Using Multimedia In Classroom
Presentations: Best Principles
Thomas E. Ludwig
Hope College
David B. Daniel
University of Maine at Farmington
Rick Froman
John Brown University
Virginia A. Mathie
James Madison University
Prepared for the Society for the
Teaching of Psychology
Pedagogical Innovations Task
Force
December 2004
Using Multimedia In Classroom
Presentations: Best Practices
Overview of Classroom Media Use
The content of an introductory
psychology course (and the supporting textbooks) is constantly evolving in
response to advances in research and theory. The instructional methods and
tools used in the course have also evolved, reflecting shifts in both the
preferred pedagogical approaches and in the technological infrastructure
available to the instructor and the students. Our goal in this paper is to
identify some of the best practices in computer-enhanced classroom instruction.
We will begin with some lessons learned from the past two decades of research
and classroom experience with instructional technology. We will then consider
how these principles can be applied to the use of computer-based technology
(PowerPoint, Keynote, Flash, and web pages) in class lectures.
History of Media Use
In a sense, teaching has always
been a “multimedia” enterprise; instructors have typically spoken aloud to,
drawn pictures, and attempted demonstrations for the benefit of their students.
What has changed has been the evolving technology available for combining and
delivering that information. Instructors who began teaching in the 1960s or
1970s probably remember a time when the chalkboard was the main form of
instructional media used in psychology classrooms, perhaps supplemented by
mimeographed handouts and occasional glimpses of a sheep brain, an operant
chamber, or a plastic model of an eyeball. These instructors may recall the
enthusiasm with which students greeted the introduction of “new technologies”
such as photocopied illustrations, slides depicting visual illusions,
filmstrips with audio narration, and especially full-motion 16-millimeter films
with reenactments of classic experiments.
As classroom technology continued
to improve, the 1980s saw the introduction of overhead transparencies and
videotapes, while the 1990s gave us first videodiscs and then CD-ROMs, the
World Wide Web, and eventually digital projectors with the mixed blessings (see
Atkinson, 2004b) of Microsoft PowerPoint. Technological innovation has
accelerated in the first decade of the new century, with digital projectors as
standard features in most classrooms, and CD-ROMs or DVDs accompanying many
textbooks. Most classrooms (and dorm rooms) have high-speed Internet
connections that allow reasonable-quality video streaming, and many students
now bring wireless laptops, tablet computers, or hand-held devices into the
classroom setting.
Rationale for Multimedia Use
Why would any instructor want to
use multimedia materials in the classroom? To a certain extent, psychology
instructors have adopted these new types of media simply “because they could.”
As each improvement in technology became available (in many cases with the
support of textbook publishers), instructors who saw themselves as “hip, cool,
and hi-tech” quickly incorporated the new tools, correctly perceiving that
slick multimedia presentations have a certain amount of entertainment value for
students. However, this rationale misses the point; in fact, the use of
multimedia materials has substantial grounding in cognitive theory and
research—although, as is often the case, the research evidence followed the
widespread use of these materials rather than preceded it.
Several dozen studies indicate
that computer-based multimedia can improve learning and retention of material
presented during a class session or individual study period, as compared to
“traditional” lectures or study materials that do not use multimedia (see
Bagui, 1998; Fletcher, 2003; Kozma, 2001; Mayer, 2001). According to Najjar
(1996), this improvement can be attributed mainly to dual coding of the
information presented in two different modalities—visual plus auditory, for
example (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Paivio, 1986)—leading to increased
comprehension of the material during the class session, and improved retention
of the material at later testing times (Mayer & Moreno, 1998). There is general agreement that multimedia
presentations are most effective when the different types of media support one
another rather than when superfluous sounds or images are presented for
entertainment value—which may induce disorientation and cognitive overload
that could interfere with learning rather than enhance learning (Mayer, Heiser,
& Lonn, 2001).
Finally, a number of studies have
suggested that student satisfaction and motivation is higher in courses that use
multimedia materials (Astleitner & Wiesner, 2004; Yarbrough, 2001). In one particularly large study, Shuell and
Farber (2001) examined the attitudes of over 700 college students toward the
use of computer technology in twenty courses representing a wide range of
academic disciplines. Students were generally very positive about the use of
technology, although females rated the use of technology for learning and
classroom instruction somewhat lower than did their male peers.
However, not everyone is excited
about the new technology. On the basis of negative anecdotes described on
student evaluations and in discussions at professional conferences, we can
conclude that some students and some instructors have had bad experiences with
multimedia in the classroom. It is important to keep in mind that a
poorly developed and/or executed use of multimedia can do more harm than good
(Daniel, in press).
