1. Presenter: Yu-Chu Chen Advisor: Ming-Puu Chen Date: Aug. 19, 2009 The Interactivity Effect In Multimedia Learning Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers &Education, 49(), 1147-1160.

2. Introduction – Nowadays: the systems were generally non- interactive and with uninterrupted animations. – Cognition perspective: the utility of incorporating interactivity in computer-based systems is that it allows the learner to influence the flow of information in terms of timing or content. – Button-clicking to indicate the learning process. – Multiple-choice questions with meaningful feedback. – Purpose: whether the such interactivity can actually increase learning.. 2

3. Introduction Interactivity and interactive computer systems – Interactivity: (Moore, 1989; Schrum & Berge, 1997) – Student–student interaction. – Teacher–student interaction. – Student–content interaction. – Interactive system: (Evans & Sabry, 2002) – Button or control to learner (computer initiation). – Press button or use control (learner response). – New information to learner (computer feedback). 3

4. Introduction Active and passive learning hypotheses – Active-learning hypotheses: (Jonassen; Mayer). – constructivist models of learning; students play an active role in receiving and processing information. – Students using interactive version were better. – Passive-learning hypotheses: (Mayer) – Information transfer model; students simply store the knowledge in their memory. – No significant differences. – The study contribute to the research by Mayer, Dow, and Mayer (2003), including interaction to select timing and order of explanations. 4

5. Method Participants – 33 (22 males and 11 females) second-year undergraduates took the Computing pathway in Business and Management. – All at the same level and pre-requisites, and without relative background. (low prior knowledge) 5

6. Method Materials and apparatus – Non-interactive (NI): – A labelled diagram with no interactive features. – Interactive (I): 3 forms of interactivity 1. Pacing control. 2. Two interactive self-assessment questions (ISAQs). 3. Interactive simulation. – Pre-test: a single on-screen request. – Post-test: 5 open-ended. (retention/transfer) – Both systems recorded the time taken by learners. 6

7. Method Procedure – First, the class randomly divided into two groups: 1. Interactive system (I) 2. Non-interactive system (NI) – Both groups with the same conditions and completed the lesson and post-test in almost 1 h. – Data analysis: – Significant differences between scores and timings by one-tailed statistical tests. – Correlations by the Pearson coefficient. 7

8. Results Post-test scores 8

9. Results Lesson and test timings 9

10. Results Relation between scores and timings 10

11. Results Relation between scores and timings 11

12. Discussion test scores – The test scores suggest that interactivity increases the depth of learning or understanding. – Learners of I did not significantly increase their retention of material when given a recall test. – Active learning hypothesis: consistent. – Passive learning hypothesis: inconsistent. – Similar result with Mayer and Chandler (2001). – Interact to control the pace of the double presentation enabled students to reduce the cognitive load on their working memory. 12

13. Discussion timing – The time analysis here shows that students using the I system spent significantly more time on the lesson than the students using the NI system. – Maybe engagement or personal preference. – Rieber (1990) found that animation improves learning only when accompanied by the opportunity to practice the theory. (consistent) – This study provides compelling to incorporate interactive features into the design of their systems at an early stage. 13