transmediation and technology in an urban classroom setting

The College of Wooster

Transmediation and Technology in an Urban Classroom Setting

by

Alexander J. Dorman

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements of Independent Study Thesis Research

Supervised by

John G. Jewell, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology

2013-2014

TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Transmediation ............................................................................................................................ 8

The Generative Process of Transmediation ............................................................................. 9

Theories of Transmediation ................................................................................................... 12

Drawing as a Sign System ......................................................................................................... 13

The Talking Drawings Method .............................................................................................. 16

The Importance of Technology ................................................................................................. 18

Present Research ....................................................................................................................... 22

Method .......................................................................................................................................... 26

About the School ....................................................................................................................... 26

Research Participants ................................................................................................................ 26

Materials .................................................................................................................................... 27

Measures.................................................................................................................................... 28

Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 29

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 31

Results ........................................................................................................................................... 32

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Cognitive Load Theory ............................................................................................................. 36

Cognitive Load Theory and the Current Research ................................................................ 38

Cognitive Load Theory and Transmediation ......................................................................... 40

Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 41

Considerations for Future Research with this Population ..................................................... 43

Implications ............................................................................................................................... 44

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 45

References ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 56


Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 58

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 59


Acknowledgements

First and foremost I would like to thank my loving family for their undying support with

everything I do –love you guys! I would also like to thank Ms. Allison Schecter, Ms. Christina

Heffner, and Ms. Lisa Berlin for all their help with working at Baltimore Montessori Public

Charter School, and of course the BMPCS middle school students for their participation in the

project –thanks for being such a joy to work with. I would like to give a special thanks to Ms.

Dorman for making this project possible by acting as a liaison to BMPCS, and for being such a

strong helping hand. Finally, I‟d like to thank Dr. John Jewell for advising the project every step

of the way, offering the hard advice I had to hear and providing the support I always needed.


Abstract

Thirty middle school students from the Baltimore Montessori Public School were recruited to

test the effectiveness of a new teaching method on information acquisition and retention in an

urban middle school classroom. The new method was designed to incorporate relevant

technology to assist in the act of drawing as a means of organizing and further understanding

novel information. Based on the theory of transmediation, it was hypothesized that this new

teaching method would aid in the learning of a science based lesson plan. Improvement scores

from pre-tests to post-tests were analyzed as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the

method. The hypothesis was not supported, and there was no significant difference in average

improvement scores between the experimental drawing group and the control group. Cognitive

load theory was used to provide a possible explanation for a trend in the data that suggests that

the new method was potentially detrimental to the participants‟ information acquisition and

retention. Future directions and implications of this research are discussed.


Introduction

“Oh gross, really, just crack it?” The B-Block sophomore biology class could not believe

that the first step to dissecting a fetal pig was as barbaric as sticking a thumb into its mouth and

separating its jaw from its head. Worksheets were passed out and pig stomachs split wide as Dr.

Hilgartner taught the enthralled high school students mammalian anatomy. It was an experience

not soon forgotten. This is just one example of the ways humans interact, communicate, and

learn through a multitude of different sign systems. A sign system is any piece of information

conveyed via auditory, visual, tactile, or proprioceptive stimuli (Semali, 2002; Short, Kauffman

& Kahn, 2000). For instance, we read the descriptions of food on a menu to decide what to order,

we organize flashing lights and colors to convey designated traffic patterns, and we try our

hardest to gauge the body language of the new girl at work. We even dissect fetal pigs to further

understand our own anatomy. Although seemingly obvious, there are countless ways information

is conveyed. We utilize and interpret all of these sign systems to make sense of the world and the

human experience (Siegel, 1995).

Why is it then that the interactive lessons of Dr. Hilgartner‟s B-block biology class are

seemingly so rare? Classrooms don‟t need fetal pigs to plan lessons that encourage active

learning. In the current research, touch screen technology is used to teach with multiple sign

systems through a style of teaching known as the transmediation model. Students will be more

willing to learn, will remember more information, and enjoy the experience much more than a

typical verbocentric lesson. The transmediation model embraces the notion that we learn through

multiple sign systems and encourages the translating of one sign system to another as a method

of active learning (Hoyt, 1992; Semali, 2002; Siegel, 1995). For the first time this method of

transmediating has been streamlined with the use of innovative new touch screen technology.


Unfortunately, our school systems tend to adhere to a verbocentric transmission model of

teaching that focuses primarily on the language sign system (Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000;

Siegel, 1995). The University of Roehampton‟s Guide to Good Practice in Assessment (2013)

describes the transmission model as: teachers just telling students what to learn. This method

creates a strong dependency in the student on their teacher and relies heavily on the language

sign system. By just being told information, students do not interact with the material and an

interactive learning experience is sacrificed. The method can also teach students to not think

critically or question what they learn. The transmission model, while popular, can be detrimental

because it reinforces the idea that there is no ambiguity in learning and what the teacher says is

final.

This attachment to the transmission model needs to change because it perpetuates passive

learning (Rollag & Billsberry, 2012; Siegel, 1995) and is often unrepresentative of the world

outside of the classroom. Semali (2002) explains that, “only a small percentage of human

communication is verbal; a vast amount takes place on the nonverbal level” (p. 7). Semali

continues to say that only focusing on one form of communication ignores the developing skills

of students such as critical viewing and critical authoring. The transmission model is most

detrimental when it does not fit the learning style of a student (Hoyt, 1992; Short et al., 2000).

Students learn and construct knowledge in different ways, and Vincent (2003) argues that these

differences are based in a type of cognitive learning style. Various learning styles proposed

include students who excel in artistic expression (Hoyt, 1992), students who excel in “living

media” (such as social interactions) (Dauite, 1992), and students who have a strong preference

for learning with visual media (Vincent, 2001). Dauite (1992) reports that access to different


mediums of learning is at its highest in preschool, but once third and fourth grade hits students

no longer have immediate access to pictures and sounds as sources of information.

Transmediation

The notion that students all learn the same way has partially subsided, and there has been

a growing body of research analyzing the different ways that students learn (Berk, 2009;

Vincent, 2003). In trying to understand the ways that we learn, there has been a strong push to

incorporate multimedia into our school systems. One reason for this shift is the influx of

available innovative technology. Another reason for this shift is the understanding that memory,

comprehension and understanding is enhanced when one processes information through multiple

mediums instead of only one medium (Berk, 2009).

Transmediation is the process of translating an understanding of information from one

sign system to another. As mentioned before, a sign system is any stimuli that can convey

information. The name transmediation literally means to mediate information across (trans)

different sign systems (Hoyt, 1992; Semali, 2002; Siegel, 1995). Transmediation can be a very

complicated process requiring lots of evaluation and analysis (Hoyt, 1992). In Siegel‟s (1995)

review of transmediation as a method for teaching, she describes the process in depth:

Learners must rotate the content and expression planes of two different sign

systems such that the expression plane of the new sign system conveys the

content of the initial sign system. But because the expression plane is that of

another sign system, the connection between the two sign systems must be

invented, as it does not exist prior to the act of transmediation itself (p. 463).

In theory there is no right or wrong way to transmediate, as long as the translating is done with

meaning and purpose. Even when the translation between signs is done in the most literal sense,

it is still up to the student to work with the information through their own interpretations.


Examples of sign systems that have previously been used to transmediate include theatre/drama

(Hoyt, 1992; Short et al., 2000), exact reenactment (Wesson & Salmon, 2001), sculpture (Hoyt,

1992), and music (Short et al., 2000), among others.

The Generative Process of Transmediation

One of the key aspects of the verbocentric transmission model of teaching that stands in

stark contrast to the transmediation model of teaching is the concept that information given is

absolute. There is little room for questioning because there is no personal interpretation of

information. In other words, what the teacher says is final. Transmediation on the other hand can

be a powerful tool for teaching because by encouraging students to personally interpret

information, a generative process of learning begins to take place (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002;

Foreman & Fyfe, 2012; Hoyt, 1992; Napoli, 2002; Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000; Siegel, 1995;

Whitin, 2002). A generative process of learning as a part of transmediation refers to students

forming their own ideas about the information being learned, instead of just memorizing exactly

what has been presented in its original form. This process is believed to occur because the act of

transmediating between sign systems cannot be completed unless a student is thinking

generatively. As described in a case study by Short et al., (2000):

Because each sign system has a different potential for meaning, students do not

transfer the same meaning, but create new ideas, and so their

understandings…become more complex. They are not simply doing an activity or

presentation…but instead use the sign systems as tools for thinking (p. 160).

This generative learning process manifests itself in a number of different ways through

transmediation. In some situations, the process can lead to breakthroughs in understanding

complicated information. For example, in one high school two students were struggling to


understand an article that focused on the ways in which math affected various social and political

aspects of history. Instead of the teacher attempting to just explain the article, she instead

suggested that the students construct a visual interpretation (an illustration) of the text. The two

students were asked to explain their visual interpretations the next day. Through the act of

transmediating between the sign systems of text and illustration, it had become clear that the

students had transmediated the knowledge in a way that gave meaning to them. They had

effectively shown how math was connected to numerous institutions by drawing a star that

connected “mathematics” to five points that represented various institutions. While seemingly

simple, by manipulating the material in such a way, the two students were able to gather a deeper

understanding of what the article was conveying (Siegel, 1995).

