Multimedia in Higher Education: Proliferation of Tools + Paucity of Research = Opportunities

10th Global Conference on Business & EconomicsISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2

Multimedia in Higher Education:

Proliferation of Tools + Paucity of Research = Opportunities

Authors

Janette Moody, Ph.D., The Citadel

(contact author)

843-953-6947

and

Gregory L. Krippel, Ph.D., Coastal Carolina University

843-349-2643

Abstract

Investments in what is termed “classroom technology” take many forms today, ranging from synchronous and asynchronous distance learning systems to interactive smart boards to VCR players and interactive computer simulations. Each of these delivery methods could be construed as providing some form of multimedia. The reasons for these investments vary, but seldom if ever are the decisions to purchase made on the basis of pedagogical research supporting the acquisition.

This paper provides a framework for viewing and organizing research on the use of one major component of classroom technology, e.g. multimedia, for educational purposes. This framework highlights under-researched areas to illustrate opportunities for future studiesthatcould help clarify the appropriate use of multimedia by educators. The paper begins with a review of what educators and researchers consider multimedia and its importance to the learning process. We next provide a representative review of recent research findings across a variety of disciplines, and conclude with a discussion of promising areas of additional research to guide educators wishing to utilize multimedia tools.

introduction

Universities have invested significant resources in classroom technologies, ranging from synchronous and asynchronous distance learning systems to interactive smart boards to VCR players and interactive computer simulations. One reason given for the expenditures is that instruction can be tailored to each student’s learning needs, allowing for mass customization as well as substantial productivity increases by faculty (Taylor and Schmidtlein, 2000). However, while installation of state-of-the art technology has been viewed as a competitive tool for attracting students, faculty (Parker and Burnie, 2009) and possibly donors, few faculty or administrators can articulate the pedagogical research supporting a specific technology’s contribution to learning effectiveness. Furthermore, surveys within the last decade indicated that the technology of choice was actually very “low tech” for a significant number of faculty who preferred the use of overhead transparencies and projectors which they believed “greatly enhanced their teaching effectiveness” (Peluchette and Rust, 2005, p. 202). Factors commonly cited as necessary in order for faculty to adopt new instructional tools are organizational support and training resources (Keengwe, Kidd, and Kyei-Blankson, 2009), rather than evidence of the effectiveness of the tools.

Given the speed of innovation in, and the diversity of, technological instructional tools, an examination of the pedagogical research supporting their use can provide insight into those areas of mature research and those areas ripe for new insights.

Multimedia Defined

Humans receive data through multiple channels, i.e. media, including audio and visual channels (Paivio, 1969) as well as touch, taste and smell. To date, little if any research in the educational use of multimedia has considered the channels of touch, taste or smell. Clark and Feldon (2005) indicate that while touch, taste and smell are sensory modes, there are limitations on the media by which they can be represented. Although at its most basic definition, the term multimedia would imply the use of more than one medium (Yu, et al., 2009), other definitions are more stringent such as Tannenbaum’s (1998) definition that multimedia must include an interactive component which allows the user to interact with the material, influencing the course of a computer-controlled presentation.More typically the term implies conveying information through some combinationof two or more forms of text, graphics, animations, and video with images and voices (Woo, 2009).

Swisher (2007) indicates that the use of media for instructional purposes can be traced back to 1919 in the United States, and media comparison studies since the 1950’s under the auspices of Yale University’s Communication Research Program. Unfortunately these early studies left much to be desired in that they focused on the delivery mechanism rather than the instructional methods, and often the instructional methods failed to understand the cognitive processes involved in learning. To address this void, research developed to provide a deeper understanding of the “cognitive architecture”, i.e., the cognitive processes at work (Reed, 2006).

Regardless of whether one utilizes a basic definition or a more stringent one, the implication in the literature is that regardless of the “combinations or permutations of common media formats, the whole should be greater than the sum of the parts.” (Zhang, et al., 2008, p.156). It is in fact this very wealth of combinations of audio, animation, video, simulations, interactive diagrams, etc. that fosters the development of a myriad of instructional designs that yield mixed research outcomes regarding the effectiveness of multimedia to enhance learning. The following section provides research examples that have examined the effectiveness of multimedia as a learning tool.

