You are here:

A Comparison of Different Formats for Presenting Example Problems in Basic Engineering Web-Based Learning Modules
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , University of Missouri - Rolla, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-48-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this experiment was to compare three different formats for presenting example problems within Basic Engineering Web-Based learning modules. After seeing a lecture over the shear flow concept on-line, students in a Basic Engineering Class viewed example problems covering this topic in either a video, static text/graphic, or animation format. Students then completed a number of outcome measures. High ability students scored higher on a quiz covering the materials and rated the materials as less motivating than their low ability peers. However, there were no significant objective or subjective outcome differences as a function of presentation format, nor did ability and experimental condition interact. A number of possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Citation

Hall, R., Philpot, T., Flori, R., Yellamraju, V. & Subramanian, P. (2003). A Comparison of Different Formats for Presenting Example Problems in Basic Engineering Web-Based Learning Modules. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2003--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1011-1014). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 31, 2023 from .

© 2003 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Optimizing Learning from Examples Using Animated Pedagogical Agents. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2): 416-427.
  2. Dillon, A. (2002, October). Hypermedia and Instruction-Why Theory and Design Pass Another By! Paper presented at UMR Instructional Software Development Center Seminar Series, Rolla, MO.
  3. Dillon, A. And Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review o f Educational Research 68 : 322-349.
  4. Hall, R.H. (2001). Web-based training site design principles: A literature review and synthesis. In Web-based tra in ing. B. Khan (Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Educational Technology Publications: 165-172.
  5. Landauer, T. (1995). The Trouble with Computers. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
  6. Lanza, A. And Roselli, T. (1991). Effects of the hypertextual approach versus the structured approach on active and passive learners. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 18 : 48-50.
  7. Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right q ues t ions? Educational Psychologist 32 : 119.
  8. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J. And Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more materials results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 93 : 187-198.
  9. Moreno, R. And Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive Principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 : 358-368.
  10. Tergan, S. (1997). Conceptual and methodological shortcomings in hypertext design and research. Journal of Educational Computing Research 16 : 209-235.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References