In another example, a sixth grade classroom was having trouble understanding the

feelings associated with prejudice while learning about the Holocaust. Instead of attempting to

lecture on the content of the topic, the teacher prompted the students to transmediate from verbal

information, to illustrated information, to acted out information. This was achieved by having

the students individually create dramas that would portray prejudice and then form groups to act

out the student-created plays (Short et al., 2000). Regarding this learning process, Short et

al.(2000) noted, “the dramas allowed students to cross the lines of friendship, ability, and

ethnicity in their relationships and to gain deeper insights about prejudice” (p. 165).

The generative process of transmediation can also help create a more holistic

understanding of information for the student. As the student translates information between sign

systems, attention to details can guide the student to see the information in a new light. This

focused attention to detail occurs naturally from transmediating information meaningfully from

one sign system to another. A great example of creating this holistic understanding through


transmediation comes from a group of young students from the Reggio Emelia School in Italy, a

school specializing in alternative teaching and learning styles. The students were interested in

sunflowers they had previously planted that had just bloomed. The teacher instructed the students

to create detailed drawings of what they saw. This activity encouraged the students to notice

details they otherwise may have missed. The teacher then instructed the students to draw what

they believed to be the process of a seed turning into a flower. From these drawings, the teacher

was able to then engage the students in their theories of seed growth (Foreman & Fyfe, 2012).

This exercise went from interested observation to meaningfully recreating and manipulating

information. It allowed the students to pay attention to details and actively think about complex

information, while giving the teachers an idea of how to approach new material (Forman & Fyfe,

2012).

In a “low-functioning” classroom populated with “reluctant-readers” in Oregon, one

student decided to create a clay sculpture of an elephant. However he quickly realized that he

was unsure of how to sculpt an accurate depiction of an elephant. Without further prompting the

student preceded to utilize resources such as reference books and the knowledge of his fellow

students in order to create an accurate sculpture. Regarding this instance, Hoyt (1992) observes

“through a variety of expressive arts, these young learners were able to process meaning in ways

that allowed them to deepen and expand their understanding” (p. 581).

In some cases, teachers utilize the generative process of transmediation to breech new

ideas and information entirely. Napoli (2002) found in her kindergarten classroom that she was

able to explore gender stereotypes with her students at a very young age. After talking about the

topic for quite some time, she asked her students to draw a picture of their parents and the roles

their parents played in their family. While working with the students and their drawings, she was


able to talk with them about why they drew their mothers doing some activities, and why they

drew their fathers doing different activities. Through this process of having the children express

their perceptions of gender in this manner, a dialogue that was previously less assessable became

more available to the students. This classroom experiment was done in the context of teaching

young readers to be critical of texts. Napoli believed that transmediating between the texts her

students were listening to and images the students created would help them generate new ideas

and think critically.

Theories of Transmediation

There are multiple theories as to why the process of transmediation can be so effective

and such a generative process. Chang (2011) argues that transmediation works because it is

important to put abstract concepts into a medium that can be more accessible for students. Doing

so functions as an enabling tool to make sense of the information received. Chang further

explains that learning can only occur through assimilation and accommodation of previous

knowledge.

Short et al., (2000) expands off of this idea stating that new meanings to information are

created as the learner‟s understanding is enhanced, and Hoyt (1992) asserts that “learning occurs

when one creates a personal interpretation…The important point is that the individual

personalizes the information and internalizes a connection between what is new and what is

already known” (p. 584). Siegel (1995) incorporates all of these ideas by stating that learning

cannot be reduced to the transmission of knowledge from an “expert” to a “novice” (the

transmission model), but instead learning must be a social process in which students are actively

constructing their own interpretations of understanding of new information. Siegel (1995)


continues to explain that because transmediating is not a straight forward process, an “enquiry-

oriented classroom” is a natural byproduct of encouraging students to work with information in

their own way (p.456) . It is important to note that the generative process of transmediation

works at all ages in the school system: kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and even

undergraduate students (McConnell, 1993).

Drawing as a Sign System

Drawing is a very accessible sign system. “[Drawing] engages children‟s natural

inclination to take pencil to paper, thereby using art as a vehicle to express content knowledge.”

(Paquette, Fello & Jalongo, 2007, p. 73). Furthermore, drawing is a comfortable medium that in

general is embraced by almost all students, from younger learners in elementary school (Chang,

2012; Chang, 2011; Paquette et al., 2007) to university students (McConnell, 1993; Scott &

Weishaar, 2008). McConnell (1993) explains that drawing can be so comfortable because rarely

do people criticize each other on artistic ability, while the same cannot be said for the criticizing

of one‟s literary capabilities.

Drawing has also been observed as a way to excite students and relieve them of boredom

(Chang, 2002), especially when compared to a task that involves writing as a sole method of

response (Paquette et al., 2007). Therefore, incorporating drawing into the learning process can

be a strong motivator for children to learn (Chang, 2012; McConnell, 1993; Scott & Weishaar,

2008). Chang (2012) hypothesizes that this motivation is a result of the association between the

positive emotions of the learner and how effectively he or she will learn. This hypothesis implies

that the more positive a student feels about learning, the more effectively they will learn, thus

motivating them to do so. Drawing is also known to be a confidence booster in the classroom


(Chang, 2011). At the very least, the act of drawing has been found to more successfully hold the

attention of younger students in a learning/testing environment when compared to students

performing identical tasks without a drawing component (Gross, Hayne & Drury, 2009).

Drawings can also be used as a powerful tool for students to express their thoughts and

understanding of information (Chang, 2012; Chang, 2011; Hall, 2009; Paquette et al., 2007).

Hall (2009) theorizes that this ease in expression comes from the flexibility offered in the open-

ended task of drawing, which stands in contrast with other sign systems that follow stricter rules,

such as speech which is governed by the rules of phonetics. Students can feel more comfortable

exploring their thoughts through drawing, therefore their visual representations become

important for teachers because the drawings provide a strong insight into what the student

understands and how new information is being processed. Chang (2011) demonstrated this idea

with a student who was having trouble drawing an accurate representation of a bug, “a child‟s

inability to visualize a concept in his or her head reveals a lack of an understanding of an object

or a living thing conceptually” (p. 626). In noticing that this student could not draw an accurate

representation of a bug, Chang was able to assess what was going on in his or her head. In a

study conducted by Bebel & Kay (2009), the researchers were interested to see the student‟s

perceptions of technology in their classrooms and in their learning experiences. They collected

data by having students draw themselves working in their classrooms. By analyzing the

drawings, the researchers were able to gauge how students saw the role technology played in

their education. This study gave the researchers an insight into the children‟s thinking in a way

that could potentially have been more difficult for the children to verbalize.

Apart from giving the teachers insight into the student‟s thinking, drawing also allows the

student to become very self-aware of his or her own knowledge by empowering the student to


participate in his or her own learning experience (Paquette et al., 2007; Scott & Weishaar, 2008).

Drawing is also a versatile tool because unlike other sign systems such as reading or writing,

drawing requires no previous training or practice (Butler, Gross & Hayne, 1995). This makes it

particularly helpful when working with students who struggle with reading and writing (Hibbing

& Rankin-Erikson, 2003; Paquette et al., 2007) and students with special learning needs (Chang,

2011).

Aside from drawing being a fun, accessible, and motivating tool, evidence shows that

drawing can be utilized to help the memory in recalling information (Butler et al., 1995;

Patterson & Hayne, 2009; Wesson & Salmon, 2001). It is also important to note that in situations

where drawing was not found to play a significant role in aiding memory it was also found to not

impede memory either (Butler et al., 1995; Gross et al., 2009). The research in this field tends to

focus on the use of drawings during memory recall for applied settings such as legal contexts,

therapy for sexual abuse, and clinical assessments and treatments (Butler et al., 1995; Patterson

& Hayne, 2009). However the same principles could apply to a classroom setting. Drawing is

hypothesized to help organize knowledge, thoughts, and experiences as well (Chang, 2011;

Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993). The Reggio Emelia School located in Italy has

built its curriculum around this concept. As Chang (2002) explains it, “one of the purposes for

children to engage in art…is to organize their experiences.” (p. 51) Chang (2011) echoes this

idea, stating that “the principal purpose of drawing integration is to encourage children‟s

collaborative efforts and/or to organize their thoughts for next-step actions in reference to a

project.” (p. 624). In many ways drawing can be likened to taking notes for organizational

purposes.


The act of drawing as a positive influence on memory recall and mental organization can

be explained through the lens of transmediation. Through the generative processes of

transmediation, new ways of understanding and manipulating information can help organize the

student‟s knowledge, thoughts, and experiences. This organization of information can then help

with memory recall by making the information a personal interpretation. In addition, it is

important to note that for the purposes of transmediating, artistic talent plays no role in the

process. What matters is the intent of the representation of the information; not how well it was

drawn (Chang, 2011). Conclusively, because drawing is such an accessible and motivating sign

system of expression, it makes sense to utilize drawing as the sign with which the participants in

the present study will transmediate.

