nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

21.12.2017 | Original research

Flip, Slide, or Swipe? Learning Outcomes from Paper, Computer, and Tablet Flashcards

verfasst von: Kara Sage, Briana Krebs, Rachel Grove

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The present study compared the effectiveness of paper and digital flashcards. College students learned vocabulary from paper, computer, or tablet flashcards that were self-created or ready-made. Students then completed a memory recall test and answered questions on cognitive load, perceived control, satisfaction, and several individual difference variables. Results showed that students learned equally well from paper and tablet but less well from computer flashcards. They were less satisfied with, and felt less in control of, computer-based flashcards. Students also felt more satisfied with paper than either digital card set. Despite these differences, cognitive load was equivalent across platforms. In addition, students recalled more words and reported expelling more effort on ready-made over self-created flashcards. The individual difference variables did not relate to recall or satisfaction. Overall, students’ satisfaction, as well as perceived difficulty and level of control over the cards, meaningfully related to performance. This research suggests that paper and digital flashcards are equally viable options for students but platform matters. Mobile technologies like tablets might be especially advantageous. Furthermore, perceptions matter. Students may be inclined towards different cards based on their perceptions of difficulty level and the like, and thus flashcards should be available in a multitude of formats.

Vorheriger Artikel Transformations in Teachers’ Views in One-to-One Classes—Longitudinal Case Studies

Nächster Artikel Teachers’ Perceptions of the Use of Moodle Activities and Their Learning Impact in Secondary Education

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Amelink, C., Scales, G., & Tront, J. (2012). Student use of the tablet PC: Impact on student learning behaviors. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(1), 1–17.

Basoglu, E., & Akdemir, O. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1–7.

Burgess, S., & Murray, A. (2014). Use of traditional and smartphone app flashcards in an introductory psychology class. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 13, 1–7.

Chen, B., Seilhamer, R., Bennett, L., & Bauer, S. (2014). Students’ mobile learning practices in higher education: A multi-year study. Educause Review. Retrieved from: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/students-mobile-learning-practices-in-higher-education-a-multiyear-study. Accessed 1 July 2016.

Chien, C. (2015). Analysis the effectiveness of three online vocabulary flashcard websites on L2 learners’ level of lexical knowledge. English Language Teaching, 8(5), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n5p111.CrossRef

Cihon, T., Sturtz, A., & Eshleman, J. (2012). The effects of instructor-provided or student-created flashcards with weekly, one-minute timings on unit quiz scores in introduction to behavior analysis courses. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 13, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9038-x.CrossRef

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Conrad, N. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012544.CrossRef

Davis, K. (2013). Using electronic flashcards for student self-evaluation of readiness for exams. In Proceedings of the 120th American Society for engineering education annual conference and exposition.

Devaraj, S., Easley, R., & Crant, J. (2008). How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153.CrossRef

Dodigovic, M. (2013). Vocabulary learning with electronic flashcards: teacher design vs. student design. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 15–33.

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K., Marsh, E., Nathan, M., & Willingham, D. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.CrossRef

Fuson, K., & Brinko, K. (1985). The comparative effectiveness of microcomputers and flash cards in the drill and practice of basic math facts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16(3), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/748395.CrossRef

Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 225–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.225.CrossRef

Gilbert, J., & Fister, B. (2015). The perceived impact of e-books on student reading practices: A local study. College and Research Libraries, 76(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.4.469.CrossRef

Golding, J., Wasarhaley, N., & Fletcher, B. (2012). The use of flashcards in an Introduction to Psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450436.CrossRef

Green, T., & Bailey, B. (2010). Digital flashcard tools. TechTrends, 54(4), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-010-0415-2.CrossRef

Griggs, R. (2012). Psychology: A concise introduction (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Gutnam, J., Kuhbeck, F., Berberat, P., Fischer, M., Engelhardt, S., & Sarikas, A. (2015). Use of learning media by undergraduate medical students in pharmacology: A prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122624. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone/0122624.CrossRef

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x.CrossRef

Hartwig, M., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0181-y.CrossRef

Hausmann, R., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content and generation. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 417–424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Homer, B., & Plass, J. (2014). Level of interactivity and executive functions as predictors of learning in computer-based chemistry simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.041.CrossRef

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Kablan, Z., & Erden, M. (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers & Education, 51, 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.002.CrossRef

Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54, 541–583. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457.CrossRef

Kim, D., & Kim, D. (2010). Effect of screen size on multimedia vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01145.x.CrossRef

