What do students really learn from interactive ...

What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study Shelley Yeo, Robert Loss, Marjan Zadnik, Allan Harrison, and David Treagust Citation: American Journal of Physics 72, 1351 (2004); doi: 10.1119/1.1748074 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1748074 View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/72/10?ver=pdfcov Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers Articles you may be interested in Comparing the efficacy of multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content Am. J. Phys. 77, 184 (2009); 10.1119/1.3028204 Physics Exam Problems Reconsidered: Using Logger Pro to Evaluate Student Understanding of Physics Phys. Teach. 46, 494 (2008); 10.1119/1.2999067 The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics Am. J. Phys. 71, 618 (2003); 10.1119/1.1566427 Enhancing the Student‐Instructor Interaction Frequency Phys. Teach. 40, 535 (2002); 10.1119/1.1534821 Teaching physics to a crowd: A transition from traditional lectures to interactive software AIP Conf. Proc. 399, 833 (1997); 10.1063/1.53099

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP: 134.7.89.216 On: Wed, 06 May 2015 02:15:28

PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH SECTION All submissions to PERS should be sent 共preferably electronically兲 to the Editorial Office of AJP, and then they will be forwarded to the PERS editor for consideration.

What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study Shelley Yeo,a) Robert Loss, Marjan Zadnik, Allan Harrison,b) and David Treagust Department of Applied Physics and Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U 1987, Perth, Western Australia, 6845

共Received 16 December 2003; accepted 26 March 2004兲 Interactive multimedia is promoted as an effective and stimulating medium for learning science, but students do not always interact with multimedia as intended by the designers. We discuss students’ interactions with an interactive multimedia program segment about projectile motion in the context of long jumping. Qualitative data were collected using a video camera and split-screen recorder to record each student’s image, voice, and student–program interactions. Left to themselves, students’ interactions were superficial, but when asked to explain their observations of projectile motion illustrations, they were observed to retain common intuitive conceptions. Only following researcher intervention did students develop an awareness of abstract aspects of the program. These results suggest that, despite interactivity and animated graphics, interactive multimedia may not produce the desired outcome for students learning introductory physics concepts. © 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers.

关DOI: 10.1119/1.1748074兴

I. INTRODUCTION For the past 20 years, advances in technology have offered instructors the opportunity to partly replace or augment their teaching with computer-based resources. Computer-based instruction and interactive multimedia are popularly promoted as capable of enhancing student knowledge and understanding in many different learning domains.1 Many textbook publishers now offer an accompanying interactive CD-ROM or host-related website.2 Collaboration between educators, software developers, and publishers has resulted in many discussions about teaching and learning philosophy and practice, and appropriate ways of integrating new technologies into classrooms.3 An emerging problem is that instruction and interactive multimedia introduce new learning dimensions that have not existed previously in the classroom or laboratory.4 The instructional design of educational instruction and interactive multimedia programs must undergo critical formative and summative evaluation, particularly from the learner’s perspective, before these programs can be used effectively in classrooms. Despite extensive promotion of new technologies as an alternative learning medium, little is understood or known about the nature of the cognitive interaction between students and screen-based information. Several documented reservations and criticisms exist about the learning potential and efficacy of instruction and interactive multimedia science.5 For example, instruction and interactive multimedia programs can create inefficient use of teachers’ and students’ time when navigation is unclear and students become lost in the program, resulting in differences between potential and actual student learning. In addition, teachers have either failed to adopt or have inappropriately used instruction and interactive multimedia-based technolo-

gies when designers have failed to take instructors’ pedagogical knowledge and the culture of teaching into account in designing multimedia curriculum resources.6 One has only to read current education publications to see creative and apparently well-designed examples of teaching/ learning software available commercially.7 Research on the pedagogical effectiveness of software, where it exists, is limited and seldom focused at the fine-grained level of student– computer interaction. In addition, this research8 –10 has mostly used dyads or larger student groups, emphasizing the social dimension of learning, and the need for students to articulate their ideas in order to investigate them. For the case of microcomputer-based laboratories, it has been argued that the essence of their effectiveness is not in the program design, but in how they are implemented in the classroom.10,11 The teacher, the instructional strategies employed, and the social dimension of learning, promoted in particular by students working in groups, are the keys to student learning. Park and Hannafin12 outline 20 research-supported, effective instructional strategies, and propose key instruction and interactive multimedia guidelines. The design of the instruction and interactive multimedia physics material used in the present study 共see Sec. III兲 reflects many of these guidelines. The content is placed in a realistic, authentic context with information presented in a variety of modes—textual, diagrammatic, and verbal. The same physics content is presented in different ways 共multiple perspectives兲 and feedback is provided when students answer questions or enter data. Also, there are simple procedures for students to follow and familiar navigation icons used in the system interface. Research into human–computer interaction recognizes the importance of two factors, situated cognition and cognitive