The Talking Drawings Method

There is currently a method of teaching that embraces drawing as a valuable tool in

education called “talking drawings” (McConnell, 1993). Multiple case studies and reviews have

implemented the talking drawings method (or slight variations of it) in a variety of different

classrooms settings with success (Hibbing & Rankin-Erikson, 2003; McConnell, 1993; Paquette

et al., 2007; Scott & Weishaar, 2008; Whitin, 2002). The method was stumbled upon

accidentally as a way to liven up a discouraged class. On a whim professor Suzanne McConnell

asked the students in her adult literacy class to draw what they knew about rainforests instead of

writing down everything they knew. Her students immediately embraced the new task. Soon

enough, her class was active and interested in the material at hand, going out of their way to

learn more about rainforests in order to create more accurate drawings. The talking drawings

method had begun. (McConnell, 1993).


While McConnell (1993) ironed out and first implemented the method, Paquette at al.

(2007) give a very concise step by step summary which breaks down the method into a six step

process:

1. The first step is to pick an area of content, a topic, or a concept to focus on.

2. The second step is to have the students mentally visualize what they think they

know regarding the chosen area of content. The students then pictorially

represent that mental visualization by drawing their first picture.

3. The third step involves the students sharing and discussing their drawings

with a partner. During this stage it is important that the students focus on

explaining their drawings instead of having their partner interpret them.

4. In the fourth step the teacher instructs on the concept or topic.

5. In the following fifth step, the teacher has the students revisit their original

drawings. The students are encouraged to either create another drawing, or

modify their original one based off of their newly acquired knowledge.

6. The sixth and final step entails the students discussing with their partners and

amongst the rest of the class the differences in their previous lecture drawings

and post lecture drawings. This dialogue is important because it allows for the

students to reflect on and compare their personal learning experience with

their peer‟s experience. This also allows students to become very aware of

how their knowledge grew as they can see their drawings represent more

accurate information (p. 66).

The method was originally developed in an adult literacy program, and therefore its main

focus was working with struggling older readers. There are many suggested applications of the

talking drawings method. The method can be used with numerous content areas and subjects,

such as the solar system, living creatures, and greenhouse gases, as well as to teach aspects of

literature like fictitious characters and settings. The method has also been utilized to cover

complex information within fields such as science and social studies (Chang, 2011; McConnell,

1993; Paquette et al., 2007).

The talking drawings method introduces complex information in a fun and novel way

while helping the student to organize their thoughts. The method also serves as a way for

students to assess their knowledge of a new topic as they take their ideas and put them into a


drawn visual form (McConnell, 1993; Paquette et al., 2007). The success of this method makes

sense in the context of the organizational power of drawing and the generative processes of

transmediation.

The talking drawings method is also very versatile. As Paquette et al. (2007) explain,

“Talking drawings is sufficiently flexible to meet diverse student needs when teaching and

learning about expository texts” (p. 73). Meeting the diverse needs of students in the classroom

is obviously important for overall success of the classroom and its students. As mentioned

previously, it is hypothesized that there are multiple types of learners. Cognitive Psychologist

Howard Gardner goes so far as to say there are eight types of intelligences that comprise a single

person‟s “cognitive sphere”, and no two humans share the same intelligence makeup (Gardner,

2011). By diversifying teaching methods, one can hope to cater to many different types of

learners. In making other means of expression such as drawing available, and not solely relying

on the language sign system, this method gives children who struggle with language an outlet in

which they can share their thoughts (Short et al., 2000). Short et al., (2000) summarize this

concept by insisting that everyone has a right to his or her own experience in the learning

process.

The Importance of Technology

It is crucial for teachers to stay relevant in the classroom, and one of the most significant

developments in education over the last generation is the computer. The computer has been

described as the most widely acclaimed technological accomplishment, and because of this

invention there has been an increased need for information to be delivered via multiple mediums

that a computer could support (Mayer, 2005; Reich & Daccord, 2008). In the book Integrating


Technology: A Practical Guide, authors Lengel & Lengel (2006) explain that there has been a

revolution in the last twenty years with regards to how we collect, store, work with, and access

all types of information. If teachers are not able to stay afloat with the influx of new technology

by finding ways to bring new technological innovations into the classroom, students may

experience a strong disconnect between the classroom and the world in which they live in (Lee &

Winzenried, 2009; Lengel & Lengel, 2006).

A disconnect from the world and school can have many negative implications. In a

survey conducted by Raine & Lenhart (2002) for the Pew Foundation titled The Digital

Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-savvy Students and their Schools, the authors

discovered that students reported school as less useful and less relevant compared to students

who had completed the same survey five and ten years before them. They also found that the

students saw their school work as less meaningful, more uninteresting, and more unhelpful now

than students had been in the past (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Raine & Lenhart, 2002). However

closing the digital disconnect gap is not as simple as it may seem. Integrating new technology

into the learning experience has often been avoided or underutilized (Rollag & Billsberry, 2012;

Vincent, 2003). As explained by Price (2007), integrating computers into the classroom is not a

straightforward automatic process that one can do intuitively.

Berk (2009) acknowledges this struggle to stay relevant with technology in the

classroom, stating that by the time the reader sees his publication it will already be out of date,

“that is the nature of the technology beast” (p. 5). Regardless, it is the teacher‟s responsibility to

create an atmosphere for learning with the right mix and proper use of technology (Price, 2007).

Unfortunately the majority of schools have yet to utilize technology to its fullest potential, which

perpetuates the digital disconnect gap between the classroom and the rest of the world.


Consequently, to the student surrounded by technology in most other aspects of their lives, it

would make sense that school would seem obsolete (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). However some

argue that integrating technology into the classroom has become a more stable process and

teachers are generally becoming increasingly more knowledgeable of new technologies (Price,

2007; Rollag & Billsberry, 2012).

When implemented correctly, computers can be excellent tools for teaching and learning.

In many ways computers are the perfect tool for integrating the theory of transmediation into

teaching. Computers are inherently conducive to multimodal presentation, meaning that

information can easily be presented and learned through a wide array of sign systems (Foreman,

2012; Reich & Daccord, 2008; Vincent, 2003). This is crucial because the ability to transmediate

is developed, honed and utilized best when the student is immersed in a multimedia environment

(Semali, 2002). Daiute (1992) illustrates the multimedia capabilities of working with a computer

to learn and create:

Several characteristics of the computer make it an appropriate work space for

multimedia composing by older children. First, several media can be integrated in

the computer-the young writer‟s composing screen can include moving or still

images, a button that can be pushed for sound, and several sections for text. In

addition, electronic drawing, cutting, and pasting tools allow the child to

transform images, sounds, and texts (pp. 253-254).

As seen in Daiute‟s example, the generative process of transmediation still occurs while

students are working with computers. In the book The Hundred Languages of Children, Foreman

(2012) provides an example of the generative process occurring in a lesson where his students

used computer software to instruct insects onscreen to move in certain flight paths based off of

the student‟s directions. He explains that by having the students interact with the material

through multiple signs the students saw the information in different ways. The text gave


background and substance to the animating activity, but the animating activity filled in the

informational gaps where the text left off.

Due to the computer‟s capability to work with countless modes of sign systems in its

presentation of information, computers are invaluable tools for teaching and learning because

they can cater to many different learning styles (Vincent, 2003). Many students who found the

transmission model of teaching difficult had an enhanced learning experience through the use of

computers and multimodal software. It is hypothesized that this is because multimodal computer

software provides structure to working between sign systems which helps with knowledge

construction (Vincent, 2003; Vincent, 2001).

An important aspect of utilizing computers in the classroom that must be understood is

how dynamic of a medium they are. For instance, once a book is written, it does not change and

the information is there virtually forever. There is no way to interactively work with the writing.

Yet the computer is an experience that is always changing. There is new software, automatic

updates, access to the ever changing internet, and many more constantly changing components,

making using a computer never an inherently dynamic cexperience (Lengel & Lengel, 2006).

This dynamism is beneficial to teaching and learning because it is crucial that one‟s teaching

methods stay relevant, and a medium that can easily adapt can be very helpful. However one

complaint Lee & Winzenried (2009) make about the implementation of new technology is the

lack of understanding regarding the technical and the human variables involved. It doesn‟t matter

how dynamic the learning tool is if it is being implemented poorly. Richard Mayer (2005) argues

in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning that computers have fallen down the same

path as radio and television, two other mediums that were supposed to revolutionize education:

we took a technology centered approach instead of a human centered approach. This means that


instead of adapting these potential tools for learning to humans needs, teachers and students were

asked to adapt themselves to the computers. “The focus was on giving people access to the latest

technology rather than helping people to learn through the aid of technology” (Mayer, 2005, p.