Multimedia Research: Theoretical Foundations and Research Results

Swisher (2007) provides an overview of the two major theories of learning used in current research as a basis for instructional designs: Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2005) and Mayer’s (2005) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) based on Paivio’s (1969) Dual Coding Theory. The CTML utilizes the concept of dual modalities to denote the two major delivery means (e.g., visual and/or auditory formats) whereby the senses of seeing and hearing can perceive information. Additional theories of multimedia learning processes have been proposed by Samaras, et al., (2006) that incorporate variables such as content, learner’s prior knowledge, learning styles, etc.

As noted above,some have concluded that placing more items into the multimedia mix for instructional delivery is better than fewer items and thus proceed to do so now that technological advances have made doing so more affordable and accessible than ever. Unfortunately, the mixed results inlearning outcomes from applying multimedia instruction would indicate that a deeper understanding of the variables at work is warranted. Thusthe representative review presented in Table 1 of research testing various aspects of multimedia instructional design features can provide a starting point for those wishing torespond to under-researched areas and/or interested in adding selected multimedia features to their academic programs. Although additional research has been conducted in K-12 environments, all research studies cited in Table 1 were in college and university settings.

Research Opportunities

Various authors have proposed the fundamental principles of effective multimedia instructional design (Zhang, et al., 2008; Swisher, 2007), some of which have been successfully implemented (Thompson & McGill, 2008) while others have not (Muller, et al., 2008). As seen in Table 1, the myriad of factors that can affect the research outcomes in instructional use of multimedia projects continue to lead to mixed results, providing numerous opportunities for additional, well-designed, theoretically-based research projects. One under-researched topic involves the use of animated pedagogical agents (APA) to extend online learning from merely content enhancement to include a “human” presence (Woo, 2009). Another unexplored area suggested by Bishop, et al. (2007) is to move beyond the use of sound for literal informative conveyance to produce a deeper and more sustained level of learning.

A practical and insightful guide to developing effective research projects is provided by Muller, et al. (2006). Additional guidance can be found in Ke, et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis that focuses on the learning outcomes associated with animations as a specific form of multimedia. In order to provide actionable research results that informs the academic community, researchers are cautioned to focus on the critical issues of the paradigm of inquiry and the methodological issues associated with the myriad of variables (Kennedy, 2000).

Finally, with the emergence of the mobile phone as the computing platform of choice for many students (Crow, et al., 2010) and the increased use of iPods (Doolittle & Mariano, 2008) and iPads, an expanded view of what constitutes an enhanced learning environment is becoming increasingly necessary and will itself expand the need for more focused research to promote effective learning outcomes.

References

Austin, K.A. (2009). Multimedia learning: cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53, 1339-1354.

Bishop, M.J., Amankwatia, T. B.& Cates, W.M. (2007). Sound’s use in instructional software to enhance learning: a theory-to-content analysis. Education Tech Research Dev. 58, 467-486.

Bridgemohan, C.F., Levy, S., Veluz, A. & Knight, J. (2005). Teaching paediatric residents about learning disorders: use of standardized case discussion versus multimedia computer tutorial. Medical Education. 39, 797-806.

Clark, R.E. & Feldon, D. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.97-115.

Crowe, R., Santos, I., McFadden, A., LeBaron, J. & Osborne, C. (2010). Switching gears: moving from e-learning to m-learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 6(1), 268-278.

Doolittle, P.E. & Mariano, G.J. (2008). Working memory, capacity and mobile multimedia learning environments: individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 17(4), 511-530.

Doymus, K. Karacop, A. & Simsek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Education Tech Research Dev. Published online by Springer, 17 April 2010.

Dunsworth, Q. & Atkinson, R.K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education. 49, 677-690.

Ellis, T. (2004). Animating to build higher cognitive understanding: A model for studying multimedia effectiveness in education. Journal of Engineering Education.93(1), 59-64.

Evan, C.Gibbons, N.(2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning, Computers & Education. 49, 1147-1160

Ke, F., Huifen, L. & Ching, Y. (2006). Effects of animation on multi-level learning outcomes for learners with different characteristics: a meta-analytic assessment and interpretation. Journal of Visual Literacy. 26(1), 15-40.

Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009).Faculty and technology: implications for faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education Technology. 18, 23-28.

Kennedy, G. E. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of new multimedia teaching technologies. Presentation at Veterinary Comparative Respiratory Society (VCRS) Conference. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from on 5-28-10.

Koehler, M., Yadav, A., Phillips, M. & Cavazos-Kottke, S. (2005). What is video good for? Examining how media and story genre interact. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 14(3), 249-272.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 1-635.

