-

Abstract

Despite the existence of a large body of research on multimedia materials presented to students with different learning styles in online environments, few studies have investigated different educational video types and their relationship with learning styles. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of educational videos presented in two different content stream formats (streaming and no-streaming) on academic achievement and motivations of student with visual learning styles. The current study used a pretest-posttest experimental design. 61 teacher candidates studying at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of School Teaching Department of Education in Turkey participated in the study. Participants with visual learning styles were determined by using Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Soloman, 1994). Streaming and nonstreaming educational videos were prepared by the lecturer of the course. The first group (n=31) studied with streaming educational videos, while on the other hand the second group (n=30) studied with non-streaming educational videos. An academic achievement test was developed to measure the participants’ performances. Also to measure the motivation was used the Turkish version (Kutu & Sözbilir, 2011) of the ARCS motivation survey developed by Keller (1987). According to the results of the research, there was no significant difference between the success of the groups studied either with streaming or non-streaming educational videos [F(1,59)= 2,1 p>.05]. This result suggests revisiting Mayer’s (2001) Segmenting Principle in terms of learning styles. Also, there was no significant difference in general motivations of both groups. However, when examined with attention-relevance dimension of motivation, the group studied with streaming videos was significantly more motivated than the non-streaming one. According to this result, it is possible to state that the stream progress of the content presented in the educational video can lead to a positive impact on visual students' attention and interests when compared to the other presentation format. Also, it can be said that the stream progress can be more suitable than other presentation format for visual students’ learning needs. The analysis of the data also revealed no significant difference in the dimension of the confidence-satisfaction of motivation. Thus, it can be said that students with visual learning styles can develop a positive expectation for both types of presentations and also both types of presentations can provide internal and external support for visual students. The results also indicated no significant differences in monitoring time and replay numbers of both types of presentations according to the t-test results. This finding shows that, any changes that may be observed in success and motivation of the visual learners are not associated with the monitoring time and replay numbers of both types of presentations

Keywords

• Multimedia, visual learning styles, success, motivation

The effect of educational videos presented in two different content stream on motivation and achievement of students with visual learning styles / İki farklı içerik akışında sunulan eğitsel videoların görsel öğrenme stiline sahip öğrencilerin akademik baş

Abstract

Despite the existence of a large body of research on multimedia materials presented to students with different learning styles in online environments, few studies have investigated different educational video types and their relationship with learning styles. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of educational videos presented in two different content stream formats (streaming and no-streaming) on academic achievement and motivations of student with visual learning styles. The current study used a pretest-posttest experimental design. 61 teacher candidates studying at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of School Teaching Department of Education in Turkey participated in the study. Participants with visual learning styles were determined by using Index of Learning Styles (Felder & Soloman, 1994).  Streaming and non-streaming educational videos were prepared by the lecturer of the course. The first group (n=31) studied with streaming educational videos, while on the other hand the second group (n=30) studied with non-streaming educational videos. An academic achievement test was developed to measure the participants’ performances. Also to measure the motivation was used the Turkish version (Kutu & Sözbilir, 2011) of the ARCS motivation survey developed by Keller (1987). According to the results of the research, there was no significant difference between the success of the groups studied either with streaming or non-streaming educational videos [F(1,59)= 2,1 p>.05]. This result suggests revisiting Mayer’s (2001) Segmenting Principle in terms of learning styles. Also, there was no significant difference in general motivations of both groups. However, when examined with attention-relevance dimension of motivation, the group studied with streaming videos was significantly more motivated than the non-streaming one. According to this result, it is possible to state that the stream progress of the content presented in the educational video can lead to a positive impact on visual students' attention and interests when compared to the other presentation format.  Also, it can be said that the stream progress can be more suitable than other presentation format for visual students’ learning needs. The analysis of the data also revealed no significant difference in the dimension of the confidence-satisfaction of motivation. Thus, it can be said that students with visual learning styles can develop a positive expectation for both types of presentations and also both types of presentations can provide internal and external support for visual students. The results also indicated no significant differences in monitoring time and replay numbers of both types of presentations according to the t-test results.  This finding shows that, any changes that may be observed in success and motivation of the visual learners are not associated with the monitoring time and replay numbers of both types of presentations.