9). Technology should be developed in a way that is consistent with how the human mind works

in order to encourage and assist learning instead of forcing humans to try and make technology

work for them.

With this in mind, it is important to remember that we are living in a digitized world, and

our school system should not be lagging behind (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Raine &

Lenhart, 2002). Yet just imposing new technology onto the school system is not the answer

either (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Price, 2007). New technologies should be

developed in accordance with how human cognition works, and the transmediation model has

been shown to be a successful method of teaching and learning. Stewart, Houghton & Rogers

(2012) concisely summarize this idea stating that, “Though greater appreciation to what goes on

in the classroom is important, we must resist the desire to implement course revisions without

rigorous examination of their potential impact” (p. 773).

Present Research

The present research seeks to empirically test a modified version of the talking drawings

method that utilizes the use of modern technology. The method is delivered through an

interactive computer experience consisting of using a swiveling touch screen laptop and a stylus

that allows participants to draw on the screen. Utilizing key components of the talking drawings

method, students will be given the opportunity to draw their mental representations of novel

information before learning the material, and after leaning the material. This will allow students


to visually watch their knowledge expand as their drawings become more detailed with more

information (McConnell, 1993; Paquette et al., 2007).

As the participants work through their mental representations of the information in

preparation to draw, they will personalize the information, drawing unique understandings and

conclusions for themselves. This is the generative process of transmediation in action. As the

participant transmediates from written sign systems into pictorial sign systems, it is hypothesized

that the participants will be able to organize and store the information more effectively than if

they had not been transmediating. This should naturally lead to increased retention of the

information. Many studies have found similar results when incorporating transmediation into

their lessons (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Foreman & Fyfe, 2012; Hoyt, 1992; Napoli, 2002;

Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000; Siegel, 1995; Whitin, 2002).

It is important to remember that regardless of the effectiveness of a method a student

cannot be forced to participate and learn. If the participant completely ignores the drawing

instructions and chooses to skip the reading, there is nothing that can be done. It is hypothesized

however that the inherent fun of drawing will override any potential boredom with the

presentation. Ideally, the participant will find the presentation more than just bearable, but

enjoyable and motivating. This would be concurrent with the multitude of other published

research and case studies that found that the inclusion of drawing to an activity made the activity

more enjoyable and motivating (Chang, 2012; Gross et al., 2009; Hall, 2009; McConnell, 1993;

Scott & Weishaar, 2008). So it is hypothesized that the presentation will be interesting enough

for the participants that they will choose to engage in the presentation.


This research also comes at a crucial time in American education. Losen and Skiba

(2010) of UCLA‟s Civil Rights Project analyzed the rates of suspension as a disciplinary

measure in urban setting middle schools. They found a number of alarming trends: in most

school districts analyzed, rates of suspension had doubled proportionately since the 1970s. These

rates are still increasing. The researchers also found that there was no evidence to show that

minority students misbehave more than white students, but the data did show that minority

students, specifically African Americans, were the most likely to be suspended (Skiba, Michael,

Nardo & Peterson, 2002, as cited in Losen & Skiba, 2010). The researchers concluded that

minority populations were being robbed of the opportunity to learn at much higher rates than the

rest of the population (Losen & Skiba, 2010). It is clear that while suspension rates are rising,

urban middle schools in America need to be improved. In light of Losen and Skiba‟s (2010)

findings, it is imperative when conducting educational research that a racially diverse participant

population is strived for, because it is evident that the middle school experience is potentially

different amongst different races. Therefore data will only be relevant if truly representative of

the population.

Of equal importance to conducting research with racially diverse populations, is

conducting research with socioeconomically diverse populations. Trisha Bishop (2013), a

reporter for The Baltimore Sun, published an article in the summer of 2013 calling attention to

the lack of socioeconomic diversity in research with children. In the article, researchers from

Johns Hopkins University and University of Maryland weighed in on why it can be a challenge

to include subjects from lower socioeconomic classes in their research. These researchers cited

reasons such as complications with transportation and a general lack of trust in the researchers.

Due to these reasons, the overwhelming majority of participant populations come from the


middle and upper socioeconomic classes. This is problematic, especially in areas of research

such as child development. Without representative populations, it is likely that phenomena and

trends will be missed. In the article, a researcher named Dr. Lillard cited a pertinent example

showcasing the need for representative populations: “[There is] research that shows children in

poorer households are spoken to less, which impedes their cognitive development. „We wouldn't

know that if people hadn't gone into the homes and recorded how much language there was‟” (p.

1). The participant population of the current population is a diverse and relatively representative

sample of the families of Baltimore because its participant population is coming from a public

charter school where everyone has the same chance of admittance.

With a strong theoretical background and a truly diverse population, it is hypothesized

that this new method of conveying information will prove to be successful. In an effort to shrink

the digital disconnect gap by incorporating touch screen technology, it is hypothesized that the

participants will find the method appealing and relevant because much of the technology they

encounter everyday utilizes similar features. By integrating drawing into the presentation, it is

hypothesized that students will be inherently interested in the presentation. Through the

generative process of transmediation, it is hypothesized that the participants will formulate their

own thoughts and connections with the information being presented, which will aid them in the

organization and memorization of the information. It is ultimately hypothesized that all of these

factors combined will result in improved performance amongst the participants in the

experimental condition.


Method

About the School

Research was conducted at the Baltimore Montessori Public Charter School, located in

the Station North neighborhood of Baltimore Maryland. The school is unique in providing the

traditionally private Montessori educational experience in a public school setting. Admission is

available to everyone who is a resident of Baltimore city. Enrollment to the program is based off

of a lottery system, creating an equal opportunity for all who apply. The school services grades

kindergarten through eighth grade, and allows students to enroll at any grade.

Research Participants

The sample consisted of 30 middle school students in seventh grade and eight grade (57%

female). One student (n=1) had to be removed as a research participant due to absences on data

collection days. The participants came from two homeroom classrooms, Ms. Dorman (n=19) and

Ms. Heffner (n=11). The participant sample was both racially and socioeconomically diverse.

Racial and ethnic background was not directly asked, but according to the 2012 school profile

collected by Baltimore City Public Schools, 53% of the middle school students identified as

“black” while 42% identified as “white” (BCPS, 2012). Socioeconomic information was not

directly asked, but again according to the 2012 public profile, 41% of the middle school students

come from low-income families, as determined by eligibility for the Free and Reduced Meals

(FARM) program (BCPS, 2012). This is a method used by Baltimore City Public Schools to

identify low-income families (BCPS, 2013). Participation was entirely voluntary, and every

middle school student was given the opportunity to participate. Participation had no effect on


class standing. Participants received direct benefit for participating in the study by helping raise

money for the BMPCS middle school Adventure Trip. For every student who participated, ten

dollars was donated by the principle researcher. This money lowered the individual cost of

attendance for the trip. Each student was randomly assigned into either the experimental

drawing group (n=15) or the control group (n=15).

Materials

The learning presentation medium was created in Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007. The

presentation was presented on the Toshiba Portégé M700, a touch screen computer with a

swiveling screen that can be used as a laptop or a tablet. A stylus designed to work with the

touch screen was also utilized for the drawing portions of the presentation. The lesson that was

given in the presentation is an adaptation of the lesson plan What Parts of the Plant do We Eat?

by Dr. Doherty and Dr. Spindler (2009) of the biology department at the University of

Pennsylvania. Information about plant parts was taken from the teacher preparation notes and put

into a PowerPoint format. Ms. Dorman, a licensed teacher with special accreditation by the

American Montessori Society to teach a Montessori middle school classroom, reviewed and

edited the presentation in regards to accessibility to the participants and quality of the lesson.

There are two versions of the presentation: the experimental version and the control

version. The experimental version of the presentation includes 24 slides in total. There are three

types of slides in the presentation. The first of these is the pre-drawing slide; on this slide the

participant is prompted to draw something related to the lesson (e.g. “Draw a picture of a plant

stem”). The second type of slide is the information slide, which presents information pertaining

to what the participants are being prompted to draw. The final type of slide the participant will


encounter will be the post-drawing slide. On this slide the participant will be prompted to draw

something related to the lesson after having just learned about it (e.g. draw a picture of a plant

stem with your new knowledge). To ensure that participants have enough time with the

information, there is no time limit with how a participant can spend on any of the slides. To try

and curb participants from skipping slides and not reading the information, there is a minimum

amount of time that must be spent on each slide. For pre-drawing slides the participant must

spend at least 15 seconds drawing. For information slides the participant must spend at least 20

seconds with the material. For post-drawing the participant must spend at least 30 seconds

drawing. The time minimum is indicated by an arrow that appears automatically in the bottom

right corner after the prescribed amount of time.

The drawing will take place on the touch screen, and the PowerPoint can be navigated

using the directional keys on the keyboard or with the touch screen (see Appendix A for the full

experimental presentation). The control presentation is comprised of information slides identical

to the experimental presentation in content and time length. However the control presentation has

no drawing portion to it. The touch screen function will not be needed for this version of the

presentation, and the PowerPoint will be navigated using the direction keys on the keyboard.

