1. Self-paced multimedia modules in a General Education course Patricia Ryaby Backer, Department of Technology, SJSU, 4-3214, pabacker@email.sjsu.edu pabacker@email.sjsu.edu

2. The Course – Tech 198 Tech 198 has been offered for over fifteen years in the general education program and has been taken by thousands of students at San Jose State. Since 1992, this course has been housed in the Earth and the Environment section of advanced general education. Effective Fall 2000, the course moves to Area V, Culture, Civilization & Global Understanding

3. Multimedia Development Development work on multimedia modules began in 1994 Two units (out of seven) developed –Unit 1 The nature of science and technology (CD multimedia) –Unit 2 The history of technology (WWW tutorial) –Unit 3 Technology and work (CD multimedia)

4. Structure of Multimedia CD-Unit 1 divided into seven sections WWW-Unit 2 divided into 3 sections CD-Unit 2 divided into eight sections Each section has a cumulating activity

5. Evaluation During 1999, the revised modules (Ver 2) were field-tested in one section of the class with 14 students. The students were randomly assigned to two groups: group 1 completed the multimedia module on Unit 1 (The Nature of Science and Technology) and group 2 completed the multimedia module on Unit 2 (Technology and Work).

6. Instruments A demographic student profile (age, experience and time spent daily on a computer, and major). Two computer attitude questionnaires: an open-ended survey and Oetting's Computer Anxiety Scale (COMPAS). Pretests for both Units 1 and 2

7. Demographics Two treatment groups had an equivalent mean age (27 years) and similar amounts of time reported as spent on computers each day (3.09 hours/day for Group 1 versus 2.95 hours/day for Group 2) Both groups showed a wide range of computer anxiety on the COMPAS; however, the mean computer anxiety score for each group was equivalent (mean score of 108 for Group 1 versus a mean score of 107 for Group 2).

8. Results In performance, the two treatment groups appeared to be distinctly different. An ANOVA, comparing the results from the pretests and posttests for both Unit 1 and 2, indicated that there was a significant difference in performance between the two treatment groups. On both posttests, the students in Group 1 scored lower, on average, then students in Group 2.

9. Conclusions The results indicate that the multimedia for Unit 3 (technology and work) is effective—that is, the students learned the material. However, the multimedia for Unit 1 was not proven to be effective. Student complaints about technological problems. General student approval of multimedia modules.

10. Questions Is the nature of the content for Unit 1 (what is science and technology) appropriate for self-paced multimedia? Are the revised multimedia modules more effective? Were the post-test and final exam questions accurate measures of achievement?