nach oben

TechTrends

Erschienen in:

01.03.2016 | Original Paper

Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials

verfasst von: Ilana Stonebraker, M. Brooke Robertshaw, Jennifer D. Moss

Erschienen in: TechTrends | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study examines the impact on student performance after interactive and non-interactive tutorials using a 2 × 2 treatment-control design. In an undergraduate management course, a control group watched a video tutorial while the treatment group received the same content using a dynamic tutorial. Both groups received the same quiz questions. Using effect size to determine magnitude of change, it was found that those in the treatment condition performed better than those in the control condition. Students were able to take the quiz up to two times. When examining for change in performance from attempt one to attempt two, the treatment group showed a greater magnitude of change. Students who consistently performed lowest on the quizzes outperformed all students in learning gains.

Vorheriger Artikel Design Guidelines for Graduate Program Social Media Use

Nächster Artikel Teachers’ Attitudes to using iPads or Tablet Computers; Implications for Developing New Skills, Pedagogies and School-Provided Support

Allen, E.I., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance online education in the United States, 2011. Babson Research Group. Retrieved July 16, 2014, from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf.

Anderson, R. P., & Wilson, S. P. (2009). Quantifying the effectiveness of interactive tutorials in medical library instruction. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 28(1), 10–21. doi:10.1080/02763860802615815.CrossRef

Arguello, N. (2013). Secondary marketing research certificate: library collaboration with the college of business and marketing faculty. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18(4), 309–329. doi:10.1080/08963568.2013.825559.CrossRef

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Betty, P. (2008). Creation, management, and assessment of library screencasts: the regis libraries animated tutorials project. Part of a special issue on the proceedings of the thirteenth Off-Campus Library Services Conference, part 1, 48(3/4), 295–315. doi:10.1080/01930820802289342.

Bracke, P. J., & Dickstein, R. (2002). Web tutorials and scalable instruction: testing the waters. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 330–337.CrossRef

Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. England: University of Exeter. Available from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Florence: Routledge.

Craig, C. L., & Friehs, C. G. (2013). Video and HTML: testing online tutorial formats with biology students. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7(3), 292–304. doi:10.1080/19322909.2013.815112.CrossRef

Dewald, N., Scholz-Crane, A., Booth, A., & Levine, C. (2000). Information literacy at a distance: instructional design issues. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(1), 33–44. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00121-4.CrossRef

Enfield, J. (2013). Looking at the impact of the flipped classroom model of instruction on undergraduate multimedia students at CSUN. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 57(6), 14–27. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0698-1.CrossRef

Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147–1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008.CrossRef

Haak, D. C., HilleRisLambers, J., Pitre, E., & Freeman, S. (2011). Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332(6034), 1213–1216. doi:10.1126/science.1204820.CrossRef

Li, Q., & Edmonds, K. A. (2005). Mathematics and at-risk adult learners: would technology help? Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 38(2), 143–166.

Mery, Y., DeFrain, E., Kline, E., & Sult, L. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of tools for online database instruction. Communications in Information Literacy, 8(1), 70–81. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80172-4.

Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: an integrated approach. Florence: Psychology Press.

Silver, S. L., & Nickel, L. T. (2005). Are online tutorials effective? A comparison of online and classroom library instruction methods. Research Strategies, 20(4), 389–396. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.012.CrossRef

Sult, L., Mery, Y., Blakiston, R., & Kline, E. (2013). A new approach to online database instruction: developing the guide on the side. Reference Services Review, 41(1), 125–133. doi:10.1108/00907321311300947.CrossRef

Thomas, J., & Gosling, C. (2009). An evaluation of the use of “Guides at the Side” web-based learning activities to equip students in health sciences and nursing with information literacy skills. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15(2), 173–186. doi:10.1080/13614530903240486.CrossRef

Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research would look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25–32.CrossRef

Turnbull, B., Royal, B., & Purnell, M. (2011). Using an interdisciplinary partnership to develop nursing students’ information literacy skills: an evaluation. Contemporary Nurse, 38(1–2), 122–129.CrossRef

Woodard, B. S. (2003). Technology and the constructivist learning environment: implications for teaching information literacy skills. Research Strategies, 19(3–4), 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.resstr.2005.01.001.CrossRef

Yang, S. (2009). Information literacy online tutorials: an introduction to rationale and technological tools in tutorial creation. The Electronic Library, 27(4), 684–693.CrossRef

Zhang, L., Watson, E. M., & Banfield, L. (2007). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face instruction in academic libraries: a systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(4), 478–484. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.006.CrossRef

Titel: Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials
verfasst von: Ilana Stonebraker
M. Brooke Robertshaw
Jennifer D. Moss
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: TechTrends / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0026-7

Springer Professional

Student See Versus Student Do: A Comparative Study of Two Online Tutorials

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

What’s Cooking in the MOOC Kitchen: Layered MOOCs

Teachers’ Attitudes to using iPads or Tablet Computers; Implications for Developing New Skills, Pedagogies and School-Provided Support

In Memoriam: Jerrold “Jerry” Kemp (1921–2015)

Presence+Experience: A Framework for the Purposeful Design of Presence in Online Courses

A Systems View of Creativity in a YouTube World

Investigating Practices in Teacher Education that Promote and Inhibit Technology Integration Transfer in Early Career Teachers

Premium Partner