Measures

A pre-test and post-test consisting of 15 multiple choice questions was used to assess how

learning and memory was affected by the different presentation types. The test focused solely on

material covered in the presentation. Ms. Dorman reviewed and gave suggestions in regards to

accessibility of the test to the participants, and quality of the test. There was no difference

between the pre-test and the post-test. The tests were administered to collect the participant‟s


improvement in scores between the pre-test and post-test after interacting with the presentation.

The participants were never informed of their scores on either test (see Appendix B for the pre-

test/post-test).

A survey was administered to collect information regarding the experience of using the

presentation. The survey consisted of twelve questions on a 5-point Likert Scale. Eight of the

twelve questions were taken from a survey created by Rockwell & Singleton (2007). Rockwell &

Singleton (2007) used the survey to assess the effects of audio and video in the information

acquisition process in the classroom. The survey is fitting for the current research because it was

designed to gather information on the participants‟ opinions of various teaching methods.

Examples of questions asked include: “I learned a lot from this presentation” and “The

presentation was boring”. The last four questions of the survey were created specifically for the

purpose of this research to assess the participants‟ access to technology and the participants‟

comfort with technology (see Appendix C for the full survey). Participants received a debriefing

form upon completion of the research.

Procedure

Participants were initially contacted about this research by the BMPCS middle school

teachers Ms. Dorman and Ms. Heffner. Consent forms were sent home with students to be

reviewed and signed by parents or legal guardians if the student was interested in participating.

The consent forms were collected and stored by Ms Heffner and Ms. Dorman in a locked filing

cabinet. Once consent forms were collected from all interested students the primary researcher

administered the pre-test to every participant on January 7th

2014 and January 9th

2014.

Participants wrote their names on the top tear-off section of the pre-test. Pre-tests were stored in


a locked brief case. The pre-test took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Once all pre-tests

were collected, students were randomized into the experimental condition or the control

condition. On January 23rd

2014 and January 24th

2014, the primary researcher set up at BMPCS

in a room adjacent to the middle school classrooms and began with data collection. A teaching

assistant helped with the process at all times and worked as an aid when working with the

students. Participants were seen individually at the convenience of both teachers‟ schedules.

Participants were all greeted and made to feel welcome. Verbal assent was requested and

participants were reminded that they could stop at anytime if they wanted and that their

participation with the research had no influence on their school career. All participants assented

and no participants chose to stop until they were finished.

If the participant was in the experimental condition the primary researcher took time to

familiarize the student with the touch screen drawing technology and using the stylus. As

expected, almost all participants in the experimental group expressed some familiarity with the

touch screen technology, and the familiarizing process was usually very brief. The basic

structure of the presentation was explained to them, with a focus on following the time

minimums conveyed on each slide. The primary researcher made it clear that he would not

interfere in any way with the participant or the presentation while it was happening.

With few exceptions the experimental presentation took about 20 minutes to complete.

The participant took the post-test immediately after completing the presentation. After the post-

test the participant filled out the short survey regarding the experience. The post-test and the

survey took about 10 minutes to complete. The process in total took approximately 30 minutes to

40 minutes. After the post-test and survey were completed the student was debriefed and the

thanked. The participants were asked to refrain from speaking with their peers about the


presentation in order to create an equal experience for everyone who participated. The pre-test,

post-test, and survey were then stapled together. The name of the participant was changed into a

number and the name on the pre-test was torn off, effectively making the data anonymous. Raw

physical data was stored in a locked briefcase.

If the participant was in the control condition, the process mirrored the experimental

condition with the exception that there was no need to familiarize the participant with the touch

screen and stylus. Because there is no drawing portion to the control presentation, the

presentation only took about 10 minutes. The process in total took about 20 minutes to 25

minutes. The participant was debriefed and thanked upon finishing, and their data was made

anonymous and stored in the locked briefcase.

Only once all the data had been collected were pre-tests and post-tests scored. At this

point the students were told they were allowed to talk to their peers about the experience.

Students were also reminded to speak with either Ms. Dorman or Ms. Heffner in person or email

the primary researcher if they had any questions.

Research Design

The sample of 30 middle school students from BMPCS was utilized based on

convenience of access to these students. This is similar in sample size to previous research

utilizing comparable methods to test the benefits of new technology in the classroom (Chang,

Wu & Hsu, 2013). Data was analyzed using an independent samples t-test to compare score

improvement (from pre-test to post-test) for the experimental drawing condition versus the

control condition. Using the improvement of scores from a pre-test to a post-test to analyze a

new teaching or learning tool has been successfully utilized before as a way to judge that tool‟s


effectiveness (Chang et al., 2013; Lara-Alecio et al., 2012; Plass et al., 2013; Rockwell &

Singleton, 2007). All data was collected and organized in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using

SPSS version 21.

Results

Before analyzing improvement scores between the experimental drawing group (n=15)

and the control group n=15), prior knowledge of the subject matter was assessed. An

independent samples t-test was conducted to compare pre-test scores between the experimental

drawing group (M = 9.2, SD = 2.48) and the control group (M = 8.93, SD = 2.09); t(28) = .32, p =

.75. Prior knowledge of the subject matter was not different for either group.

The effectiveness of the learning presentation was determined by examining the

improvement between pre-test scores to post-test scores. A one-tail independent samples t-test

was conducted to compare the average improvement in scores between the experimental drawing

group (M = 2.80, SD = 1.70) and the control group (M = 3.80, SD = 1.74); t(28) = -1.59, p =

.061. There was no significant difference in scores between the experimental drawing group and

the control group. However the data suggests that the difference in scores was approaching

significance in the opposite direction, i.e. the experimental drawing condition was having a

negative impact on performance.

While not the primary intent of the study, a survey that gauged the participants‟ opinions

of the experience was administered after completing the post-test. The survey also gathered

information on the participant‟s technology use. Surveys from two participants had to be omitted

because they were not complete (n=28). Responses to questions #1 - #11 were answered on a 5-

point Likert scale: 1 meaning “I strongly disagree and 5 meaning “I strongly agree”. The last


question was answered either yes or no. Multiple independent samples t-tests were conducted to

analyze the mean responses of each group. There were no significant differences found between

the experimental drawing group and the control group for any question on the survey.

The survey data did provide insight to the participants‟ relationship with technology. All

participants who completed the survey (n=28) reported having access to the internet at home.

The majority of participants (n=27) reported that they felt comfortable using the internet (M =

4.96, SD = .19), with the exception of one participant who explained on the survey s/he was

uncomfortable with the internet “because of the NSA”. Participants (n=28) also overwhelmingly

replied that they strongly agreed that they felt comfortable using computers (M = 4.96, SD =

.19).

Discussion

Based on the data collected, the primary hypothesis that the inclusion of a drawing

activity into a digital learning presentation would aid in the learning process was not supported.

The theorized positive effects of transmediation, and its generative process as an organizational

tool for learning did not aid the experimental drawing group with their acquisition of

information. The potentially positive effects of including drawing into an activity to aid in the

information acquisition process were also unsupported. The data collected was inconclusive as to

whether or not enjoyment of the presentation had any effect on test score improvement.

There was no significant difference in average improvement scores between the

experimental drawing group and the control group. This means there was no evidence that the

inclusion of the drawing activity had the desired effect to facilitate the participant‟s ability to

organize and retain the novel information. However, the data did reveal a pattern in which the


inclusion of the drawing activity had a potentially detrimental effect. The average improvement

score for the experimental drawing group was lower than the average improvement score for the

control group. Although there was not a significant difference, the effect was in a different

direction than predicted. These results stand in contrast with previous research that shows even

when the inclusion of drawing was not found to be helpful to memory, it was not found to be a

hindrance either (Butler et al., 1995; Gross et al., 2009).

As predicted, the participants did indicate enjoying the activity of drawing. Numerous

participants inquired about an eraser function, and a few asked if they were able to use different

colors. On the survey, when the participants were asked if they thought the presentation was

enjoyable, the characteristic response of the drawing group was “neutral” and “mildly agree”,

and when they were asked if they thought that the presentation was boring they typically

responded “strongly disagree” and “mildly disagree”. This is consistent with previous research

on the inclusion of drawing with learning activities (Chang, 2012; Chang, 2011; McConnell,

1993; Paquette et al., 2007, Scott & Weishaar, 2008; Van Meter and Garner, 2005). Yet the lack

of significant improvement in post test scores when compared to a control group stands in

contrast to previous research that found drawing to be a way for students to help organize and

express their thoughts (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993).

A potential explanation for the lack of significant test score improvement is that the

participants were not engaged enough in the drawing activity. However, during the testing

process two observations were made that indicated that the participants were engaged in the task.

First, no participant finished early. Every participant stayed longer than the minimum required

time for completing the presentation. This implies that the participants took extra time to

complete their drawings and this shows a level of engagement beyond completing the activity


just to finish it as quickly as possible. Second, four participants were randomly asked if their

drawings could be anonymously saved and reviewed. Upon review of the drawings, it is evident

that these participants were constructing their drawings with a level of effort that would indicate

that they took the activity seriously (See Appendix D for the before and after drawings). Factors

that helped determine this assumption were the attention to detail, the constant use of arrows, and

the labeling of what the participants deemed to be important information. This is consistent with

McConnell‟s (1993) findings that her students naturally took to labeling their drawings.

