The Effects of Interactive Instructional Video on Students’ Knowledge Acquisition and Academic Characteristics in an Online Learning Environment Mohamed.

The Effects of Interactive Instructional Video on Students’ Knowledge Acquisition

and Academic Characteristics in an Online Learning Environment

Mohamed [email protected]

Rebecca A. [email protected]

The Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), March 2-6, 2015 Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Arkansas Tech UniversityCollege of Education

Aileen [email protected]

BACKGROUND

Interactive vs. Non-Interactive Learning Materials:

Non-interactive learning materials dictate the order of presentation

Multimedia allow navigation of information in a nonlinear fashion

Learners’ understanding arises from the interaction with the

presented information

OBJECTIVES

To investigate:

The implications of the use of the interactive instructional video on:

1. Preservice teachers’ learning outcomes

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) (Mayer, 2001)

Learners prefer multimedia over text

Learners likely to gain deeper learning from multimedia

METHODS This study employed between-subject design

To assess the effect of using interactive instructional video on:Preservice teachers' learning outcomes in an online course

METHODS Three independent variables:

1. Video design (interactive or non-interactive video)

2. Learning style and

3. Students’ GPA

Dependent variable:

1. Learning outcomes

PARTICIPANTS

34 preservice teachers (16 interactive , 18 non-interactive video)

Students non-science majors

Students from four different majors:

1. Bachelor of professional studies

2. Early childhood education

3. Middle-level education

4. Secondary education

RESEARCH QUESTIONS1. Will interactive instructional video improve preservice teachers’ learning outcomes compared to

the non-interactive instructional video in a technology integration course in an online learning

environment?

2. Do learning styles effect preservice teachers’ learning outcomes during learning from the

instructional video in a technology integration course in an online learning environment?

3. Do preservice teachers’ learning outcomes differ according to their overall GPA after learning from

the instructional video in a technology integration course in an online learning environment?

INSTRUMENTATION

All materials online (Bb)

Content released to students the week of experiment

Measures selected or developed by the course instructors

Consisted of:

1. Demographic survey

2. UDL Learning module

3. 10-question multiple-choice post-test used as interactive component

MATERIALS

The materials were identical in all groups

Two different instructional video about UDL:

1. Interactive using questions with the experimental group

2. Non-interactive with the control group

PROCEDURE

Students in all sections completed a demographic survey

Students watched the videos and created a blog based on the principles of the

UDL framework learned from the video

The experimental group completed the same activities as the control group

The only difference between both groups was answering questions about the

blog design while watching the video (interactive element).

RESULTSFirst question: “Will interactive instructional video improve preservice teachers’ learning

outcomes compared to the non-interactive instructional video in a technology integration

course in an online learning environment?”

Independent-sample t-test to compared students’ project scores in interactive video

condition and in the non-interactive video condition.

The results of the Independent Samples Test showed that there was a significant

difference in the scores for interactive condition (M=63.92, SD=7.166) compared to

the non-interactive conditions (M=56.33, SD=8.550); t (25)= 2.46, p = 0.20.

Independent Samples Test results

Table 1 The Mean scores and standard deviations for the Independent Samples Test results of the students test scores

    Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

   95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

   F Sig. t df

Sig. (2-tailed) MD SD Lower Upper

Grades 

EV assumed .846 .367 2.457 25 .021 7.583 3.087 1.226 13.941

EVnot assumed    2.507 24.923 .019 7.583 3.025 1.352 13.815

Note: Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p<.005 level; d.f. = degrees of freedom; F = F-ratio; Sig. = Significant, SD = standard deviation, t = t-test.

Second question: Do learning styles effect preservice teachers’ learning outcomes during

learning from instructional video in a technology integration course in an online learning

environment?

Conducted a correlation coefficient

The analysis showed that there was no correlation between preservice teachers’ learning

style and their project scores during learning from instructional video (All learning styles

learned equally)

RESULTS

Correlati on Coeffi cient

Table 2 The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

    Learning Style Grades

Learning Style Pearson Correlation 1 .122

Sig. (2-tailed)   .506

N 36 32

Grades Pearson Correlation .122 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .506  

N 32 34

Note: the r differ significantly at p<.001

Third question: Do preservice teachers’ learning outcomes differ according to their overall GPA

after learning from instructional video in a technology integration course in an online learning

environment?

One-way between subjects ANOVA compared the effect of students’ overall GPA on their test

scores after learning from instructional video.

The results of the analysis indicates that there was no significant effect of students’ overall GPA

on their test scores after learning from instructional video at the p<.05 level for all GPA levels [F

(4, 27) = 1.214, p = 0.328].

RESULTS

Table 3 The one-way between subjects ANOVA results of the effect of students’ overall GPA on their test scores

Grades

  Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 244.915 4 61.229 1.214 .328

Within Groups 1361.304 27 50.419    

Total 1606.219 31      

Note: Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p<.005 level. Type III SS = Sum of Squares; d.f. = degrees of freedom; M S = Mean Square; F = F-ratio; Sig. = Significant.

One-way between subjects ANOVA

CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that the interactive video condition does have

an effect on students’ project scores

Regardless of students’ learning style, their project scores

improved equally when they learn from instructional video

Regardless of students’ GPA, their project scores improved

equally when they learn from instructional video

Questions?

Mohamed [email protected]

Rebecca A. [email protected]

Aileen [email protected]