Multimedia Technologies and Student Learning:A Case Study of G.S. ST Michel EPA

Authors

  • Constantine Nyamboga
     Mount Kenya University
  • Raymond Ongus
     Mount Kenya University
  • Tinega Haron Chweya
     Department of Information Technology, School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Mount Kenya University (MKU)
  • Okello Gilbert
     Department of Information Technology, School of Pure and Applied Sciences, Mount Kenya University (MKU)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2016/v53i1/86763

Keywords:

Attitude, Interaction, Information Processing, Learning, Multimedia, Multimedia Technologies, Powerpoint Presentations, Recall, Talk-And-Chalk.

Abstract

Information overload experienced in the information society calls for improved human information processing. Researchers around the globe are now focusing research on investigating the contributions of multimedia technologies on information processing. This research seeks to bring out the contributions of PowerPoint presentation on content recall, interpersonal interaction and attitudes towards PowerPoint presentation in communication. This research was conducted on the senior one (S1) secondary school students of GSS EPA, in Nyarugenge district, Kigali city province, Rwanda. A sample size of 180 students was selected based on Slovin's formula from a population of 330 senior one students. Through a completely randomized experimental pretest-posttest design, the sample size was randomly assigned to three groups: The group one (G1) is the control group while group two (G2) and group three (G3) experimental groups. Students in group one (G1) were exposed to only talk-and-chalk (less interactive communication strategy) while those in group two (G2) were exposed to talk-and-chalk with PowerPoint presentation and finally students in group three (G3) were exposed only to PowerPoint presentations (a more interactive communication strategy). The researchers used questionnaires, observations and test questions to collect and analyze the data collected in order to establish the relationship between multimedia and student learning attitude.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abhiyan, S. S. and Nadu, T. (2008). Active Learning Methodology, Chennai,p.1–107.

Alavi, M. (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: An empirical evaluation. MIS quarterly, 18(2): 159–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/249763

Amir, F.; Iqbal, S.M. and Yasin, M. (1999). Effectiveness of cyber-learning. In:29th ASEE/IEEE Frontier in Education Conference, pp. 2:13a2–7–13a2–12, Puerto Rico: San Juna.

Apperson, J. M.; Laws, L. E. and Scepausky, A.J. (2008). An assessement of student preferences for PowerPoint Presentation structure in Undergraduate courses. Computers and Education, 50(1): 148–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.04.003

Atkins-Sayre, W.; Hopkins, S.; Mohundro, S.and Sayre, W. (1998). Rewards and liabilities of presentation software as an ancillary tool: prison or paradise? Corpus Christic, Tx: Del Mar College. Eric document Reproduction service. No ED430260.

Bartsch, R. A. and Cobern, K. M. (2006). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers and Education, 41: 77–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7

Begg, I. (1972). Recall of meaningful phrases. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11: 431–439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80024-0

Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia Teaching with Video Clips : TV, Movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the College Classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1): 1–21.

Bezjian-Avery, A.; Calder, B. and Iacobucci, D. (1998). New Media interactive verses traditional advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(4): 23–32.

Broadcasting, C. for P. (1997). Study of School uses of television and Video:1996-1997 school year summary report. ERIC Document Rreproduction Services, (ED 413879).

Burke, L.A. (2006). Powerful or Pointless? Faculty Versus Student Perceptions of PowerPoint Use in. Business Education, 69(4): 374–397. doi:10.1177/1080569906294634 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569906294634

Burke, L. A. and James, K. E. (2008). PowerPoint-based lectures in Business Education: An Empirical Investigation of Student-Perceived Novelty and effectiveness. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(3): 277–297. doi:10.1177/1080569908317151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569908317151

Canberghe, V.and Pelsmacker, P.De. (2009). Interactive Television context and advertising recall. In:Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology. Information Science Refererence-Hershey. Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/reference DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch338

Chapman, P.S.; Selvarajahand Webster, J. (1994). Engagement in multimedia training systems. In:HICSS. Maui: HI.

Chung, H. and Xinshu, Z. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1).Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00232.x

Clark, J. M. and Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding therory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 53(2): 445–459.

Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. Sydney.

