The role of technology in improving student learning of statistics. Technol. Innov. Stat. Educ. 1, 1–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karpicke, J.D., Roediger, H.L.: The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science 319, 966–968 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sklar, J.C., Zwick, R.: Multimedia presentations in educational measurement and statistics: design considerations and instructional approaches. J. Stat. Educ. 17 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wender, K.F., Muehlboeck, J.S.: Animated diagrams in teaching statistics. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 35, 255–258 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phye, G.D.: Academic learning and remembering. In: Phye, G.D. (ed.) Handbook of Academic Learning: The Construction of knowledge, pp. 47–64. Academic Press, San Diego (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D.A.: Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Clark, R.: Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educ. Psychol. 41, 75–86 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interact. Multimed. Electron. J. Comput. Enhanc. Learn. 2, 12–20 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Song, S.H., Keller, J.M.: Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. ETR&D 49, 5–22 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alpay, N., Ratvatsky, P., Koehler, N., LeVally, C.: Redesigning a statistical concepts course to improve retention, satisfaction, and success rates of non-traditional undergraduate students. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermedia 26, 5–27 (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayer, R.E.: Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., Renkl, A.: Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learn. Instr. 12, 39–60 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38, 43–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learn. Instr. 12, 107–119 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Institute of Innovative InstructionFranklin UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Educational Studies DepartmentThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations