بررسی تأثیر ویديوی تعاملی بر میزان مشارکت یادگیرندگان به تفکیک سبک یادگیری آن‌ها
محورهای موضوعی : فناوری¬های نوین و شبکه¬های اجتماعی و توسعه منابع انسانی
حامد حسینی ضرابی
1
,
اباصلت خراسانی
2
*
,
مرتضی رضایی زاده
3
,
محمدعلي مظاهري تهرانی
4
1 - دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3 - گروه علوم تربیتی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
4 - گروه روان‌شناسی و سلامت، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: ویدیوی تعاملی, مشارکت یادگیرنده, ویدیو, سبک یادگیری, یادگیری الکترونیکی,
چکیده مقاله :
فناوری‌های دیجیتال به بخش مهمی از آموزش تبدیل شده است و فعالان آموزشی توجه ویژه‌ای به این فناوری‌ها دارند تا بتوانند مشارکت یادگیرندگان در سه بعد شناختی، احساسی و رفتاری را افزایش دهند. ویدیو به عنوان پرطرفدارترین رسانه آموزش الکترونیکی است اما با گسترش فناوری ویدیوی تعاملی و با توجه به امکان تعامل بیشتر یادگیرنده با محتوا، بررسی اثرات ویدیوی تعاملی بر مشارکت یادگیرندگان، حائز اهمیت است. هدف از پژوهش حاضر، پاسخ به این سوال است که از میان ویدیوی خطی و ویدیوی تعاملی کدامیک بر مشارکت یادگیرندگان تاثیر بیشتری می‌گذارند و آیا این تاثیر در سبک‌های یادگیری مختلف تفاوتی دارد. به همین منظور در یک طرح آزمایشی، یک دوره آموزشی تعاملی، طراحی گردید که نیمی از آن به صورت ویدیوی خطی و نیمی دیگر به صورت ویدیوی تعاملی ارائه شد. جامعه آماری فعالان حوزه آموزش و توسعه بودند که با نمونه گیری هدفمند و به صورت در دسترس 55 نفر انتخاب شدند. یادگیرندگان پس از گذراندن هر قسمت از دوره، پرسشنامه مشارکت را تکمیل و به سوالات چهار گزینه‌ای آزمون دوره پاسخ دادند. روایی این دو ابزار با استفاده از ضریب آلفای کرونباخ محاسبه گردید که به ترتیب فرم ارزیابی مشارکت (0.878) و آزمون (0.824) بود. با استفاده از طرح روش اندازه گیری مکرر و آزمونT همبسته نتایج نشان داد ویدیوی تعاملی در مقایسه با ویدیوی خطی بر میزان مشارکت یادگیرندگان در سه بعد شناختی، احساسی و رفتاری، به طرز معناداری موثرتر است و به فعالان آموزش و توسعه سازمان پیشنهاد می‌شود که از ویدیوی تعاملی استفاده کنند. تاثیرات و کاربردهای نظری و عملی این یافته ها در حوزه آموزش و توسعه سازمانی مورد بحث قرار گرفته است.
Digital technologies have become an important part of education and educational activists pay special attention to these technologies in order to increase learners' engagement in three dimensions: cognitive, emotional and behavioral. Video is the most popular e-learning medium, but with the development of interactive video technology and the possibility of more learner interaction with content, it is important to examine the effects of interactive video on learners' engagement. The purpose of this study is to answer the question which of the linear video and interactive video have the greatest impact on learners' engagement and whether this effect is different in learning styles. For this purpose, in an experimental design, a training course was designed, half of which was presented as a linear video and the other half as an interactive video. The statistical population was educational specialist and training and development specialist who were selected by purposive and available sampling of 55 people. After completing the course, learners completed an engagement questionnaire and answered the four-choice test questions of the course. The internal validity of these two instruments was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which was the participation evaluation form (0.878) and test (0.824). Using repeated measures design and paired t-test, the results showed that interactive video compared to linear video is significantly more effective on learners' engagement in three dimensions of cognitive, emotional and behavioral and is recommended to training and development specialists to use interactive videos. The theoretical and practical effects and applications of these findings in the field of organizational training and development are discussed.
1. Bte NF, Naim HM, Ibrahim AAA. The study of affective value in educational video production style using kansei engineering method. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2020;10(8):573–8.