1351 Am. J. Phys. 72 共10兲, October 2004 http://aapt.org/ajp © 2004 American Association of Physics Teachers 1351 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP: 134.7.89.216 On: Wed, 06 May 2015 02:15:28

load,13 that influence the quality of learning when computers are introduced. Situated cognition research claims that all learning is situated in context and that all learning activities involve intellectual, affective, and physical factors. For instruction and interactive multimedia researchers,14 student thinking and the context in which it occurs are inextricably linked. The emphasis in the design and use of instruction and interactive multimedia should therefore be on providing students with enabling experiences in authentic applications rather than situations without a context, and on cultivating learning processes rather than assimilating isolated knowledge items. Enabling experiences and learning processes may refer to the way students interact with the content of the program or the way that the computer is used within the physics classroom or laboratory. The focus of the research reported here is an example of the former. Computer technology was used to embed physics in a real-world context by an analysis of the actions and techniques of two well-known Olympic long jumpers. It is widely believed that embedding physics content in a familiar context makes the physics more relevant to students, thereby promoting students’ interest and motivation to learn.15 The second factor influencing learning quality when computers are introduced is explained by cognitive load theory. This theory examines the simultaneous activities of learning new material and interacting with the controls and features of the program. Sweller13 points out that inappropriate instructional design can impose an additional cognitive load that interferes with learning. In addition, high element interactivity,16 most likely to exist for mathematics and physics content, also imposes further cognitive load, which may be reduced by appropriate instructional design. For example, there is less load when computer screens integrate diagrams and explanatory text compared with formats that split the diagrams and text. Similarly, cognitive load decreases when a fully labeled diagram is used on its own, compared with a fully labeled diagram or animated graph accompanied by redundant text.17 Physics education research literature suggests the need to study in-depth the nature of student interactions with instruction and interactive multimedia software18 and examine students’ growth in conceptual knowledge as a result of these interactions.19 Verbal interactions among pairs or groups of students using a computer program can reveal students’ physics conceptions and understandings.8,20 The contextually suitable aspects of these studies are emphasized in the methodology adopted for this investigation. There are many facets to evaluating instruction and interactive multimedia programs.5 Some evaluation processes test users’ knowledge of program content or knowledge about how to use the software. Some track users’ navigation patterns or assess competent use of the software. Others ask users about their likes, dislikes, ease of navigation, or other opinions about the software. Many of these evaluations are conducted by the software developers themselves and may be subject to criticisms of impartiality. Generalizing from existing research is difficult because studies are carried out on different programs, with different presentations, content, interfacing, and cognitive demands on learners. Few studies, however, report on the way that students interact cognitively with complex, multilevel information 共for example, animated physics representations兲 encountered on a computer display.

II. STUDENTS’ PHYSICS CONCEPTIONS Research into student-generated conceptions in physics has been widespread over the past 2 decades; conceptions that are not compatible with scientists’ conceptions are variously called naive, prior, intuitive, alternative conceptions, or simply misconceptions, depending on the author’s view of the nature of knowledge.21 In support of these ideas, constructivist learning theory argues that students’ prior knowledge is actively involved in, and often interferes with, science learning.22 Alternative conceptions persist because students use their conceptual frameworks to interpret new information in ways that are sensible to them rather than to other people. Often the conceptions arising during formal learning are intermediate between students’ and teachers’ conceptions.23,24 In an attempt to understand the changing velocity of an object thrown upward, students initially are reluctant to accept that the velocity of the ball is greatest when it leaves the thrower’s hand and yet they have few problems with the increasing velocity of a dropped ball. Students’ impetus theories25 hold that a ball in parabolic motion has an built-in force or ‘‘impetus’’ which increases, or at least maintains, its velocity for a while. Eventually the ball loses this impetus and slows down, whereby gravity then takes over and accelerates the ball vertically downward. Students holding this view believe that a ball will increase, or at least maintain, horizontal speed until it runs out of ‘‘forward force’’ and then it will fall vertically. Some students believe that gravity will act as soon as a ball is aloft, whereas others believe that it will only affect the ball after the ball’s impetus falls below a critical level or the ball reaches the top of its trajectory. Students frequently ignore gravity as a force acting at all times on an object regardless of its motion. This article reports on two studies, part of a sequence motivated by our interest in investigating the issues that influence physics learning when students use interactive multimedia. We were especially concerned with the issues surrounding the cognitive interaction between students in first-year college-level physics classes and instruction and interactive multimedia programs teaching physics concepts. The two studies reported here comprise a broad preliminary study conducted with 15-year-old high school students and a main, in-depth study with first-year college-level physics students. The primary aim of the preliminary study was to distill from multiple observations and data how students interacted with the program. In particular, we looked for factors that appeared to mitigate against effective physics learning and hence required more investigation. Specific questions we sought to answer were the following. What problems did students encounter in navigating the program? How much time did students spend on various types of interaction with the program? How did students respond to the program’s physics content? Could students subsequently answer simple recall and interpretive questions on key physics representations from the program? The main study employed a qualitative and interpretive26 research approach that focused on ‘‘what is happening here?’’27 Because students construct their own understanding, a constructivist perspective was taken because of the need to understand what happens at the time and place of the interaction between student and the program. One researcher’s role of ‘‘participant observer’’28 allowed temporal questions such as, ‘‘What is this segment showing you?’’ to be

1352 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 72, No. 10, October 2004 Yeo et al. 1352 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP: 134.7.89.216 On: Wed, 06 May 2015 02:15:28

asked to elicit immediate student responses to the program content. Questions such as ‘‘Why did you...?’’ were not used because of the potential for students’ answers to influence their subsequent behavior patterns. Students’ immediate recollections of the physics represented in key diagrams and activities of the program were assessed with an evaluation quiz conducted immediately after they had finished working through the unit.

III. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA PROJECTILE MOTION SEGMENT The specific research focus was the interaction between students and an instructional unit entitled Movement: The Physics of Bodies in Motion.29 The unit features the concepts of mass, speed, force, stability, inertia, and momentum as they apply in the act of long jumping. There are 25 sequential main screens, each with a focus question 共for example, What is force?兲 and directed activities for users, often presented in separate frames. Students normally work through the 25 screens linearly, although they can move forward, backward, or to other segments; hyperlinks to and from different frames bring them back to the main sequence. While using this program, students interact with the content in a variety of ways. They read and/or interpret text, graphs, and diagrams 共both static and animated兲, calculate, infer and explain, watch and manipulate video clips to gain information, analyze data, and make predictions. Feedback is offered when students answer questions, make inferences, and manipulate graphics. The particular focus of this study is the interaction between the students and a short segment on the motion of a projectile. The segment equates the in-flight action of the long jumper with a ball thrown through the air, representing and explaining the motion in terms of the ball’s vertical and horizontal velocities and the action of gravity. Animated graphics appear in the lower left half of screen 15 共see Fig. 1兲 when each of the three cameras is activated. Each graphic shows the motion of the ball from the selected camera’s perspective. At the same instant, a small amount of text describing the ball’s motion appears at the side of each graphic. Graphic 4 appears when the ball is activated and combines the perspectives of cameras 1–3 to show that as the ball moves along its trajectory, its motion is a combination of two independent velocities. A red arrow depicting vertical velocity changes in size and direction and a constantlength blue arrow depicts constant horizontal velocity. The goal of the instruction and interactive multimedia segment is that students learn that an object traveling in projectile motion has 共a兲 a constant horizontal speed; 共b兲 a vertical speed which decreases as the object rises and increases as the object falls; and 共c兲 a vertical speed which changes in response to the gravitational force, which acts downward at all times. Prior to engagement with the parabolic motion segment, students worked through segments on speed, force, center of gravity, and weight. They also had examined a short video clip of the run-up and flight of a long jumper at normal speed, and frame-advance mode if selected, and a static diagram showing the parabolic path.

Fig. 1. The screen layout and details of each graphic. Note that these are animated graphics in the program. The balls move. Some arrows change in magnitude and direction and others remain constant. Arrow labels have been added here for clarity.

IV. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION A. Overview of study Many college students begin the study of algebra-based physics with little formal high school physics education. Consequently, prior to using the program with first-year college students, we conducted a preliminary study with sixteen 15-year-old secondary students from a local high school. The students were in a Grade 10 activity-based elective science class and welcomed new and challenging activities, including computer work. They were motivated to take part because they were to study physics later in the year. These students had only a rudimentary formal knowledge of force and motion. The students were introduced to the program 共controls and first four screens兲 during normal class time in a computer laboratory. Following this introduction, four interest-raising questions, all of which had appeared in the program 共but for which no answers had been provided兲 were administered to determine if these students were able to interact meaningfully with the content. The questions determined whether or not students could formulate an answer that indicated a recognition that physics concepts were represented in the context 共even if their conceptions were naive兲. All the students were able to answer these questions; about half of the responses used named physics concepts, for example, force or


Table I. Proportion of time that students were engaged in each activity type. Direction of information transfer From computer to student Nature of activity Read text View/use video clip Examine diagram Observe illustration 共e.g., picture兲 Interpret data in tables or graphs Total

From student to computer % of time

Nature of activity

% of time

49 7 7 2 2 67

Using cursor 共via mouse兲 Keying in information Operating controls

17 15 1

speed, and about half were answered on the basis of experience, but the answers were, in a sense, explanatory. Two students who had not been able to demonstrate this minimum level of competence completed the subsequent activity but were not included in the data sets. The subsequent observational sessions occurred before or after school, when students worked through the remaining first half of the program, stopping at screen 15.30

33

mostly enjoyed using it兲, but they were unaware of what lasting information would be most useful to them. There was little evidence that productive physics learning had occurred. Based on the analysis of the data from this preliminary study, the main study sought to investigate any learning that took place during the interaction between students and the program. V. MAIN INVESTIGATION