Keywords

• Çoklu ortam, görsel öğrenme stili, başarı, motivasyon

References

1. Abdul-Rahman, S. S., & Du Boulay, B. (2014). Learning programming via worked-examples: Relation of learning styles to cognitive load. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 286-298.
2. Ahmad, N., & Tasir, Z. (2013). Threshold Value in Automatic Learning Style Detection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 346-352.
3. Aldera, A. S., & Mohsen, M. A. (2013). Annotations in captioned animation: Effects on vocabulary learning. Computers & Education, 68(2013), 60–75.
4. Allison, C., Miller, A., Oliver, I., Michaelson, R., & Tiropanis, T. (2012). The Web in education. Computer Networks, 56(18), 3811-3824.
5. Aronson, I. D., Plass, J. L., & Bania, T. C. (2012). Optimizing educational video through comparative trials in clinical environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(3), 469–482.
6. Ayersman, D. J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning.Journal of Research on computing in Education, 28(4), 500-525.
7. Bahar, H. H., Özen, Y., & Gülaçtı, F. (2007). Eğitim Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Cinsiyet ve Kayıtlı Olunan Programa Göre Akademik Başarı Durumlarının ve Öğrenme Stillerinin İncelenmesi. XVI. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi.
8. Bilgin, I., & Durmuş, S. (2003). Öğrenme Stilleri ile Öğrenci Başarısı Arasındaki İlişki Üzerine Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştirma. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(2).

9. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417–436.
10. Carver Jr, C. A., Howard, R. A., & Lane, W. D. (1999). Enhancing student learning through hypermedia courseware and incorporation of student learning styles. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 42(1), 33-38.
11. Chan, Y. M. (2010). Video instructions as support for beyond classroom learning. World Conference on Learning. Teaching and Administration Papers, 9, s. 1313–1318. Cairo, Egypt.
12. Chang, Y. C., Kao, W. Y., Chu, C. P., & Chiu, C. H. (2009). A learning style classification mechanism for e-learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 273-285.
13. Chen, C. M., & Sun, Y. C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1273-1285.
14. Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance.Computers & Education, 80, 108-121.
15. Cheng, G. (2014). Exploring students' learning styles in relation to their acceptance and attitudes towards using Second Life in education: A case study in Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 70, 105-115.
16. Collinson, E. (2000). A survey of elementary students' learning style preferences and academic success. Contemporary Education, 71(4), 42-48.
17. Constantinou, C. P., & Papadouris, N. (2004). Potential Contribution of Digital Video to the Analysis of the Learning Process in Physics: A Case Study in the Context of Electric Circuits. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(1), 21-29.
18. De Boer, J., Kommers, P. A., & De Brock, B. (2011). Using learning styles and viewing styles in streaming video. Computers & Education, 56(3), 727-735.
19. Dennen, V., & Myers, J. (2010). Podcast Pedagogy: Message Design, Motivation, and Learning. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vol. 2010, No. 1, pp. 43-49).
20. Dikkartın, F. T. (2006). Geometri Öğretiminde 4 MAT Öğretim Modelinin Öğrenci Başarısı ve Tutumları Üzerine Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
21. Dunn, R., Giannitti, M. C., Murray, J. B., Rossi, I., Geisert, G., & Quinn, P. (1990). Grouping students for instruction: Effects of learning style on achievement and attitudes. The Journal of social psychology, 130(4), 485-494.
22. Dufour, J. C., Cuggia, M., Soula, G., Spector, M., & Kohler, F. (2007). An integrated approach to distance learning with digital video in the French-speaking Virtual Medical University. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(5-6), 369–376.
23. El-Sayed, R.E.-S.H., & El-Sayed, S.E.-H.A.E.-R. (2013). Video-based lectures: An emerging paradigm forteaching human anatomy and physiology to student nurses. Alexandria Journal of Medicine, 49(3), 215–222
24. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681.
25. Felder, R.M. & Soloman, B. A. (1994). Index of Learning Styles. North Carolina State University, http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSdir.html [viewed 10 August, 2004].
26. Feldman, J., Monteserin, A., & Amandi, A. (2014). Detecting students' perception style by using games. Computers & Education, 71, 14-22.
27. Graf, S., Liu, T. C., Chen, N. S., & Yang, S. J. (2009). Learning styles and cognitive traits–Their relationship and its benefits in web-based educational systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1280-1289.
28. Gregorc, A. F. (1979).Learning/ teaching styles: Their nature and effects. In student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing program. Reston. VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals, U.S.A.
29. Hakkarainen, P. (2009). Designing and implementing a PBL course on educational digital video production: lessons learned from a design-based research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2), 211-228.
30. Holland, A., Smith, F., McCrossan, G., Adamson, E., Watt, S., & Penny, K. (2013). Online video in clinical skills education of oral medication administration for undergraduate student nurses: A mixed methods, prospective cohort study. Nurse Education Today, 33(6), 663–670.
31. Kassim, H. (2013). The Relationship between Learning Styles, Creative Thinking Performance and Multimedia Learning Materials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 229-237.
32. Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 145-159.
33. -
34. Karakuyu, Y., & Tortop, H. S. (2010). Öğretmen Adaylarının Öğrenme Stillerinin Fizik Dersine Yönelik Tutum ve Başarılarına Etkisi. AKÜ Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 01-47.
35. Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning Style Theory and Practice. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1904 Association Dr., Reston, VA 22091.
36. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of instructional development, 10(3), 2-10.
37. Keller, J. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Motivational Design of Instruction, by Reigeluth, CM, 384-434.
38. Klašnja-Milićević, A., Vesin, B., Ivanović, M., & Budimac, Z. (2011). E-Learning personalization based on hybrid recommendation strategy and learning style identification. Computers & Education, 56(3), 885-899.
39. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
40. Kutu, H., & Sozbilir, M. (2011). Öğretim Materyalleri Motivasyon Anketinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 5(1).
41. Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Redundancy and expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to learn primary school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 1-13.
42. Mahazir I, I., Norazah, M. N., Ridzwan, C. R., & Azwin Arif, A. A. (2013). Relationship between the Acceptance of Mobile Learning for AutoCAD Course and Learning Style in Polytechnic. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,102, 177-187.
43. Matthews, D. B. (1996). An investigation of learning styles and perceived academic achievement for high school students. The Clearing House, 249-254.
44. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.), ISBN: 9780521735353
45. Moodle (2014) https://moodle.org/
46. Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008). Do classroom exemplars promote the application of principles in teacher education? A comparison of videos, animations, and narratives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 449-465.
47. Mutlu, M. (2004). İlköğretim 8. sınıf fen bilgisi dersinde fotosentez-hücresel solunum konusunun 4mat öğretim modeli kullanılarak öğretilmesinin öğrenci tutum ve başarısı üzerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
48. Myers, I.B., McCaulley, M.H., (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Vol. 3rd Consulting Psychologists Press (1985)
49. Lumsden, L. S. (1994). Student Motivation To Learn. ERIC Digest, Number 92.
50. Ocepek, U., Bosnić, Z., Nančovska Šerbec, I., & Rugelj, J. (2013). Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia types. Computers & Education, 69, 343-355.
51. Orhan, F., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1999). Uzaktan eğitim yaklaşımında temel eğitim 1. kademe öğretmenleri'nin video destekli hizmetiçi eğitimi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(17).
52. Palmer, S. (2007). An evaluation of streaming digital video resources in on-and off-campus engineering management education. Computers & Education, 49(2007), 297–308.
53. Reiff, J. C. (1992). Learning Styles. What Research Says to the Teacher Series.
54. Romero, C., Ventura, S., & García, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51(1), 368-384.
55. Samancı, N. K., & Keskin, M. Ö. (2007) Felder and Soloman’s Learning Style Index: Adaption to Turkish and Validity-Reliability Study. Ahi Evran University Kırşehir Education Faculty Magazine (KEFAD) 8(2),37-54
56. Shinnick, M. A., & Woo, M. A. (2014). Learning Style Impact on Knowledge Gains in Human Patient Simulation. Nurse Education Today
57. .
58. So, W. W.-M., Pow, J. W.-C., & Hung, V. H.-K. (2009). The interactive use of a video database in teacher education: Creating a knowledge base for teaching through a learning community. Computers & Education, 53(3), 775–786.
59. Şahin, M., & Kışla, T. (2013). Kişiselleştirilebilir Öğrenme Ortamları: Literatür İncelenmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 81-91.
60. Scales, A. Y. (2000). The effect of learning style, major, and gender on learning computer-aided drawing in an introductory engineering/technical graphics course.
61. Schunk, D. H. (2009). Bilişsel Stil. D. H. Schunk içinde, Eğitimsel Bir Bakışla Öğrenme Teorileri (M. Şahin, Çev., 5. Baskıdan Çeviri b., s. 305-306). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
62. Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories. Printice Hall Inc., New Jersey.
63. Shaw, R. S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111-120.
64. Tseng, J. C., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers & Education, 51(2), 776-786.
65. Tufte, E.R. 2003. The cognitive style of PowerPoint, Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
66. Tüysüz, C., & Tatar, E. (2008). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme stillerinin kimya dersine yönelik
67. tutum ve başarılarına etkisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(9), 97-107.
68. Uzuntiryaki, E., Bilgin, I., & Geban, O. (2003). The Effect of Learning Styles on High School Students' Achievement and Attitudes in Chemistry.
69. Van Waes, L., Van Weijen, D., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process.Computers & Education, 73, 60-71.
70. Yilmazel‐Sahin, Y. (2009). A comparison of graduate and undergraduate teacher education students' perceptions of their instructors' use of Microsoft PowerPoint. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 361-380.
71. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15-27.