CPB. (2004). Television goes to school: The Impact of Video on student learning in formal Education. Retrieved from http://www.cpb.org/stations/reports/tvgoestoschool/

DenBeste, M. (2003). PowerPoint, Technology and the web: more than just an overhead projector? The history teacher, 36: 491–504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1555576

Erhel, S. and Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,22(2): 137–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00165.x

Ericsson, K.A. (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frey, B.A. and Birnbaum, J.D. (2002). Learner’s perception on the value of PowerPoint in lecture. ERIC Document Rreproduction Services. doi:ED467192

Gier, V.S.and Kreiner, D.S. (2009). Incorporating ActiveLearning With PowerPoint-Based Lectures Using Content-Based Questions. Teaching of Psychology,36(2): 134–139. doi:10.1080/00986280902739792 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280902739792

Hanft, A. (2003). More power than point. Inc, 25(18):116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.18.34.25.s34

Hove, M.C.and Corcoran, K.J. (2008). Educational Technologies: impact on learning and frustration. Teaching of Psychology, 35: 121–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009862830803500212

Lai, Y.; Tsai, H.and Yu, P. (2011). Integrating annotations into a dual-slide PowerPoint Presentation for classroom learning. Educational Technology and Society, 14(2): 43–57. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 220374105_A_Data_Management_System_Integrating_Web-based_Training_and_Randomized_Trials/file/9fcfd510a7869d315a. pdf#page=48

Ludwig, T.E.; Daniel, D.B.; Froman, R. and Mathie, V.A. (2004). Using Multimedia In Classroom Presentations: Best Principles. Society for the Teaching Psychology Pedagogical Innovations Task Force, 1–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/e665822007-001

Magenheim, J. and Scheel, O. (2004). Using learning objects in ICT-based learning environment. In:World conference in E-learning in Corporate Government, Healthcare and Higher Education,p. 1375–1382. Washington Dc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1013367.1013520

Mayer, R.E.and Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1): 87–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077

McDonald, K. (2004). Examining powerPointlessness. Cell Biology, 3: 155–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-06-0048

Murphy, B. (2002). Bringing the best of the web to psychology education. Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved from http//www.apa.org/monitor/oct02/bestweb.html

Neo, M.and Neo, T.K. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning–Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology and Society, 12(2): 254–266. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Engaging+students+ in+mul imedia mediated+Constructivist+learning?Students’+perceptions#1

Nowaczyk, R.H.; Santos, L.T. and Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25: 367–382.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representation: A dual coding approach. England: Oxford University Press.

Paivio, A. (2006). Dual coding theory and education. In:Pathways to literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children,pp. 1–20. Michigan: The University of Michigan School of Education. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbdv.200490137/abstract

Plotrow, P.; Khan, O.; Lozare, B.and Khan, S. (2000). Health communication programs: A distance-education class within the Johns Hopkin University School of public Health Distance Education Program. In: Khosrowpour,M. (Ed.), Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies. Hershey, PA: The Idea Group. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-878289-60-5.ch017

Reed, S.K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 21(2):87–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_2

Rivera, J.C.and McAlister, M.K. (2001). A comparison of student outcomes and satisfaction between traditional and web based course offering. In:Information Resources Management Association International Conference, pp. 770–772. Toronto, Ontario Canada: Hershey PA: Idea Group.

Stephanie. (2013). How to use Slovin’s formula. Statistics How To: Elementary statistics for all of us. Retrieved from www.statisticshowto.com on 01August 2013.

Susskind, E.J. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing student’s self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers and Education, 45(2): 203–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.005

Susskind, E.J. (2008). Units of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing student’s self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers and Education, 50(4): 1228–1239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001

Szabo, A. and Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers and Education, 35(3): 175–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00030-0

Thompson, V.and Paivio, A. (1994). Memory for pictures and sounds: Independence of auditory and visual codes. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48: 380–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.48.3.380

Xu, J. (2010). On The Problems and Strategies of Multimedia Technology in English Teaching.Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3): 215–218. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.3.215-218 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.3.215-218

Downloads

Published

2016-02-01

How to Cite

Nyamboga, C., Ongus, R., Chweya, T. H., & Gilbert, O. (2016). Multimedia Technologies and Student Learning:A Case Study of G.S. ST Michel EPA. Journal of Information and Knowledge, 53(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2016/v53i1/86763

Issue

Volume 53, Issue 1, February 2016

Section

Articles

License

All the articles published in Journal of Information and Knowledge are held by the Publisher. Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science (SRELS), as a publisher requires its authors to transfer the copyright prior to publication. This will permit SRELS to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in print and electronic form and also to defend against any improper use of the article.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Received 2016-01-27
Accepted 2016-01-27
Published 2016-02-01