B. Results and interpretation

A. Overview

The average time that students engaged with screens 5–15 of the program was 13.6 min, with a range of 10 to 22 min. Students taking longer generally experienced navigation problems. Students taking the least time generally missed segments—sometimes inadvertently and sometimes purposefully. An analysis of the interactivity and communication direction between student and program revealed that information transfer from computer to student occurred 67% of the time and from student to computer 33% of the time. The nature of the activity in each of these interactions is shown in Table I. ‘‘Thinking time’’ is included in the measured time. Students appeared to interact superficially with the program’s content. They worked rapidly, settling into a pattern of action/response which seemed almost automatic, carried out as if to complete a task rather than to learn from it. They frequently moved from one screen or frame to another without reflecting on the on-screen information, mostly spending less than 1 min per screen and related frames. For one series of related graphics illustrating the concept of balance, students averaged 4 s per graphic—not enough time to interact meaningfully with the embedded physics. With this tendency to ‘‘move on’’ was a reluctance to break the pattern. Students seldom paused to write down an answer or observation as instructed by the program. They mostly ignored instructions. There also was a tendency for students not to select hyperlinks to interesting but incidental anecdotes about the content after they had accessed the first one. These students either preferred following a linear navigation sequence or they discounted the potential information provided by these links as unimportant or irrelevant. The cues and aids in the program seem obvious; there is bold or colored text to indicate relatively important concepts, and all key physics ideas are represented in multiple ways to aid learning. However, students did not appear to respond to the cues as expected. They seemed unaware of the existence of emphasized text, and did not differentiate between the ‘‘must-learn’’ 共physics兲 content and ‘‘interesting fact’’ 共context-related兲 content. The integration of physics content and context produced an interesting program 共these students

The main study was conducted with first-year collegelevel students, most of whom had little formal physics background. Ten volunteer students participated in the investigation. Only two had previously studied high school physics. The students were enrolled in a first-year noncalculus introductory course that supported degree courses in the health sciences, geology, and chemistry. The course also acted as a 1-year bridging course for students wishing to enter a calculus-based physics course. At the time of our involvement in this study, students were studying an introductory mechanics unit. Projectile motion had been covered in lectures prior to our study. Consequently, we expected students to be familiar with the concepts of mass, force, weight, velocity, and acceleration, although the extent of this knowledge was not ascertained with a formal test. However, before commencing, students were given a brief written description of the program and a list of the important physics concepts to be encountered. All students expressed familiarity with the concepts. The students attended the research sessions on different days over a period of 3 weeks. Two students 共Lia and Amy兲 worked as a pair and all other students worked on their own. Five students 共Sue, Lia and Amy, Sam, and Ben兲 were allowed to complete the program without interruption, but their actions were closely monitored and analyzed for common behavior patterns. The technique adopted for the remaining five 共Jon, Ann, Nic, Tom, and Ray兲 differed in that they worked without interruption until they were about to exit five prechosen screens. At these points, the first author, in her role as interviewer, began an exploratory conversation, asking about their perceptions and understandings of the onscreen information. For the parabolic motion segment, students were allowed to work until they were about to exit screen 15 共with the four animated graphic frames兲, when intervention and questioning took place. The students were videotaped while working and all conversations and the computer screens were recorded simultaneously. The video and audio of students were recorded as an ‘‘inserted picture’’ in a corner of the video recording of the


Table II. Times and interaction patterns of students using the projectile motion segment.

Student

Graphics viewed voluntarily

Voluntary time taken 共s兲

Sue Lia & Amy Sam Ben

1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4,4,4 1,2,3,4,4,4

104 75 91 88

1,2,3 1,2,3,4,4 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4,4

58 58 71 60 79

Jon Ann Nic Tom Ray

screen on which the student was working. The time that students took to complete specific actions or program frames were determined and the researcher made notes about the actions of each student. On completion of the instruction and interactive multimedia program, students were given an evaluation quiz to elicit their recollection of the key represented physics concepts. The concept-based questions, which featured diagrams or illustrations drawn from the program, were based on printed worksheets that students would normally use with the complete software package. Because of the observed reluctance of most students to look away from the screen to write on paper, the worksheets were not used in this part of the study. B. Results The times and interaction histories of the students using the projectile motion segment are summarized in Table II. Students 1–5 were not subject to any intervention. The graphics that students voluntarily viewed and the number of times each was activated are shown in column 2. The equivalent data for students 6 –10 are shown, but the last three columns reflect their interaction with the program following the researcher’s intervention. Students’ decisions to reactivate a graphic were generally prompted by the researcher’s questions. Question 8 of the evaluation quiz—the contextual parabolic motion diagram—is shown in Fig. 2. Students’ incorrect responses are summarized in Table III. No student identified position six as the point where the vertical velocity is greatest. The slightly lower center of gravity of position 6 compared with the other positions was too subtle for these students. Six students identified position 1 as the point of greatest vertical velocity, although they did not recognize that the vertical speed at position 5 was probably the same. Four students chose positions 2 or 3 for the greatest vertical velocity, and only three students noted position 3 as the point of least vertical velocity. Six students stated that the horizontal velocity did not remain constant. Of these, three stated that it decreased, one wrote that it decreased, then increased 共and drew a diagram to illustrate兲, and two stated that it increased, then decreased. Despite the explicit text and information presented in animated graphical form, these students came away with a variety of interpretations. The students consistently decided to exit the projectile motion screen when they had performed the task that they believed was expected of them. The instructions were ex-

