A design study of a multimedia instructional grammar program with embedded tracking

Abstract

This is a design study meant to demonstrate the feasibility of integrating three rather different theoretical perspectives for future efforts in multimedia instructional design. A multimedia instructional grammar program contextualized within the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) was developed and evaluated. The program design was grounded in Mayer's multimedia learning theory (2001), Sweller's cognitive load theory (CLT, 2005), and cognitive training theory using an inductive reasoning paradigm (Klauer and Phye, Rev Educ Res 78(1):85-124, 2008). A successful integration of cognitive training theory into program design is expected to facilitate the transition of student's declarative knowledge of a grammar concept of passive voice to procedural knowledge (Phye, Contemp Educ Psychol 16:87-94, 1991; Phye et al., Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions, Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego, 2005). Two studies involving ten and four adult ESL learners were conducted in a Midwest community college. Grammar teaching occurred within the context of history and geography of the USA. Students with low prior knowledge of passive voice grammar concepts, intermediate level of general vocabulary, and adequate basic knowledge of content (basic geography and history) benefited most from the program. Preliminary results are encouraging for the aforementioned integrative efforts.Keywords Multimedia program evaluation Á Cognitive theories Á Multimedia instructional design Á ESL grammar teaching Á Design rationale Historically, the teaching of English grammar can be identified with two approaches. The deductive approach focuses on mastering grammar form (Biber et al

Experience beyond knowledge: Pragmatic e-learning systems design with learning experience

“…This suggested that, from the perspective of curiosity and intrinsic interests, both low and medium achievers seem to have gained certain benefits from the dynamic content sequencing system. Also, it is striking that the high achievers did not have significant benefits in terms of the four dimensional learning experience, which would be in line with Mitchell et al (2005), Koehler et al (2011) and Kopcha and Sullivan (2008).…”

“…In the case of adaptive e-learning system design, by the spirit of Mitchell et al (2005), Koehler et al (2011) and Kopcha and Sullivan (2008), it was agreed that expert learners might not favour the adaptive e-learning system for its rigidity, resulting in boredom. In this regard, we outlined the merits of this case based on our empirical findings.…”

“…We hypothesised that the learner's perfor- mance and experience with the dynamic content sequencing system would be higher than those with the non-dynamic system, thanks to its capability to match the challenge levels to each learner's learning performance. However, it was also likely, from the work of Mitchell et al (2005), Koehler et al (2011) and Kopcha and Sullivan (2008) that expert learners would not favour the dynamic content sequencing system due to its rigidity, quickly resulting in boredom. We proposed to examine these propositions by means of evaluating learning experience.…”

“…Of course, it is the case that learning performance with e-learning systems is the most important learning outcome; thereby it cannot be overlooked entirely. However, some studies (Mitchell, Chen, & Macredie, 2005;Koehler, Thompson, & Phye, 2011;Kopcha & Sullivan, 2008) have shown that some user groups (i.e., those who have relatively high skills or knowledge in the learning subject domain) tend not to take in e-learning systems, partly because of the lack of flexibility but mostly because of boredom whilst using them. Hence, a disclaimer of this article is that learning performance alone might not tell the full story.…”

Enhancing Competence and Autonomy in Computer-Based Instruction Using a Skill-Challenge Balancing Strategy

“…This suggested that, from the perspective of curiosity and intrinsic interests, both low and medium achievers appeared to see certain benefits from the skill-challenge balancing instruction strategy. Also, it is striking that the high achievers did not have significant benefits in terms of any of the four dimensional learning experience, which would be in line with Koehler et al (2011), Kopcha and Sullivan (2008), and Mitchell et al (2005). A further analysis to establish the optimal learning experience (i.e., flow), by which we might re-confirm the developing mechanism of the SCB instruction strategy, was carried out.…”