2. Fiorella L, Mayer RE. What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2018;89(July):465–70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.015
3. Hoogerheide V, van Wermeskerken M, Loyens SMM, van Gog T. Learning from video modeling examples: Content kept equal, adults are more effective models than peers. Learn Instr. 2016;44:22–30.
4. de Koning BB, Hoogerheide V, Boucheix J-M. Developments and Trends in Learning with Instructional Video. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2018;89:395–8. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563218304308
5. Poquet O, Lim L, Mirriahi N, Dawson S. Video and learning: A systematic review (2007-2017). ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser. 2018;151–60.
6. Boucheix JM, Gauthier P, Fontaine JB, Jaffeux S. Mixed camera viewpoints improve learning medical hand procedure from video in nurse training? Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2018;89:418–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.017
7. Choi HJ, Johnson SD. The Effect of Context-Based Video Instruction on Learning and Motivation in Online Courses. Am J Distance Educ [Internet]. 2005;19(4):215–27. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15389286ajde1904_3
8. Höffler TN, Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learn Instr. 2007;17(6):722–38.
9. Palaigeorgiou G, Papadopoulou A. Promoting self-paced learning in the elementary classroom with interactive video, an online course platform and tablets. Educ Inf Technol [Internet]. 2019 Jan 8;24(1):805–23. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10639-018-9804-5
10. Kamal AFIFY M. Effect of Interactive Video Length Within E-Learning Environments on Cognitive Load, Cognitive Achievement and Retention of Learning. Turkish Online J Distance Educ. 2020;21(4):68–89.
11. Scheiter K, Gerjets P. Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educ Psychol Rev. 2007;19(3):285–307.
12. Mayer RE, Chandler P. When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Vol. 93, Journal of Educational Psychology. 2001. p. 390–7.
13. Hung IC, Kinshuk, Chen NS. Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Comput Educ. 2018 Feb;117:116–31.
14. Pulukuri S, Abrams B. Incorporating an online interactive video platform to optimize active learning and improve student accountability through educational videos. J Chem Educ. 2020;
15. Cattaneo A, Sauli F. Integrating Interactive Video in a Learning Scenario - Guidelines From Iv4Vet Project. 2017. 31 p.
16. Sauli F, Cattaneo A, van der Meij H. Hypervideo for educational purposes: a literature review on a multifaceted technological tool. Technol Pedagog Educ [Internet]. 2018;27(1):115–34. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2017.1407357
17. Stahl E, Finke M, Zahn C. Knowledge Acquisition by Hypervideo Design : An Instructional Program for University Courses. Media. 2006;15:285–302.
18. Zahn C, Barquero B, Schwan S. Learning with hyperlinked videos - Design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia. Learn Instr. 2004;14(3):275–91.
19. Lee E, Hannafin MJ. A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2016;64(4):707–34.
20. Zhang DS, Zhou LN, Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF. Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Inf Manag. 2006 Jan;43(1):15–27.
21. Bond M, Buntins K, Bedenlier S, Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M. Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map. Vol. 17, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020.
22. Carroll M, Lindsey S, Chaparro M, Winslow B. An applied model of learner engagement and strategies for increasing learner engagement in the modern educational environment. Vol. 29, Interactive Learning Environments. 2021. p. 757–71.
23. Xie K. Projecting learner engagement in remote contexts using empathic design. Vol. 69, Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021. p. 81–5.
24. Barlow A, Brown S, Lutz B, Pitterson N, Hunsu N, Adesope O. Development of the student course cognitive engagement instrument (SCCEI) for college engineering courses. Vol. 7, International Journal of STEM Education. 2020.
25. Fredricks JA, Wang M Te, Schall Linn J, Hofkens TL, Sung H, Parr A, et al. Using qualitative methods to develop a survey measure of math and science engagement. Learn Instr. 2016;43:5–15.
26. Henrie CR, Halverson LR, Graham CR. Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Comput Educ. 2015;90:36–53.
27. Fredricks JA, McColskey W. The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. 2012. p. 763–82.
28. Perini M, Cattaneo AAP, Tacconi G. Using Hypervideo to support undergraduate students’ reflection on work practices: a qualitative study. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2019;16(1).
29. Chen C-Y. The Influence of Representational Formats and Learner Modality Preferences on Instructional Efficiency Using Interactive Video Tutorials. J Educ Train. 2020;7(2):77.
