multimedia, simulations, and learning transfer
Post on 24-Jan-2015
1.333 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Using Multimedia and Virtual Simulations to Enhance Transfer of Knowledge In Anatomy Instruction
A Study Submitted for EPET Practicum RequirementAndy SaltarelliOctober 2010
IntroductionMultimedia and virtual simulations are providing new learning contexts within which to explore learning transfer
Anatomy instruction is well-suited for multimedia and simulations, highly reliant on the understanding of spatial relationships and the need for safe, easy, and controlled exploration of delicate anatomical structures.
Thus, an experimental-control design was used to test the effects of a multimedia, and virtual simulation learning system, Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0 (APR 2.0), on learning transfer in an undergraduate anatomy course.
Learning TransferBasic Transfer - making a connection between a very specific piece of knowledge and an identical (or nearly identical) piece of knowledge in a new context (Thorndike, 1922)
Identification Transfer - being able to correctly identify anatomical structures learned during lab on a real cadaver during exams
Meaningful Learning - learning that “provides explanations of how something works” (Mayer, 2003, p. 128)
Explanatory Transfer - being able to explain how an anatomical system works
Learning TransferCadaver Only Transfer
APR Transfer
CadaverCadaverLabLab
CadaverCadaverExamExam
Identification
Explanatory
Transfer Source
Transfer Target
APRAPRLabLab
CadaverCadaverExamExam
Identification
Explanatory
Transfer Target
Transfer Source
Multimedia Effects on Transfer
Def. presentation of verbal and pictorial forms of information (Mayer, 2005)
Empirical Results Mixed:
Yes - Cognitive efficiency (Cobb, 1997), harness dual-channel processing (Mayer, 2003)
No - Mere delivery method (Clark, 1983), no effect when instructional method controlled for (Bernard et al., 2004), overtaxes working memory (Sweller, 2005)
Multimedia Effects on Anatomy Learning
Two non-randomized experimental studies:
Mixed results (Jones et al., 1978)
Multimedia better (Siegel & Foster, 2001)
One randomized experimental study:
Key views + low learner control = highest achievement, multimedia used in all groups (Levinson et al, 2007)
Simulation Effects on Transfer
Physical simulator vs. model-based (Winn et al., 2006), APR model-based
Used to increase higher order thinking (Gokhale, 1996)
Transfer of scientific principles to novel situations (Goldstone & Son, 2005)
Used to enhance constructivist forms of instruction (De Jong & Van Joolingen, 1998)
Simulation Effects on Anatomy Learning
Two experiments with learning outcomes:
randomized 6-week study, simulation group better on exams (Hisley et al, 2007)
non-randomized 10-week study using APR 1.0, simulation group better on exams (Nasr, 2007)
Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0
Virtual Dissection
Image Masked
Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0
Animations Imaging (CT & MRI)
Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0
Histology
Anatomy and Physiology Revealed 2.0
Self Quiz
Image Masked
MethodsParticipants
N = 233
15 lab sections
Randomly assigned by lab to APR or cadaver-only
MethodProcedures - Assignment Counter-Balanced
Exam 1 Blood Vessels to Brain
Exam 2Cerebral Spinal Fluid
APR in APR in Lab Lab
N =115N =115
Cadaver Cadaver onlyonly
N = 118N = 118
Exam 1Exam 1
APR in APR in LabLab
N = 118N = 118
Cadaver Cadaver onlyonly
N = 115N = 115
Exam 2Exam 22 weeks2 weeks 2 weeks2 weeks
MethodProcedures - Independent Variable
Instructional Technology: Cadaver or APR
Both viewed the same 20-minute unit introduction video
Lab scaffolds given to each with identical learning objective same order
Both given 55 minutes to study on given instructional technology
MethodProcedures - Dependent Variables
Identification Transfer (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .66)
E.g., “identify the blood vessel marked by pin number one”
Explanatory Transfer ( 5 items, Cronbach’s alpha = .67)
E.g., “name the organ that pinned blood vessel number nine supplies”
Total Score (composite of above)
Qualitative (1 open-ended question)
ResultsQuantitative
ResultsQuantitative (Exam 1 & 2 combined)
Multivariate Omnibus for Condition and Exam
ResultsQualitative
“Do you feel that APR Revealed software helped you to learn the material for this two-week unit? Why or why not?”
Yes (21%)
Somewhat (34%)
No (45%)
Interrater Reliability, Kappa = .82
Chi Square (2, 247) = 21.99, p < .001
Results
Qualitative
“Why or why not?”
APR Useful:
#1 clearly pick and highlight, #2 animations, #3 “move” through layers
APR Not Useful:
#1 need more time, #2 can’t transfer to cadaver, #3 needs hands-on interaction
Discussion
Cadaver-only students performed better than with APR on both forms of transfer
Supports “identical element theory” of learning transfer (Thorndike, 1922)
Contrasts work on simulations finding they can reproduce contexts and elements identical to those in real world (Goldstone & Son, 2005)
Discussion
Direct contrast to Nasr (2007) study using APR, why?
Time - 55 minutes vs. 10 weeks
And perhaps more pre-training (Mayer & Moreno, 2003)
Tech acceptance (Venkatesh, 2000) - perceived usefulness + perceived ease of use = behavioral intention to use tech
DiscussionLimitations
More time and better pre-training w/ APR
Better control of treatment diffusion and/or groups influencing opinions of others
Students felt somewhat forced to use APR, concern about its influence on grade (even though EC)
More formally build APR into course
Better Measures (e.g., adapt extant measure of learning transfer)
top related