Additional graphics viewed 共while talking to interviewer兲

Extra time taken 共while talking to interviewer兲共s兲

Total time on segment 共s兲

intervention intervention intervention intervention

NA NA NA NA

104 75 91 88

1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,4 0 4,1,4,4,4 4,4,4,4,4 1,2,3,4,4,4,4

252 75 177 202 223

310 133 248 262 302

No No No No

plicit 共see Fig. 1兲, but it seems that when these students carried out the actions 关click on the ... to see ...兴, ‘‘see’’ was interpreted as ‘‘look at’’ rather than ‘‘see and understand.’’ Four students clicked more than once to replay graphic 4, perhaps in recognition of, or just reflecting on, its apparent complexity. However, three failed to carry out this second instruction at all until prompted by the interviewer. All five interviewed students apparently understood the physical representation of distances and perspective, but either did not recognize or did not comprehend the representations of or references to the embedded physics concepts. The instruction contained the words ‘‘the two components of projectile motion 共horizontal velocity and vertical velocity兲,’’ and yet these words were seldom present in the descriptions provided by the students, as is illustrated in an interview with Jon after he completed graphic 4: Int: ‘‘OK, can you tell me what that one 关graphic 4兴 was showing you?’’ Jon: ‘‘They’re combined because ... the combining of the bird’s eye view and the end-on view, because the side view ... They all started from here 关indicating origin兴. The top view shows you the displacement along the ground and the end view shows you the height displacement and the side view gives you the combination.’’ By reacting only to salient surface features rather than the deeper features suggested by the text, these students behaved

Fig. 2. Question relevant to the projectile motion segment from the evaluation quiz—adapted from the student worksheets.


Table III. Summary of students’ 共incorrect兲 responses on Question 8 of the evaluation quiz. Students: Response on quiz Did not show forces at all positions Maximum vertical velocity other than positions 1 or 6 Minimum vertical velocity other than position 3 Stated horizontal velocity changed

Sue

Lia

Amy

Sam

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

as passive rather than active knowledge builders.31 It is plausible that the lack of integration of text and diagram contributed to the students’ nonrecognition of the represented horizontal and vertical velocities. Because all students had attended lectures in which these concepts were discussed, it is expected that they were sufficiently familiar with the concepts to have at least indicated recognition. The students needed prompts from the interviewer before they looked for features that they had ignored. Despite the emphasized text, three students, including Jon, seemed unaware of the existence of the fourth graphic. Following researcher prompts or questions, all students began interacting with the program in ways that the designer may have anticipated. However, several suggestions were made by the interviewer before some students examined the graphics closely. They then began to realize that their observations were not consistent with their conceptions of motion, a situation referred to as ‘‘disequilibration.’’32 Int: ‘‘There were a couple of colored arrows that came up there. Just click on the ball again and you can replay it.’’ Jon: 关replays graphic 4兴 ‘‘The red one’s acceleration, the direction of acceleration ... and the purple one’s the velocity?’’ Int: ‘‘OK, have another look.’’ Jon: ‘‘Yeah. 关replays graphic 4 again兴 ... the direction it’s accelerating in ... but this is a constant velocity ... isn’t it?’’ Int: ‘‘What’s a constant velocity?’’ Jon: ‘‘This 关indicating horizontal direction兴, downward. The ball’s traveling at a constant velocity through the air, but it’s ... oh no, cause it’s accelerating isn’t it? Um ...’’ 关Pause兴 Int: ‘‘Have a look again at the camera views.’’ 关replays graphic 1 again兴. Jon: ‘‘OK, the vertical velocity changes 关pointing to the text with the cursor兴. OK. Yeah, alright, I got it!’’ This jubilant statement from Jon was followed by a visible change in his level of awareness and interest. He voluntarily replayed all four graphics, nodding as if to confirm a match between his observations and understandings, and then explained: Jon: ‘‘The red arrow is showing you the vertical velocity and the purple one shows you the horizontal velocity and how they’re changing ... because the vertical velocity changes from going upwards to coming downwards again as it goes across, but the blue one just shows you that it’s always going in this direction.’’ Int: ‘‘OK. Play again—the white ball again. 关replays graphic 4兴 Why does the length of that red arrow change?’’ Jon: ‘‘It accelerates as it comes down again ... because of gravity.’’

