The Influence of Representational Formats and Learner Modality Preferences on Instructional Efficiency Using Interactive Video Tutorials

Chun-Ying Chen

Abstract


This study investigated how to create effective interactive video tutorials for learning computer-based tasks. The role of learner modality preferences was also considered. A 4 × 4 between-subjects factorial design was employed to examine the influence of instruction representational formats (noninteractive static, interactive static, interactive visual-only video with onscreen text, interactive video with audio narration) and learner modality preferences (visual, aural, read/write, multimodal) on instructional efficiency. Instructional efficiency was a combined effect of test performance and perceived cognitive load during learning. The results suggested that implementing interactivity into the video tutorials tended to increase transfer performance, and the role of modality preferences was related to learners’ perceived cognitive load. The significant interaction effect on transfer efficiency indicated: (a) the auditory preference tended to exhibit better transfer efficiency with the narrated video, and (b) the read/write preference tended to exhibit better transfer efficiency with both the noninteractive static format and the captioned video. This study highlighted the importance of considering individual differences in modality preferences, particularly that of auditory and read/write learners.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Chen, C.-M., & Sun, Y.-C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers & Education, 59, 1273-1285.

Chen, C-Y. (2016). Cognitive support for learning computer-based tasks using animated demonstration. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 859-874.

Chen, C-Y., & Yang, Y-H. (2020). Investigation of the effectiveness of common representational formats in online learner-paced software training materials. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(1), 97-108.

Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Ertelt, A., Renkl, A., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning a new computer application using onscreen videos. In A. Méndez Vilas, B.G. Pereira, J.M. Gonzáles, & J.A.M. Gonzáles (Eds.), Recent research developments in learning technologies Vol.2 (pp.757-762). Badajoz : Formatex.

Fleming, N.D. (2001). Teaching and learning styles: VARK strategies. Christchurch, New Zealand: N.D. Fleming.

Fleming, N.D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137-155.

Hasler, B.S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713-729.

Höffler, T.N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.

Höffler, T.N., & Schwartz, R.N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57, 1716-1726.

Jonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B.L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387-399.

Kollöffel, B. (2012). Exploring the relation between visualizer-verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material. Computers & Education, 58, 697-706.

Leahy W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943-951.

Leite, W.L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK: Learning styles inventory with multitrait-multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 323-339.

Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computers & Education, 37, 377-386.

Lowe, R.K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257-274.

Massa, L.J., & Mayer, R.E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321-335.

Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R.E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.

Mayer, R.E., & Massa, L.J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 833-846.

Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-813.

Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load appraoch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.

Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737-743.

Riding, R. (2001). Nature and effects of cognitive style. In R. Sternberg & L.-F. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 47-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285-307.

Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 245-265.

Smith, R.M. (1982). Learning how to learn. Chicago: Follett.

Spanjers, I.A.E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 411-423.

Stahl, S.A. (1999). Different strokes for different folks? A critique of learning styles. American Educator, 23(3), 27-31.

Sternberg, R., & Zhang, L.-F. (Eds.). (2001). Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-128.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.

Tabbers, H.K., & Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instructional Science, 38, 441-453.

Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.

Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-leaning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449-457.

Wouters, P., Tabbers, H.K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 327-342.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/jet.v7i2.17415

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) Journal of Education and Training

Journal of Education and Training      ISSN 2330-9709

Email: jet@macrothink.org
Copyright © Macrothink Institute

 

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the 'macrothink.org' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.