As expected, the drawings also served as a way to see how the participant‟s knowledge of

the topic grew. Chang (2012) explains that drawings convey the level of conceptual

understanding a student possesses. Chang further explains that student‟s drawings can be used

as a way to see the student‟s understanding of a topic grow. Even though a statistically

significant difference in average improvement scores between the groups was not found, this

growth in understanding seemed evident based on the four series drawings reviewed from the

experimental condition. This provides value for the inclusion of drawing in the learning process

because this insight into the student‟s knowledge growth could be invaluable for the evaluation

of the effectiveness of a lesson or alternative testing.

If the participants enjoyed the presentation, exhibited engagement, and showed

knowledge growth through their drawings, why didn‟t their improvement scores for the

experimental drawing group differ from the control group? Rockwell and Singleton (2007) found

similar results in their research that analyzed various forms of streaming multimedia and the

modality it was presented in, on the effects of information acquisition. They found that

participants in experimental groups that contained more forms of information delivery (e.g. video

or audio) struggled to perform as well as the participants in a group that received the same


information delivered through text alone. Rockwell and Singleton concluded that, “the addition

of streaming media to a text-based presentation had detrimental effects on information

acquisition.” (p. 186). One potential explanation for their results could be because the

participants in the text-only group found their presentation to be significantly more interesting

and educational than the text-audio-video group, they were more motivated to learn the material.

However, Rockwell and Singleton posit another possible explanation of their results. Because the

extra channels of multimedia (audio and visual) were presenting the same information as the text

of the presentations, the extra streams of information could have acted as nothing but “noise” to

the participant, hindering the information acquisition process (p.187).

Cognitive Load Theory

Noise in the information acquisition process is what researchers in the field of cognitive

load theory call extraneous cognitive load. This is a type of cognitive load that is not necessary

for learning but still places demands on cognitive processing (Van Merriënboer & Sweller,

2005). According to cognitive load theory, information acquisition is dependent on three kinds of

cognitive demand: Essential processing; Incidental/Extraneous processing; and Representational

holding (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). These three processes all place a demand on cognitive load.

Mayer and Moreno (2003) explain that, “in multimedia learning […] A potential problem is that

the processing demands evoked by the learning task may exceed the processing capacity of the

cognitive system – a situation we call cognitive overload” (p.45). An overload of a learner‟s

cognitive processing hinders their ability to understand the material, attend to important aspects

of the material, organize the material into a coherent cognitive structure and integrate it with

relevant existing knowledge (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).


Cognitive overload can be an important consideration for multimedia approaches to

learning (a multimedia approach to learning is any form of learning that includes verbal and/or

pictorial representation). There is evidence to support that multimedia materials foster deep

learning through verbal and pictorial representations, however these materials have also shown

to be a challenge to effectively implement due to their high cognitive processing demands

(Leutner, Leopold & Sumfleth, 2009; Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Van Merriënboer & Sweller,

2005; Schwamborn, Thillmann, Opfermann & Leutner, 2011). An example of a multimedia

presentation resulting in potential cognitive overload and therefore poor information acquisition

would be the previously mentioned Rockwell and Singleton (2007) study. Mayer and Moreno

(2003) describe the problem of cognitive overload as a “central challenge facing designers of

multimedia instruction” (p.43). This is the same Mayer (2003) who is previously cited from

Mayer (2005) emphasizing the importance of developing software to work with human needs,

not visa versa.

A common aspect of multimedia materials that have been shown to increase cognitive

processing and potentially cause cognitive overload is the level of interactivity the materials

require. Kirschner, Kester, and Corbalan (2011), editors of the journal Computers in Human

Behavior, explain this specific type of cognitive load as, “intrinsic load [which is] imposed by

the number of interactive information elements in a task. The more elements there are within a

learning task and the more interaction there is between them, the higher the experienced intrinsic

cognitive load will be” (p.2). Therefore multimedia learning materials that incorporate a high

level of interactivity require higher levels of cognitive processing than materials that do not

incorporate interactivity (Kirschener et al., 2011; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005).


This effect of high interactivity potentially resulting in cognitive overload was reported in

research analyzing the effectiveness of image creation software for science based texts.

Researchers Shwamborn et al. (2011) found that: image creation did not aid in information

retention; higher mental effort was needed for the image creation activities; image creation was

unnecessarily time consuming. Shwamborn et al. (2011) hypothesized that the reason the image

creation activity was detrimental to the learning process was due to the unfamiliar nature of the

activity. The participants had to expend increased mental effort in order to compensate for the

extraneous cognitive load the image creation task placed on them. This detracted from the

participant‟s available cognitive load which typically could have been utilized in acquiring the

information.

Cognitive Load Theory and the Current Research

In the current research, participants in the experimental drawing condition could have

suffered from increased extraneous load due to the high level of interactivity the presentation

required. This would explain the negative effect the drawing activity had on improvement scores

in the experimental drawing condition. Extraneous cognitive load could have been further placed

on the participant‟s processing capacity by the use of open ended prompting for the sketches.

Previous research found that open ended drawing prompts significantly impaired reading

comprehension by increasing extraneous cognitive load (Leutner et al., 2009). This stands in

contrast to research which found drawing to help organize a student‟s thoughts and knowledge

(Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993). A potential explanation for the

drawing task in the current research having a negative effect on improvement scores could lie in

the design of the presentation and not in the act of drawing. By having participants draw their

representations of the information twice, there was the potential effect of the information


becoming redundant. Redundancy of information has been shown to increase extraneous

cognitive load and detract from learning (Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005).

Another possible explanation of the design of the presentation being detrimental to

information acquisition could be the effects of representational holding. Representational holding

refers to the cognitive processes that attempt to hold mental representations of information in the

working memory for a period of time. Mayer and Moreno (2003) give an example of

representational holding processes at work in the context of using a computer based multimedia

presentation:

[S]uppose that an illustration is presented in one window and a verbal description

is presented of it in another window, but only one window can appear on the

screen at one time. In this case, the learner must hold a representation of the

illustration in working memory while reading the verbal description or must hold

a representation of the verbal information in working memory while viewing the

illustration (p.45).

In the current research, participants in the experimental drawing group had to hold information in

their working memory in order to create visual representations. Participants were able to go back

to previous slides to refresh their working memory, but the activity of searching for information

in order to complete a learning task is described by Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005) as one

of many “weak problem solving methods” (p.150). These types of presentation designs are

known to increase extraneous load because the act of searching for information uses up extra

cognitive processes.

Extraneous cognitive load is additive. For the current research this means that the more

factors of poor design there were, the more likely the experimental drawing group would have

suffered from extraneous cognitive processing demands. With higher processing demands than


the control group, the experimental drawing group may have had a harder time acquiring the

information.

Cognitive Load Theory and Transmediation

While not hypothesized, cognitive load theory provides a potential explanation for why

transmediating may have been detrimental. Transmediating is not an easy task. It is a

complicated process of actively analyzing and evaluating information so a bridge between two

sign systems of expression can be created (Hoyt, 1992; Siegel, 1995). There is no literal way to

transmediate between signs, and therefore cognitive processes will always be needed to

transmediate. Based on the results, it is hypothesized that the act of transmediating for the

experimental drawing group imposed extraneous cognitive load on the participant‟s cognitive

processes. This would have hindered the participants‟ ability to acquire information.

It is also possible that transmediation would not have been helpful to the information

acquisition process due to the type of information being learned. Transmediation promotes a

generative process that fosters new ideas and encourages different interpretations of information.

This means that by transmediating information from one sign system to another sign system,

learners begin to make their own interpretations about the information (Hoyt, 1992; Semali,

2002; Siegel, 1995). It is only speculation, but the generative process of transmediation may not

be the most effective means of teaching relatively static scientific concepts to middle school

students. By only testing the participants on how well they retained information via a pre-test

post-test format, personal interpretation of the information was not assessed. The current

research was only interested in the amount of accurate information memorized.


Future Research

Future research should examine new ways that the theory of transmediation can be

incorporated into computer based learning programs within the context of cognitive load theory.

As evidenced by the current research, the benefits of transmediating do not compensate for

questionable presentation design. Therefore, all computer based teaching materials that

incorporate transmediation should be designed with strong consideration for the potential

cognitive load transmediating can place on the cognitive processes. Examples of smarter

presentation design could include keeping all information needed to work between sign systems

in the same window. This would cut down on the extraneous load caused by searching for

relevant information between windows, a solution recommended by Mayer & Moreno (2003) in

their paper Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. For the current study,

a potential improvement to the presentation design could be removing the initial drawing prompt

before every information slide. This could have cut down on a redundancy effect, ideally freeing

up more cognitive processing for internalizing the information.

Only by utilizing a smarter design of incorporating transmediation into a learning

presentation can the effects of drawing on learning be assessed. There are compelling arguments

for the activity of drawing being a beneficial aid to the learning process, and future research

should strive to find more effective ways of utilizing the drawing activity. At the very least, the

present research provided evidence to show that the participants enjoyed the inclusion of

drawing to the presentation. In a review of the literature published on the inclusion of drawing in

learning, researchers Van Meter and Garner (2005) found that very few reliable articles

containing empirical evidence to support drawing could be found. What they did find was a

common assertion in that drawing positively influences student‟s affect by stimulating interest in


target content, increasing involvement in target content, and engaging learners in higher order

thinking (Van Meter & Garner, 2005). This increased motivation is a compelling argument for

the need for future research to look at effective uses of drawing activities. However the current

research exemplifies the need for more research in this field due to the inclusion of drawing

possibly being detrimental to information acquisition.

There are multiple variables that should be assessed in future research in regards to

effective transmediation, drawing, and the use of computer technology. Effects of expertise in

regard to familiarity with the subject matter and the type of interactivity the presentation

demands could potentially have an effect on a learner‟s information acquisition (Van

Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005; Salden, Paas & van Merriënboer, 2006; Schwamborn et al., 2011).

Salden et al. (2006) likens the notion of highly interactive learning being too complex for novice

learners to driving a car, “when learning to drive a car, one might perform the part-task of

shifting gear not adequately. The trainer might decide to focus on this part-task before the

student can continue with practicing the whole-task of driving the car” (p.331). This implies that

if the learner is inexperienced with the subject matter or the type of interactive activity, then their

learning may suffer due to the complexity of both factors.

There is also the confounding variable of testing participants directly after the

presentation. This is not necessarily representative of learning and fails to capture potential long

term memory effects. While the current research was bound to a strict data collection period and

therefore unable to gather data on long term retention, this would be an interesting variable to

assess by having follow up testing at later dates.


It is also uncertain to what extent the current research results are applicable to other

subject matters. The current research focused on information acquisition in regards to subject

matter rooted in botany and more generally biology. How this type of learning presentation

would affect information acquisition in other fields such as reading comprehension or

mathematics is to be determined and should be the focus of future research. This was a concern

shared by Shwamborn et al. (2011) who also studied the inclusion of a drawing activity in the

general field of biology.

Considerations for Future Research with this Population

The current research had access to a unique group of participants who were an absolute

pleasure to work with, although working with this young participant population posed certain

unexpected challenges. As is universal of all research with minors, parental consent was needed

in order for a student to participate. However, the students showed little interest in participating

in the study, and very few consent forms were initially received. It was only after the principle

researcher was able to personally meet and interact with the students later in the year that the

majority of consent forms came in. By getting to meet the students, interest in the study was

sparked and consent forms starting coming in at a much faster rate. This was an unforeseen

complication that put strain on the data collection schedule, however this is a helpful insight for

future research.

Another aspect of data collection that should be taken into consideration for future

research is the time of day that a student is asked to participate. Due to a strict data collecting

period, students were asked regardless of their class period. This means that a student could have

been asked to participate during their recess period, or while in the middle of a complicated math


lesson. A measure of engagement in the task would have been helpful to analyze whether or not

the time of day had any effect on the participants‟ performance. While only speculation, this is a

variable that should be potentially controlled for in future research.

Implications

While the primary hypothesis was not supported, this research provides a strong set of

considerations for future applications of drawing within a learning activity and multimedia

presentation design. This research is also exemplary of the type of research that is critical for the

future use of technology in our classrooms. The survey data confirmed what Raine & Lenhart‟s

(2002) survey The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-savvy Students and

their Schools stated over ten years ago! Technology permeates so many aspects of our lives. To

not work towards fully integrating various forms of relevant educational technology into

classrooms will only make school more and more irrelevant. But it is just as important to make

sure the technology being implemented is actually beneficial to the learning process (Lengel &

Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Price, 2007; Stewart et al., 2012).

The importance of working with students from this racially and socioeconomically

diverse population is also crucial to developing effective teaching strategies. As previously

mentioned, the experience of attending middle school can change for members of different races

(Losen & Skiba, 2010). However racial diversity is not everything, as highlighted by Dr. Lillard

in Trisha Bishop‟s (2013) article from the Baltimore Sun, socioeconomic status can play an

influential role in behavior and development. This is especially pertinent in urban school

settings. Researchers Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild and Legters (2003) found a strong link between

poor eighth grade performance and high school dropout rates: less than 10% of students who had


failed half of their classes or had missed three or more months of school in their eighth grade

year failed to graduate high school. The majority of these students did not even make it past the

tenth grade. Therefore a strong focus should be placed on developing successful teaching

strategies that cater to diverse populations.

Conclusion

It is unrealistic to think that one study could make the slightest dent in the upsetting

dropout rates of urban schools. Regardless of how much evidence was found to support the

research hypothesis, it will take much more than just one learning activity, no matter how

effective, relevant, and engaging it may be, to even come close to changing anything. However

the present research is at the very least a small step in the right direction by laying the

groundwork for future research aimed at developing more relevant and successful teaching

methods.


References

Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., Neild, R. C., & Legters, N. (2003). High-poverty secondary schools

and the juvenile justice system: How neither helps the other and how that could change.

New Directions for Youth Development, 2003(99), 71-89.

Baltimore Montessori Public Charter Middle School # 383 School Profile 2012. (2013, February

20). Baltimore City Public Schools. Retrieved January 3, 2014, from

http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/domain/80/school

profiles/383-BaltimoreMontessoriPublicCharterMiddle-Profile2013.pdf

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2009). Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative Final Evaluation Report.

inTASC report, ., ..

Berk, R. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, youtube, and mtvU in the

college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teach ad Learning, 5(1), 1-

21.

Bishop, T. (2013, August 12). Child researchers seek low-income subjects. Baltimore Sun, p. ..

Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The Effect Of Drawing On Memory Performance In

Young Children.. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 597-608.

By the Numbers / Overview. (2013, December 31). Baltimore City Public Schools. Retrieved

January 3, 2014, from http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/domain/5

Chang, H., Wu, H., & Hsu, Y. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to

contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 44(3), 95-99.

Chang, N. (2011). What are the roles that children's drawings play in inquiry of science

concepts?. Early Child Development and Care, 182(5), 621-637.


Chang, N. (2012). The Role of Drawing in Young Children's Construction of Science Concepts.

Early Childhood Education, 40, 187-193.

Chang, P. (2002). Transmediating through Play and Art in the World of Children.

Transmediation in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy framework (pp. 45-

62). New York: P. Lang.

Daiute, C. (1992). Multimedia Composing: Extending the Resources of Kindergarten to writers

across the grades. Language Arts, 69(4), 250-260.

Doherty, J., & Spindler, L. (n.d.). What Parts of the plant do we eat?. Teacher Preparation

Notes. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/waldron/pdf/PartsOfPlantTeachPrep.pdf

Foreman, G. (2012). The Use of Digital Media in Reggio Emilia. The Hundred Languages of

Children. ; The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. (p. .). Greenwich, Conn:

Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated.

Forman, G., & Fyfe, A. (2012). Negotiated Learning. The Hundred Languages of Children. ; The

Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. (p. .). Greenwich: Greenwood Publishing

Group, Incorporated.

Gardner, H. (2011). Theory of Multiple Intelligenes. Psychology and the real world: essays

illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 122-130). New York, NY: Worth

Publishers.

Gross, J., Hayne, H., & Drury, T. (2009). Drawing Facilitates Children's Reports Of Factual And

Narrative Information: Implications For Educational Contexts. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 23(7), 953-971.

Hall, E. (2009). Mixed Messages: The Role And Value Of Drawing In Early Education.


International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(3), 179-190.

Hibbing, A., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual

images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The Reading

Teacher, 56(8), 758-770.

Hoyt, L. (1992). Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral interactions, and the visual arts to

enhance reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 580-584.

Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Corbalan, G. (2011). Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning,

task characteristics and learning engagement: The Current State of the Art. Computers in

Human Behavior, 27(1), 1-4.

Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an

instructional intervention on middle school english learners' science and english reading

achievement . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987-1011.

Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools: lessons to be

learned. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press.

Lengel, J. G., & Lengel, K. M. (2006). Integrating technology: a practical guide. Boston:

Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension:

Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior,

25(2), 284-289.

Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. The Civil

Rights Project, ., 1-24.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.:

Cambridge University Press.


Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways To Reduce Cognitive Load In Multimedia

Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

McConnell, S. (1993). Talking Drawings: A strategy for assisting readers. Journal of Reading,

36(4), 260-269.

Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent

Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.

Napoli, M. (2002). Transmediation in the Classroom: Implementing Critical Literacy in

Elementary Grades. Transmediation in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy

framework (pp. 35-43). New York: P. Lang.

Paquette, K. R., Fello, S. E., & Jalongo, M. R. (2007). The Talking Drawings Strategy: Using

Primary Children‟s Illustrations And Oral Language To Improve Comprehension Of

Expository Text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 65-73.