Ben

Jon

Ann

X

Nic

Tom

Ray

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Int: ‘‘So the actual size is telling you something as well?’’ Jon: ‘‘Yeah.’’ Jon’s apparent breakthrough in understanding may represent a step toward conceptual change, or it may be simply a temporary recognition and understanding of the physics represented on the screen. It is significant, however, that this situation required external intervention. The program itself was not able to interact sufficiently with Jon to promote meaningful learning. Jon was allowed to continue to the next screen as the interviewer tried to let the student work within the intended design of the program rather than influence his learning. During his interaction with the interviewer, Jon did not articulate any reason for the constant horizontal velocity of the ball. When asked to explain the changing length of the red 共vertical兲 arrow, he introduced the concept of gravity to explain the ball’s downward acceleration. There is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that he understood that gravitational force acts throughout the athlete’s motion. Although he answered part of Question 8 about the horizontal and vertical velocities correctly, he did not show gravitational force acting on the athlete at any point. Ray, on the other hand, tried to incorporate his concept of gravity into his explanation of the ball’s vertical motion. Int: ‘‘What’s that 关graphic 4兴 diagram showing you?’’ Ray: ‘‘The blue arrow’s the velocity and the red arrow’s the gravity ... I think.’’ Int: ‘‘Go back and try again.’’ Ray: 关replays graphic 4兴 ‘‘Yeah, it would be ... the constant velocity 共indicating horizontal direction兲 and the gravity 共indicating vertical兲.’’ 关pause兴 Int: ‘‘That red arrow changed direction. What do you think that is meant to show?’’ 关pause兴 Ray: 关replays graphic 4 again and uses the cursor to indicate various positions on the graphic as he talks兴. ‘‘Ah ... it’s ... because the force that’s on the ball here 关near the start兴 is greater than gravity and then it 关replays graphic 4 again兴 gets smaller and smaller 关nearing the top兴 and then gravity plays a bigger role 关coming down兴 ... I think.’’ At no stage did Ray recognize that the red 共vertical兲 arrow signified velocity, and he maintained that it was either ‘‘gravity’’ or ‘‘force that’s on the ball.’’ He articulated a common naive conception about vertical motion, thinking that gravity takes over once the ball’s upward or forward ‘‘impetus’’ is exhausted. Ray did not correctly answer the parts of Question 8 about force and horizontal velocity. VI. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION This study examined factors that interfere with or affect students’ meaningful interaction with physics concepts pre-


sented in a familiar context in a multimedia program. The paper focused on the details of students’ interaction with the parabolic motion segment, because it illustrated commonly observed behavior patterns throughout use of the program. Strike and Posner23 found that verbal messages that are at odds with the learner’s conceptual beliefs are likely to be ignored, disbelieved, or misconstrued, which may explain why these students often failed to read with understanding the textual information about each graphic or to appropriately interpret the red and blue 共velocity兲 arrows. Their reading of the text did not result in their accessing the appropriate information. In constructing their understandings from what they already knew and from what they saw and read, these students most likely did not include the represented physics. It is a popular belief that placing physics in a familiar, everyday context increases student interest or motivation to engage with the material.15 Familiar contexts are comfortable, reassuring, and predictable. It is plausible, however, that this context makes a student even less prepared to see or learn something that they are not expecting. Each student in the main study was so familiar with a ball thrown through the air that representations of distance/displacement were what they expected to see and what they saw. Arrows were interpreted as concrete or familiar concepts—distance, direction of motion, or gravity. Had the program an ‘‘artificial intelligence’’ capability to interact with a student about his or her interpretation of a diagram 共as do programs such as 33 FREEBODY 兲, the feedback could have alerted the student to the difference between their interpretation and the accepted physics interpretation. Likewise, if students could be prevented from moving on to the next screen until they had demonstrated correct or appropriate understanding, they could be forced to reflect on their beliefs. As proponents of interactive-engagement methods will attest,34 students must be forced to examine and then reflect on their own ideas about physics concepts if there is to be productive learning. But, what happened here was that students saw nothing unexpected, and preferred their own interpretation when anomalies arose. It is plausible that students reacted this way because the physics was embedded in a representation of the type of physical experience thought to be responsible for the formation of some naive conceptions. Our study did not demonstrate differences in cognitive outcomes between students who received intervention and those who did not. This outcome is consistent with our research design in which the research endeavored to establish only the students’ awareness, or lack of awareness, of features of each screen and its embedded physics content. While they were engaged with the program, the interviewer did not affirm or disagree with students’ correct or incorrect observations. The authors question the efficacy of instruction and interactive multimedia programming, such as the projectile motion segment, which allows students to move, without question, from one difficult concept to another in as short a time as 60 s. Unless they were compelled to do so, these students did not remain engaged in any segment long enough to consider the more abstract ideas. This observation suggests that for learning physics, the instructional effectiveness of interactive multimedia program may depend more on overt guidance or control over student actions. Research into instructional cuing35 in instruction and interactive multimedia has shown that reminders to users to access all relevant material is helpful to passive learners and