30. Cicek A, Ozdincler AR, Tarakci E. Interactive video game-based approaches improve mobility and mood in older adults: A nonrandomized, controlled tri̇al. J Bodyw Mov Ther [Internet]. 2020;24(3):252–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.01.005
31. Taslibeyaz E, Dursun OB, Karaman S. Interactive video usage on autism spectrum disorder training in medical education. Interact Learn Environ. 2017;25(8):1025–34.
32. Dieck-Assad G, Hinojosa-Olivares JM, Colomer-Farrarnos J. Study of the effectiveness of interactive videos in applied electronics courses. Int J Interact Des Manuf. 2020 Sep;14(3):983–1001.
33. Priyakanth R, Abburi R, Praveena M. Design and impact of interactive video content for the improvement of student engagement and learning. J Eng Educ Transform. 2021;34(Special Issue):518–23.
34. Schindler LA, Burkholder GJ, Morad OA, Marsh C. Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature. Vol. 14, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2017.
35. Brown T, Zoghi M, Williams B, Jaberzadeh S, Roller L, Palermo C, et al. Are learning style preferences of health science students predictive of their attitudes towards e-learning? Australas J Educ Technol. 2009;25(4):524–43.
36. Costa RD, Souza GF, Valentim RAM, Castro TB. The theory of learning styles applied to distance learning. Cogn Syst Res [Internet]. 2020;64:134–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2020.08.004
37. Dantas LA, Cunha A. An integrative debate on learning styles and the learning process. Soc Sci Humanit Open [Internet]. 2020;2(1):100017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100017
38. Chen CH, Law V, Huang K. The roles of engagement and competition on learner’s performance and motivation in game-based science learning. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2019;67(4):1003–24.
39. Creswell JW. Educational Research. In: Doing Qualitative Research [Internet]. BRILL; 2011. p. 83–7. Available from: https://brill.com/view/book/9789087901219/BP000007.xml
40. Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach ’ s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. 2018;1273–96.
41. Lace-Costigan G. Perceptions of play: Using play-doh to enhance the student experience in bioscience higher education. Int J Game-Based Learn. 2017;7(3):26–37.
42. Shapiro HB, Lee CH, Wyman Roth NE, Li K, Çetinkaya-Rundel M, Canelas DA. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput Educ. 2017 Jul;110:35–50.
43. Rezaei-Zadeh, M. (2014). An analysis of core entrepreneurial competencies, their interdependencies and their cultivating approaches in virtual education using a collective intelligence methodology.
44. Barari, N., RezaeiZadeh, M., Khorasani, A., & Alami, F. (2020). Designing and validating educational standards for E-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs), based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.
45. TARI, F., SHAMS, G. R., & REZAEI, Z. M. (2017). Identifying and modelling of challenges for implementing e-learning in the Iranian National Gas Company: An interpretive structural modeling (ISM) approach.
46. Alikahni, P., RezaeiZadeh, M., & Vahidi-Asl, M. (2018). The analysis of “Fetch! Lunch Rush” as an Augmented Reality multi-player game in Cooperative learning. The Journal of New Thoughts on Education, 13(4), 39-62.
47. Bandali, B., Abolghasemi, M., Pardakhtchi, M., & Rezaei-zadeh, M. (2021). Faculty Development Programs at Shahid Beheshti University; Insufficient Strengths. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences, 13(6), 597-607.
48. Barari, N., Khorasani, A., Rezaeizadeh, M., & Alami, F. (2019). Feedback's educational standards in E-Learning environments, based on Bloom-Anderson taxonomy. Journal of Educational Scinces, 26(1), 155-174.
49. Forgues, D., Koskela, L. J., & Lejeune, A. (2009). Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14, 48-58.
50. Kartali, A., Rezaei Zadeh, M., & Alamolhoda, G. (2020). Identifying barriers to using flipped class in Iranian higher education. Research in Teaching, 8(4), 230-212.
51. Davari, F., Vahidi-Asl, M., Alikhani, P., & RezaeiZadeh, M. (2020). Measuring the impact of virtual reality on a serious game for improving oral presentation skill. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 14(4), 891-900.
52. Joel MH, Ashipala DO, Kamenye E. Interactive Video Technology as A Mode of Teaching : A Qualitative Analysis of Nursing Students ’ Experiences at A Higher Education Institution in Namibia. 2021;10(2):83–92