Patterson, T., & Hayne, H. (2011). Does Drawing Facilitate Older Children's Reports Of

Emotionally Laden Events?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 119-26.

Plass, J., O'Keefe, P., Homer, B., Case, J., Hayword, E., Stein, M., et al. (2013). The impact of

individual, competitive. Journal of Educational Psychology, ., 1-17.

Price, B. (2007). Managing technology in our schools: establishing goals and creating a plan.

Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Raine, L., & Lenhart, A. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The widening gap between internet-

savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet & American Life Project, ., 1-36.

Reich, J., & Daccord, T. (2008). Best ideas for teaching with technology: a practical guide for

teachers, by teachers. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Rockwell, S., & Singleton, R. (2007). The effect of the modality of presentation of streaming


multimedia on information acquisition. Media Psychology, 9, 179-191.

Rollag, K., & Billsberry, J. (2012). Technology as the Enabler of a New Wave of Active

Learning. Journal of Management Education, 36, 743-752.

Salden, R. J., Paas, F., & Merrienboer, J. J. (2006). A comparison of approaches to learning task

selection in the training of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior,

22(3), 321-333.

Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and

instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations.

Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 89-93.

Scott, V., & Weishaar, M. (2008). Talking Drawings as a University Classroom Assessment

Technique. Journal of Effective Teaching, 8(1), 42-51.

Semali, L. (2002). Transmediation: Why Study the Semiotics of Representation. Transmediation

in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy framework (pp. 2-20). New York: P.

Lang.

Short, K., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. (2000). "I just need to draw" Responding to literature

across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160-171.

Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning.

Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455-475.

Skiba, R., Michael, R., & Nardo, A. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender

disproportionately in school punishment. Policy Research Report, ., 1-23.

Stewart, A., Houghton, S., & Rogers, P. (2012). Instructional Design, Active Learning, and

Student Performance: Using a Trading Room to Teach Strategy . Journal of

Management Education, 36(6), 753-776.


University of Roehampton. Models of Learning, Teaching & Assessment. Guide to Good

Practice in Assessment . Retrieved December 6, 2013, from

http://ws1.roehampton.ac.uk/guidetogoodpracticeinassessment/teachinglearningandasses

sment/learningteaching/index.html

Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing:

Literature Review and Synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285-325.

Vincent, J. (2001). The role of visually rich technology in facilitating children's writing. Journal

of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 242-250.

Vincent, J. (2003). Individual differences, technology and the teacher of the future. Australia

Computer Society, Inc. 1-4.

Wesson, M., & Salmon, K. (2001). Drawing And Showing: Helping Children To Report

Emotionally Laden Events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(3), 301-319.

Whitin, P. (2002). Leading into Literature Circles through the Sketch-to-Stretch Strategy. The

Reading Teacher, 55(5), 444-450.


Appendix A

Introduction

• This presentation is on the different parts of plants.

• Please read everything on each slide.

• Don’t skip to the next slide until you see the “next button” pop up, which looks like this.

• Follow the instructions on the slides.

• You may look back at skipped slides if you want.

• You will be quizzed on this information so take your time!

• Enjoy!

Slide A1

Plant Parts!(Hit the next button when you’re ready!)

A quick lesson written by Alex Dorman based on Dr. Doherty and Dr. Spindler’s

lesson “What Parts of the Plant do we Eat?”

Slide A3

Stems•Stems can be found either underground or above ground.

•Stems have segments called Nodes.

• The part in between the nodes is the Internode.

•Some nodes are Lateral Buds, which can grow into branches and leaves.

Slide A5

Drawing Instructions

• Some slides will ask you to draw a picture based on what you’re learning.

• Draw whatever comes to mind!

• You must draw something (be creative)!

• You may LABEL your drawings!

• Don’t go to the next slide until the Next Button pops up.

• Have fun with the drawing!

Slide A2

Draw a picture of a plant stem!

Slide A4

Draw a picture of a plant stem with your new knowledge!

Slide A6


What do Stems do?

• Stems connect the leaves to the roots.

• Stems support the leaves of the plant so the leaves can capture sunlight.

• Some stems are used for storage of nutrients.

Slide A7

Draw a picture of leaves!

Slide A9

Draw a picture of leaves with your new knowledge!

Slide A11

Roots• Roots have two main

functions:

– Holding the plant in place like an anchor.

– Absorbing water and nutrients.

• Some roots serve as a place to store sugars made above ground.

– An examples of a root that does this is carrots.

Slide A13

Draw a picture showing what stems do with your new knowledge!

Slide A8

Leaves

• If a leaf is located above ground, its main goal is to take in sunlight.

• If a leaf is underground, its main goal is to store nutrients.

• The one thing all leaves have in common is the presence of veins.

Slide A10

Draw a picture of Plant Roots!

Slide A12

Draw picture of what roots do with your new knowledge!

Slide A14


Draw a picture of a flower!

Slide A15

Draw a flower with your new knowledge!

Slide A17

Fruits

• A fruit is defined by having seeds.

• This means that if a plant part has seeds, it is a fruit.

• This means things like pumpkins, cucumbers, and tomatoes are fruits because they have seeds.

Slide A19

Draw a picture of how plant seeds spread!

Slide A21

Flowers• Flowers are the reproductive structures of the

plant, designed to attract pollinators like bees.

• Parts of a flower include:

– The Stamens

– The Pistil

– The Petals

Slide A16

Draw a picture of fruit!

Slide A18

Draw a picture of fruit with your new knowledge!

Slide A20

How Seeds Spread• Fruit is one way for plants to spread their

seeds.

• Fruit is sweet and colorful so animals want to eat it.

• Animals then spread the fruit seeds through their droppings (poop).

Slide A22


Now draw a picture of seeds spreading with your new knowledge!

Slide A23

Good job you’re done!

Slide A24


Appendix B

Test on Plant Parts.

Circle the best possible answer

1. On the stem, branches and leaves can grow out of the ________?

a. The Internodes

b. The Nodes

c. The Vertical Bud

d. The Lateral Bud

2. What part of the stem is in between the Nodes?

a. The greater node

b. The internode

c. The lesser node

d. The outernode

3. Name one of the three things stems do for a plant.

a. Connect leaves to the roots

b. Support leaves so they can soak up sunlight

c. Storage for nutrients

d. All of the above

4. A leaf can…

a. Soak up sunlight if aboveground

b. Store nutrients if belowground

c. Neither a nor b

d. Both a and b

5. One feature all leaves have in common is?

a. Veins

b. Being green

c. A stalk

d. Phosphorus

6. Roots work like _________________

a. A float to keep the plants from drowning

b. A repellant to keep bugs away

c. An anchor to hold the plant in place

d. A wire to keep the roots connected to other roots

7. Roots are cable of_____________

a. Testing the soil‟s health

b. Absorbing water and nutrients

c. Defending the plant against toxins

d. Telling the tree when to drop its leaves.


8. Some roots store sugars that were made above ground. What types of roots do this?

a. Yams

b. Carrots

c. Apples

d. Celery

9. What is the purpose of a flower?

a. To shade the stem from the sun

b. To be more appealing to humans and animals

c. To stop photosynthesis

d. To attract pollinators like bees

10. Which of these answers is not a part of a flower?

a. Stamen

b. Pistil

c. Rhondus

d. Petal

11. Why does fruit tend to be sweet and colorful?

a. To stop predators

b. To encourage animals to eat it

c. Because the sun makes the colors brighter

d. Because the fruit has seeds

12. How are fruit seeds commonly spread naturally?

a. Through animal feces

b. The wind

c. Humans growing fruit trees

d. Through photosynthesis

13. What defines a fruit?

a. Sweet flavor

b. It grows on trees

c. It has seeds

d. It can only grow in a warm climate

14. Which of these is a fruit?

a. A pumpkin

b. Broccoli

c. Cauliflower

d. Celery

15. Which of these is not a fruit?

a. Tomatoes

b. Pumpkins

c. Cucumbers

d. Radish


Appendix C

Circle the number that shows how you feel about the following statements.

1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Mildly Disagree, 3 Neutral/I don‟t know, 4 Mildly agree, 5 Strongly agree

1. I liked the presentation

1 2 3 4 5

2. The presentation was educational

1 2 3 4 5

3. The presentation was boring

1 2 3 4 5

4. The presentation was enjoyable

1 2 3 4 5

5. The presentation was understandable

1 2 3 4 5

6. The presentation was interesting

1 2 3 4 5

7. I learned a lot from the presentation

1 2 3 4 5

8. I did not learn anything from the presentation

1 2 3 4 5

9. I am comfortable using Microsoft Powerpoint

1 2 3 4 5

10. I am comfortable using the internet

1 2 3 4 5

11. I am comfortable using computers

1 2 3 4 5

12. I have access to the internet at home?

Yes No


Appendix D

Drawing with Only Prior Knowledge versus Drawing with New Knowledge

Figure D1

Figure D2


Figure D3

Figure D4

transmediation and technology in an urban classroom setting

Documents