may have been effective in this situation. However, what form should these reminders take given that these students did not always read the text or follow instructions, especially to write something on paper? Other visual reminders 共icons or other symbols兲 or audible cues to look at a segment again may have caused the students to be more reflective in their behavior. However, the implication from our study is that visual reminders would have had minimal impact on what the students learned. Researcher intervention had the effect of making students interact more with the program. Prior to the researcher’s intervention, all students appeared absorbed in the learning task and oblivious to their surroundings. Following intervention, the student–computer interaction altered markedly. When the locus of control of the interaction moved away from the student to the researcher, the students began to act more as interpreters of information, and thus started to compare the information on the screen with their own conceptions. Only at this stage did the students seem less sure of their ideas, thus making conceptual change possible. Several students then tried to use the computer graphics to illustrate what they were previously unable to explain. The research suggests that instructors using an interactive multimedia program in a classroom setting need to provide prompts and questions to encourage their students to prolong their engagement with important representations of key physics concepts. Instructors might profitably employ strategies that require students to use the program to communicate their understandings to others, thus encouraging them to articulate observations that might conflict with those of other students. Although these comments refer to classroom use of the program, there will be occasions where students are expected to use such programs to learn on their own or in informal collaboration with others. Computer software should be able to assist students to learn when neither teacher nor the class is present. VII. CONCLUSION The interactive multimedia program unit studied in this research was designed to help students learn physics. As indicated,15 physics content situated in everyday contexts is intended to motivate students; however, the design of a contextual program must ensure that physics concepts remain the focus of students’ attention. These students seldom learned, or even appeared to recognize, the important physics concepts embedded in the projectile motion segment featuring the long jumper. Effective interactive multimedia programs should be located at an appropriate cognitive level, but this program’s cognitive demand seemed too high for these students. Effective design involves grounding human–computer interactions in modern learning theories, alternative conceptions research, and cognitive load theory. Learning physics requires significant conceptual change for most students, and it is necessary for instructional designers to incorporate effective features so that the users’ attention is focused on the essential learning that they are undertaking. Appropriately timed ‘‘reflective points’’ could be incorporated in the program, enabling students to self-assess their understanding of concepts. Students should not be able to simply exit a screen with alternative concepts left intact 共or reinforced兲. An unavoidable conclusion from this study is that students must learn how to learn from this type of instructional tool.


We claim that the instructor retains and must exercise a pivotal role in effective student use of instruction and interactive multimedia in such teaching and learning contexts. If students have to be taught how to learn from physics textbooks, then they also should be given explicit guidance on how to deal with information presented in a multimedia format, particularly if using the software on their own. It seems likely that software with questions and prompts preventing the student progressing to the next screen or screens would achieve a similar outcome as the tutor served in this study. However, we have found no articles that describe studies using such software. In the main study 共as in the preliminary study兲, students were observed to consistently ignore instructions to write down information obtained or inferred from the screen. The complete CD-ROM coursework package comes with student worksheets, which are closely linked to the program content. Whether or not students would actually use the worksheets in a class situation was not part of this investigation but would make a useful follow-up study. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council for this research. a兲

Electronic mail: [email protected] Allan Harrison is now at Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland. 1 B. C. Buckley, J. D. Gobert, and M. A. T. Christie, ‘‘Model-based teaching and learning with hypermodels: What do they learn? How do they know?’’ presented at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, New Orleans, 2002; R. Glaser, E. L. Ferguson, and S. Vosniadou, ‘‘Cognition and the design of environments for learning,’’ in International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments, edited by S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl 共Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1996兲; Learning with Multiple Representations, edited by M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, and T. de Jong 共Pergamon, London, 1998兲; R. Phillips, The Developers’ Handbook to Interactive Multimedia: A Practical Guide for Educational Applications 共Kogan Page, London, 1997兲. 2 R. Serway, Student Tools CD-ROM, to accompany R. Saunders and R. Beichner: Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 5th ed. 共Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 2000兲. 3 International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments, edited by S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, and H. Mandl 共Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1996兲. 4 B. Y. White, ‘‘The TinkerTools Project. Computer microworlds as conceptual tools for facilitating scientific inquiry,’’ in Learning Science in Schools: Research Informing Practice, edited by S. M. Glynn and R. Duit 共Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1995兲, pp. 201–227; S. E. Ainsworth, P. A. Bibby, and D. J. Wood, ‘‘Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities—new problems,’’ J. Info. Tech. Teach. Educ. 6, 93– 104 共1997兲. 5 T. C. Reeves and S. W. Harmon, in Multimedia Computing: Preparing for the 21st Century, edited by S. Reisman 共Idea, Harrisburg, PA, 1994兲, pp. 472–505. 6 K. Tobin and G. Dawson, ‘‘Constraints to curriculum reform: Teachers and the myths of schooling,’’ Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 40, 81–92 共1992兲. 7 R. W. Chabay, ‘‘Electric Field Hockey’’ 共Physics Academic Software, 1996兲; R. Hickey, J. Pape, C. Brennan, and C. Hartley, ‘‘PhysWiz’’ 共Physics Academic Software, 1999兲; TERC, ‘‘Motion Visualizer 3-D’’ 共Alberti’s Window, 2000兲, 具www.albertiswindow.com典. 8 P.-K. Tao and R. F. Gunstone, ‘‘Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer,’’ Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 39–57 共1999兲. 9 D. W. Russell, K. B. Lucas, and C. J. McRobbie, ‘‘The role of the microcomputer-based laboratory display in supporting the construction of new understandings in kinematics,’’ Res. Sci. Educ. 33, 217–243 共2003兲. 10 B. Royuk and D. W. Brooks, ‘‘Cookbook procedures in MBL physics b兲