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist. 760-769

Moundridou, M & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 18, 252-261.

Muller, K., Kester, J. & Sharma, J. (2008). Coherence or interest: which is most important in online multimedia learning? Australasian Journal of educational Technology. 24(2), 211-221.

Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in association learning and memory. Psychological Review, Vol. 76, 241-263.

Parker, B. & Burnie, D. (2009). Classroom technology in business schools: a survey of installations and attitudes toward teaching and learning. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal. 17(1), 45-60.

Peluchette, J. & Rust, K. (2005). Technology use in the classroom: preferences of management faculty members. Journal of Education for Business. 80(4), 200-205.

Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87-98.

Samaras, H., Giouvanakis, T., Dousiou, D. & Tarabanis, K. (2006). Towards a new generation of multimedia learning design and research: broadening established theories of multimedia learning. IADIS International Conference Applied Computing.

Sanchez, E. & Garcia-Rodicio, H. (2008). The use of modality in the design of verbal aids in computer-based learning environments. Interacting With Computers. 20, 545-561.

Stelzer, T., Gladding, G., Mestre, J. & Brookes, D. (2009). Comparing the efficacy of multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content. American Journal of Physics. 77(2), 184-190.

Swisher, D. (2007). Does multimedia truly enhance learning? Moving beyond the viual media bandwagon toward instructional effectiveness. Presentation at Kansas State University at Salina, Professional Day Program.

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. 19-30.

Taylor, A.L. and F. A. Schmidtlein. 2000. Creating a cost framework for instructional technology. Technology Source November/ December 2000.

Tannenbaum, R. S. (1998). Theoretical foundations of multimedia. New York: Computer Science Press.

Thompson, N. & McGill, T. (2008). Multimedia and cognition: examining the effect of applying cognitive principles to the design of instructional materials. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 39(2). 143- 159.

Woo, H. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 25, 203-218.

Yu, C., Jannasch-Pennell, A., Digangi, S., & Kaprolet, C. (2009). An exploratory crossover study of learner perceptions of use of audio in multimedia-based tutorials. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 40(1), 23-46.

Zhang, H., Want, Y., Zhao, B, Li, G., & Lou, Y. (2008).Multimedia instructional design corresponded to cognitive psychology. In E.W.C. Leung et al. (Eds.), Advances in Blended Learning. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer., 155-164.

Table 1: Multimedia research and learning outcomes

Media Channel / Theoretical
Basis Cited / Research Performed / Outcome
and Content Area
Audio / Dual coding theory (Mayer & Moreno, 2002) / Yu, et al. 2007 / No difference between performances under human audio and non-audio, but both out-performed the computer-audio (Instruction on “Item Response Theory”)
Visual
- Video / Dual coding (Paivio, 1990) / Koehler, et al., 2005 / Equivalent information recall from video versus text for stories (Education)
- Animation / Dual modality (Mayer, 2001) / Stelzer, et al., 2009 / Multimedia learning out-performed textbook learning (Physics)
Dual coding (Paivio, 1990); Social constructivists (Wu, 2003) / Doymus, et al., 2010 / Learners with animationworking in groups out-performed the control (Electrochemisty)
Constructivist learning (Smock, 1981) / Ellis, 2004 / Learners with animation out-performed text-only learners in application knowledge (Boolean algebra)
Visual
- Animated with agent / Social agency theory (Atkinson et al., 2005);
Dual modality (Mayer, 2001) / Dunsworth & Atkinson, 2007 / No learning improvement in audio over text. Audio + agent effect out-performed written text, but not for long-term retention (Human circulatory system)
None cited. / Moundridou & Virou, 2002 / No difference in learning outcomes with or without an agent (Mathematics)
Visual
- Non-animated / None cited. / Bridgemohan, et al., 2005 / No learning improvement in multimedia presentation versus live facilitated case discussion (Pediatrics)
- Animation with interactivity / Constructivist learning model (Jonassen, 1992) / Evans & Gibbons, 2007 / Interactive learners out-performed on deep learning but not retention (Bicycle pumps)
Audio/Visual / Dual modality (Mayer, 2001) / Sanchez & Garcia, 2008 / Those with visual aids for explanations out-performed audio aids (Geology)
CTML (Mayer, 2001, 2002) / Austin, 2009 / Learners with animation and expository text out-performed animation, text, and narration learners. Placement of text and individual differences also considered (Basis of lightning)

1

October 15-16, 2010

Rome, Italy