The Effect of Multimedia-Based Learning on the Concept Learning Levels and Attitudes of Students

Abstract

Problem Statement: Rich stimuli received by sensory organs such as vision, hearing, and touch are important elements that affect an individual’s perception, identification, classification, and conceptualization of the external world. In primary education, since students perform conceptual abstraction based upon concrete characteristics, when they lack sufficient knowledge of and experience with these characteristics, they encounter serious difficulty with performing conceptual abstraction and using concepts according to their functions.

Purpose of the Study: This study examined the impact of teaching based on rich stimuli upon students’ effective use of conceptualization processes and whether multimedia-based learning can change the attitudes of students toward learning.

Methods: A 28-item concept test (r.703) and 28-item attitude scale (r.87) were developed for a unit titled “Let’s Get Acquainted with Our Region” of a social studies course. The levels of students’ learning concepts covered in the unit and their use in accordance with their functions were examined via a pretest–posttest model. Students in the experimental group were taught 24 concepts covered in the unit through multimedia-based teaching activities for 6 weeks. In the control group, the same concepts were taught with teaching activities already established for the unit. Students in the experimental group subjected to multimedia-based teaching were compared with the control group students in terms of how they perceived, distinguished, classified, generalized, and functionally used concepts. An attitude scale was also administered both before and after teaching to determine whether any change occurred in the attitudes of students toward their respective courses. Data analysis involved calculating means and standard deviations, as well as t tests and one-way analysis of variance.

Finding and Results: In terms of identifying and classifying concepts and making inferences through generalization, students in the experimental group showed a significantly positive change in attitude toward the social studies course.

Conclusions and Recommendations: This study highlighted the importance of a balanced use of information channels and the critical role of contextual arrangements in multimedia-based teaching concerning how students use concepts according to their functions at the end of concept-teaching processes. Based on the findings, some recommendations can be made regarding the concept-teaching process, the teaching materials used in the teaching process, and the elimination of deficiencies about concept teaching.

Keywords: Classification, conceptualization, functional use, generalization, identification, rich stimuli

Keywords

• Classification, conceptualization, functional use, generalization, identification, rich stimuli

Çoklu Ortama Dayalı Öğrenmenin Öğrencilerin Kavram Öğrenme Düzeylerine ve Tutumlarına Etkisi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sınıflandırma, kavramsallaştırma, işlevsel kullanım, genelleme, belirleme, çoklu uyaran

References

1. Ahn, W., Brewer, W. F.& Mooney, R. J. (1992). Schema acquisition from a single example. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 391–412.
2. Altınısık, S. & Orhan, F. (2002). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde çoklu ortamın ogrencilerin akademik basarıları ve derse karsı tutumları üzerine etkisi [The effects of multimedia learning environments on students’ attitudes and achievement in social studies]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 23, 4–49.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbolsystem. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
4. Barsalou, L. W.& Wiemer–Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), The grounding of cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Bayram, S. (2004). The effect of instruction with concrete models on eighth grade students’ geometry achievement and attitudes toward geometry (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
6. Berman, B. & Friederwitzer, F. J. (1983). Teaching fractions without numbers. School Science and Mathematics, 83(1), 77–82.
7. Bulut, P. T. (2006). Kavram geliştirme yonteminin 5. sınıf ögrencilerinin kelime hazinelerini geliştirmeye etkisi [The effects of concept developing method on improving the vocabulary of 5th-grade students]. Yayımlanmamış yuksek lisans tezi, Gazi Universitesi, Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Ankara.
8. Bundy, A., Lane, S.& Murray, E. (2002). Sensory integration (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: PA: F. A. Davis.

9. Cakmak, E. K. (2007). Çoklu ortamlarda dar bogaz: Asırı bilissel yüklenme. [The bottleneck in multimedia: Cognitive overload]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 27(2), 1–24.
10. Cengelci, B. N. (1996). Gelisimsel olarak kavram ve kategori yapılarının incelenmesi [Examination of developmental concepts and category structure]. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ege Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu, Izmir.
11. Driscoll, M. (1984). What research says? Arithmetic Teacher, 31(6), 34–35.
12. Geban, O., Ertepınar, H., Yılmaz, G., Altın, A., & Sahbaz, F. (1994). Bilgisayar destekli egitimin öğrencilerin fen bilgisi basarılarına ve fen bilgisi ilgilerine etkisi [The effect of computer-aided instruction on student achievement and attitudes toward science]. Birinci Ulusal Fen Bilimleri Egitimi Sempozyumu Bildiri Ozetleri Kitabı. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul Üniversitesi.
13. Gelder, B.& Vroomen, J. (1997). Modality effects in immediate recall of verbal and non-verbal information. Psychology Press, 9(1), 97–110.
14. Goldstone, R. L. & Steyvers, M. (2001). The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 116–139.
15. Goldstone, R. L. (2000). Unitization during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 86–112.
16. Hartshorn, R., & Boren, S. (1990). Experimental learning of mathematics: Using manipulatives. ERIC Digest. (ED 321967).
17. Heddens, J. W. (1986). Bridging the gap between the concrete and the abstract. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 14–17.
18. Issa R. R. A., Cox, R. F., & Killingsworth, C. F. (1999). Impact of multimedia-based instruction on learning and retention. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13, 281–290.
19. Klausmeier, H. J. (1975). Conceptual development during the school years. Paper presented at the conference of the American Educational Reserach Association, Washington, DC.
20. Klausmeier, H. J. (1976). Individually guided education: 1966–1980. Journal of Teacher Education, 27, 199–205.
21. Merrill, M. D.& Tennyson, R. D. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
22. Manocha, A.& Narang, D. (2004). Concept development status of rural preschoolers. Journal of Human Ecology, 16(2), 113–118.
23. Richards, D. D., Goldfarb, J., Richards A. L.& Hassen, P. (1989). The role of the functionality rule in the categorization of well-defined concepts. Journal of Exerimental Child Psychology, 4(7), 97–115.
24. Sarı, I. F. (1993). Interaktif multimedya [Interactive multimedia]. Macintosh Dünyası, 34–39.
25. Sebastian J. C.& Elizabeth K. (2005). Warrington abstract and concrete concepts have structurally different presentational frame works, Oxford Journals Medicine Brain, 128(3), 615–627. doi:10.1093/brain/awh349
26. Senemoglu, N. (2015). Gelisim ögrenme ve ögretim kuramdan uygulamaya [Development, learning, and teaching from theory to practice]. Ankara: Yargı Yayınları.
27. Smeets, G. & Mooij, T. (2000). Modelling and supporting ICT implementation in secondary schools. Journal of Computers and Education, 36, 265–281.
28. Sowell, E. (1974). Another look at materials in elementary school mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 74(3), 207–211.
29. Sowell, E. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 498–505.
30. Sprinthall, R. C.& Sprinthall, N. A. (1977). Educational psychology: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Addison–Wesley.
31. Stanic, G. M. A.& McKillip, W. D. (1989). Developmental algorithms have place in elementary school mathematics instruction. Arithmetic Teacher, 36(5), 14–16.
32. Stephenson, J. (2002). Characterization of multisensory environments: Why do teachers use them? Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 15, 73–90.
33. Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L.& van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2001). The modality effect in multimedia instructions. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1024–1029). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer–based ınstruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 525–532.
35. Willis, J. (2008). How your child learns best: Brain-friendly strategies you can use to ignite your child’s learning and increase school success. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
36. Woodrow, J., Mayer–Smith, J.& Pedretti, E. (2000). Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: a case study. Computers & Education, 35(1), 51–63.