exercises,’’ J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 12, 317–324 共2003兲. R. Trumper, ‘‘The physics laboratory—A historical overview and future perspectives,’’ Sci. Educ. 12, 645– 670 共2003兲. 12 I. Park and M. Hannafin, ‘‘Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia,’’ Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 41, 63– 86 共1993兲. 13 J. Sweller, ‘‘Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design,’’ Learn. Instruct. 4, 295–312 共1994兲. 14 J. Choi and M. Hannafin, ‘‘Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures and implications for design,’’ Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 43, 53– 69 共1995兲. 15 R. F. A. Wierstra and T. Wubbels, ‘‘Student perception and appraisal of the learning environment: Core concepts in the evaluation of the Plon physics curriculum,’’ Stud. Educ. Eval. 20, 437– 455 共1994兲. 16 An element is defined by Sweller 共Ref. 9兲 as ‘‘anything to be learned.’’ When elements of a task can be learned in isolation, they will be described as having low element interactivity; high element interactivity occurs when a task cannot be learned without simultaneously learning the connection between a large number of elements. 17 J. Sweller and P. Chandler, ‘‘Why some material is difficult to learn,’’ Cogni. Instruct. 12, 185–233 共1994兲; R. E. Mayer and R. B. Anderson, ‘‘The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures,’’ J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 444 – 452 共1992兲. 18 W.-M. Roth, ‘‘Affordances of computers in teacher–student interactions: The case of interactive physics,’’ J. Res. Sci. Teach. 32, 329–347 共1995兲. 19 P. Gorsky and M. Finegold, ‘‘The role of anomaly and cognitive dissonance in restructuring students’ conceptions of force,’’ Instruct. Sci. 22, 75–91 共1994兲; W.-M. Roth, ‘‘The co-evolution of situated language and physics knowing,’’ J. Sci. Educ. Tech. 5, 171–191 共1996兲. 20 F. Goldberg and S. Bendall, ‘‘Computer-video-based tasks used to assess understanding and facilitate learning in geometrical optics,’’ in Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics, edited by D. R. Treagust, R. Duit, and B. Fraser 共Teachers College Press, New York, 1996兲. 21 H. Pfundt and R. Duit, Bibliography: Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education, 5th ed. 共IPN, Kiel, 1997兲; J. D. Novak, ‘‘Learning science and the science of learning,’’ Stud. Sci. Educ. 15, 77–101 共1988兲. 22 Improving Teaching and Learning in Science and Mathematics, edited by D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and B. J. Fraser 共Teachers College Press, New York, 1996兲. 23 K. A. Strike and G. J. Posner, ‘‘A revisionist theory of conceptual change,’’ in Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice, edited by R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton 共SUNY, New York, 1992兲, pp. 147–176. 24 S. Vosniadou, ‘‘Capturing and modelling the process of conceptual change,’’ Learn. Instruct. 4, 45– 69 共1994兲. 25 M. McCloskey, ‘‘Naive theories of motion,’’ in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and S. Stevens 共Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983兲; P. Thagard, Conceptual Revolutions 共Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992兲. 26 E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, Fourth Generation Evaluation 共Sage, London, 1985兲. 27 F. Erickson, ‘‘Qualitative methods in research on teaching,’’ in Handbook of Research on Teaching 共Macmillan, New York, 1986兲, Vol. 2, pp. 119– 161. 28 S. B. Merriam, Case Study Research in Education 共Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1988兲. 29 The unit Movement, which was developed by lecturers and researchers in the Department of Applied Physics at Curtin University of Technology, forms part of the IMM development Body Systems: Interactive Physics Education used with first-year Human Movement majors 共Department of Human Movement, University of Western Australia, Perth, 1995兲. 30 Students did not proceed beyond screen 15 because it was judged that the interactions required more sophisticated mathematics and actions than could be expected of these students. 31 C. Chan, J. Burtis, and C. Bereiter, ‘‘Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change,’’ Cogni. Instruct. 15, 1– 40 共1997兲. 32 D. Dykstra, C. F. Boyle, and I. A. Monarch, ‘‘Studying conceptual change in learning physics,’’ Sci. Educ. 76, 615– 652 共1992兲. 33 G. E. Oberem, ‘‘Transfer of a natural language system for problem-solving in physics,’’ presented at the ED-MEDIA ’94 World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vancouver, 1994. 34 R. R. Hake, ‘‘Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A sixthousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,’’ Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 –74 共1998兲. 35 Y. B. Lee and J. D. Lehman, ‘‘Instructional cuing in hypermedia: A study with active and passive learners,’’ J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia 2, 25–37 共1993兲. 11