Klein, J. D., & Salisbury, D. F. (1987). A comparison of a microcomputer progressive state drill and flashcards for learning paired associates. In The 1987 proceedings of selected research papers (pp. 401–418). Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Kornell, N. (2009). Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1297–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537.CrossRef

Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. (2008). Optimizing self-regulated study: The benefits and costs of dropping flashcards. Memory, 16, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701763899.CrossRef

Kupzuk, S., Daly, E., & Andersen, M. (2011). A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-781.CrossRef

Lin, L., & Bigenho, C. (2011). Note-taking and memory in different media environments. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2011.594989.CrossRef

Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202–227.CrossRef

Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J., & Velay, J. (2006). Remembering the orientation of newly learned characters depends on the associated writing knowledge: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Human Movement Science, 25, 646–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2006.06.007.CrossRef

Macaruso, P., & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing literacy skills in Kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801982019.CrossRef

Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005.CrossRef

Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00237.x.CrossRef

McCombs, B., & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centered framework for e-learning. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1582–1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2005.00534.x.CrossRef

Mogey, N., & Hartley, J. (2013). To write or to type? The effects of handwriting and word-processing on the written style of examination essays. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012/748334.CrossRef

Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504796.CrossRef

Mueller, P., & Oppenheimer, D. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614524581.CrossRef

Myers, D. (2009). Psychology (9th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Nakata, T. (2011). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning in a paired associate paradigm: A critical investigation of flashcard software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520675.CrossRef

Ouelette, G. (2010). Orthographic learning in learning to spell: The roles of semantics and type of practices. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1015/j.jecp.2010.04.009.CrossRef

Ouellette, G., & Tims, T. (2014). The write way to spell: Printing vs. typing effects on orthographic learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00117.CrossRef

Ozyurek, P., Oztasan, N., & Kilic, I. (2015). The relationship between perceived stress and computer technology attitude: An application on health sciences students. Acta Informatica Medica, 23(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2015.23.33-38.CrossRef

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8.CrossRef

Poposki, E., & Oswald, F. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory: Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity. Human Performance, 23, 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.487843.CrossRef

Putnam, A., Sungkhasettee, V., & Roediger, H. (2016). Optimizing learning in college. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616645770.CrossRef

Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading/. Accessed 1 July 2016.

Ralph, B., Thomson, D., Cheyne, J., & Smilek, D. (2014). Media multitasking and failures of attention in everyday life. Psychological Research, 78(5), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0523-7.CrossRef

Reeves, B., Lang, A., Kim, E., & Tatar, D. (1999). The effects of screen size and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psychology, 1(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_4.CrossRef

Rosen, L., Whaling, K., Carrier, L., Cheever, N., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The media and technology usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006.CrossRef

Sage, K., Rausch, J., Quirk, A., & Halladay, L. (2016). Pacing, pixels and paper: Flexibility in learning words from flashcards. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 431–456.CrossRef

Seki, K., Yajima, M., & Sugishita, M. (1995). The efficacy of kinesthetic reading treatment for pure alexia. Neuropsychologia, 33, 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)00138-f.CrossRef

Sessions, L., Kang, M., & Womack, S. (2016). The neglected “R”: Improving writing instruction through iPad apps. Tech Trends, 60, 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0041-8.CrossRef

Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.2.276.CrossRef

Teo, H., Oh, L., Liu, C., & Wei, K. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00008-9.CrossRef

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x.CrossRef

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Cognitive load of learner control: Extraneous or germane load? Education Research International, 2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809.CrossRef

Wissman, K., Rawson, K., & Pyc, M. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20(6), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.687052.CrossRef

Zickuhr, K. (2013). Tablet ownership 2013. Pew Research Center (pp. 1–11). Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Tablet%20ownership%202013.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2016.

Titel: Flip, Slide, or Swipe? Learning Outcomes from Paper, Computer, and Tablet Flashcards
verfasst von: Kara Sage
Briana Krebs
Rachel Grove
Publikationsdatum: 21.12.2017
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2019
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9345-9

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2019

Transformations in Teachers’ Views in One-to-One Classes—Longitudinal Case Studies

Health Care Gamification: A Study of Game Mechanics and Elements

Dynamic Software, Task Solving With or Without Guidelines, and Learning Outcomes

N. M. Seel, T. Lehmann, P. Blumschein, O. A. Podolskiy (2017): Instructional Design for Learning: Theoretical Foundations

Teachers’ Perceptions of the Use of Moodle Activities and Their Learning Impact in Secondary Education

How Serious Games for Health Enhance Empowerment-Related Patient Education: The Impact of Gender

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten