Using multimodal presentations
-
Upload
mariagiambanco -
Category
Business
-
view
222 -
download
5
Transcript of Using multimodal presentations
Using Multi-modal Teaching to Increase the Comprehension of Science Concepts
Maria R. GiambancoSEYS 778
Background Information Abstract concepts are usually hard for students to
process, so teachers often use tools like videos to illuminate these topics
Cognitive load theory suggests that there is a limit to the amount of information that can be processed at a single time
Auditory and visual information is processed in different parts of the brain so they can be processed simultaneously
Presenting information that is simultaneously processed in different parts of the brain should be more effective than using only one mode
Methods 3 treatment groups: AV= Audio/visual presentation RV= Reading/visual presentation KAV= Kinesthetic, audio/visual presentation Each groups was administered a pre-test of
regents based question before the start of the chapter.
The assessment included 3 types of questions: diagrams, complex reading and simple reading multiple choice questions.
The same assessment was administered after the mitosis lesson
What I Expected to See Students in the audio/visual group would
perform better on the post-test than those in the reading/visual group
Students in the kinesthetic activity, audio/visual group would perform better on the post-test than those in the audio/visual and reading/visual groups
All three treatments would perform on the post-test than the control group
Null Hypothesis
Ho: Increasing the number of modalities used to teach mitosis will not increase assessment scores.
Pre-Test ANOVA Table
There is no significant differences between the treatment groups
ANOVA SummarySource SS df MS F PTreatment 2.5625 3 0.8542 0.2609 0.85338Error 294.6715 90 3.2741Total 297.234 93
Summary of DataPRE-TEST
AV RV KAV Control TotalN 24 27 21 22 94-X 92 94 72 76 334
-Mean 3.8333 3.4815 3.4286 3.4545 3.5532
-X2 416 404 318 346 1484
Variance 2.7536 2.9516 3.5571 3.974 3.1961
Std.Dev. 1.6594 1.718 1.886 1.9935 1.7878Std.Err. 0.3387 0.3306 0.4116 0.425 0.1844
Data Summary Samples
POST-TEST
AV RV KAV Control TotalN 24 27 21 22 94-X 137 161 141 106 545
-Mean 5.48 5.75 6.4091 4.6087 5.5612
-X2 861 1083 983 564 3491
Variance 4.5933 5.8241 3.7771 3.4308 4.7436Std.Dev. 2.1432 2.4133 1.9435 1.8522 2.178Std.Err. 0.4286 0.4561 0.4143 0.3862 0.22
Data Summary Samples
Post-Test ANOVA Table
There is a significant difference between the treatment groups
ANOVA SummarySource SS df MS F PTreatment 37.8463 3 12.6154 2.8082 0.04378Error 422.2864 94 4.4924Total 460.1327 97
Tukey Multiple Comparison Test
P<0.05KAV vs. Control
Not significantRV vs. Control
Not significantAV vs. Control
Not significantRV vs. KAV
Not significantAV vs. KAV
Not significantAV vs. RV
SignificanceGroups Compared
Kruskal-Wallis Non-Parametric
H=11.99 df=3 p=0.0074
There is a significant difference between the treatment groups
32.360.450.946.3
ControlKAVRVAV
Mean Ranks for Samples
Means By Sex
There was no significant difference between male and female scores for any of the treatment groups
There was also no significant differences found between ethnicities
4.545
6.3
5.857
5.846
Post-test Male
5.0903.54Control
7.0903.5453.7KAV
6.0763.6922.857RV
5.5453.83.587AV
Post-test Female
Pre-testFemale
Pre-testMale
Treatment
Conclusion
Increasing the number of modalities used to teach mitosis does improve assessment scores
DiscussionAlthough there was no significant
differences between any of the treatments, this may be an artifact of the analysis used
The test result of the reading/visual treatment > audio/visual treatment may be because the reading was given before the video instead of simultaneously
Further Analysis Perform a non-parametric comparison test Include free response or interviews in the
assessment Perform an item analysis to see which
questions students had trouble with Re-do the test using a reading that is
incorporated into the video instead of separate