4.2 Article

Do medium and Context Matter when learning from multiple complementary Digital texts and videos?

期刊

INSTRUCTIONAL SCIENCE
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 653-679

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-022-09591-8

关键词

Digital texts and videos; Informational context; Behavioral engagement; Integrated understanding; Learning from complementary sources; Calibration of performance

资金

  1. Universita degli Studi di Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of using digital texts and videos as learning materials on students' engagement, understanding, and calibration. The results showed that video medium had a stronger effect on behavioral engagement compared to text medium, but there were no significant differences in other aspects.
Students more than ever learn from online sources, such as digital texts or videos. Little research has compared processes and outcomes across these two mediums. Using a between-participants experimental design, this study investigated whether medium (texts vs. videos) and context (less authoritative vs. more authoritative), independently and in concert, affected students' engagement, integrated understanding, and calibration. The two mediums presented identical information on the topic of social media, which was distributed across two complementary texts in the text condition and across two complementary videos in the video condition. In the less authoritative context, the two information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a friend on Facebook; in the more authoritative context, the same information sources (texts or videos) were posted by a professor on Moodle. Results showed a main effect of medium on behavioral engagement in terms of processing time, as students used longer time watching the two videos than reading the two digital texts. No other main medium or context effects were statistically significant; nor were there any interaction effects of medium with context on any of the outcome variables. The findings are discussed in light of the alternative hypotheses that guided the study and the directions it suggests for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据