In our opinion, these negative
experiences often seem related to lack of experience with computer technology,
instructors allowing the program to direct the flow of the course, or to overly
optimistic expectations about the media (or to underpowered projectors that
necessitate dimming the room lights). Our own classroom experiences, combined
with the research evidence, lead us to summarize the potential pedagogical
value and rationale for using classroom media in these three points:
·
To
raise interest level
-- students appreciate (and often expect) a variety of media
·
To
enhance understanding
-- rich media materials boost student comprehension of complex topics,
especially dynamic processes that unfold over time
·
To
increase memorability
-- rich media materials lead to better encoding and easier retrieval
Instructional
Techniques for Appropriate Multimedia Use
Prepare a Class Plan. The
class plan is perhaps the most important resource for the successful use of
multimedia materials, because it guides the selection of media and provides the
context for each media element. Conceived of in this way, multimedia programs and
materials are tools to direct attention and emphasize key points that are best
understood visually rather than all-purpose guides for every point of every
lecture. Instructors who begin
integrating multimedia into their classes often report that the media use
forced them to improve the organization of their class sessions—which may be an
added benefit to students.
Develop the Class Plan as a
Slideware Presentation. Many instructors use PowerPoint, Keynote, Flash, or
a series of linked web pages to organize and present their lecture outline and
media. Because PowerPoint is available on nearly 100% of classroom computers,
it has become the organizing tool for most instructors. Thus we will focus our
comments on PowerPoint, even though we recognize that other tools have some
specific advantages.
Build In Some Flexibility.
One major objection to integrating slideware fully into classroom courses is
that it would rob instructors of their flexibility – to diverge from the topic,
or go into more depth on one topic, or make an adjustment in response to
student questions. The perception of loss of flexibility is related to the
amount of planning that it takes to develop a slideware presentation. Once
developed, instructors feel that they have to stick to the order and get
through all of the content. But there are ways to get around this situation.
Remember that less is better when it comes to slideware. By creating guiding
bullets as opposed to paragraphs of text, maximizing clarity, strategically
including visuals for specific impact rather than just because they may be
cute, and minimizing distraction, the slideware becomes more of a guide than a
script, allowing instructors to take charge of the flow and use the program to
direct it.
There are times, however, when you
may want certain resources available just in case students have a particular
question or you want the option to talk about a topic at greater depth. Again,
slideware does not have to be linear and can be made to accommodate many
contingencies. Such flexibility can be accomplished, for example, by creating
custom shows (groups of slides arranged by topic) or menus of links to specific
slides that you may or may not choose to access.
Fight Against the “Mind-Numbing”
Properties of Slideware. Strong criticisms have been leveled against
slideware in general and PowerPoint in particular. For example, Tufte (2003)
argues that PowerPoint induces a “cognitive style” that encourages passivity
and makes a complex issue seem more simple and clear-cut than it is. Here is a
summary of Tufte’s criticisms of PowerPoint presentations:
- PowerPoint
encourages simplistic thinking, with complex ideas being squashed into
bulleted lists, and stories with beginning, middle, and end being turned
into a collection of disparate, loosely disguised points. This may present
a kind of image of objectivity and neutrality that people associate with
science, technology, and "bullet points".
- PowerPoint
presentations seem designed to guide and reassure a presenter, rather than
to enlighten the audience;
- PowerPoint
encourages the use of unhelpfully simplistic tables and charts, tied to
the low resolution of computer displays and the need for text to be
readable by a large audience.
- PowerPoint
lends itself to poor typography and chart layout, especially by presenters
who use poorly-designed templates and PowerPoint’s default settings;
- PowerPoint’s
outline format leads presenters to arrange material in an unnecessarily
deep hierarchy, itself subverted by the need to restart the hierarchy on
each slide;
- PowerPoint’s
“click-for-next-slide” mentality enforces a linear progression through the
presenters hierarchy of ideas (whereas with handouts, readers could browse
and explore items at their leisure);
Other experts argue that we should blame the
presenter, not the tool, for mind-numbing presentations (Atkinson, 2004a,
2004b; Daniel, in press). Some also argue that cognitive research demonstrates
the value of hierarchical organization for comprehension and memory, and point
out that the audience generally attends a presentation in order to hear the
presenter’s organization of ideas rather than to explore the topic on their
own. Many of the criticisms of such
presentations are a result of using the program, rather than the lecture
outline, to guide the development of the presentation.
Where Possible, Include
Animations and Video Clips. Although it requires more effort to locate and
insert these types of materials (not to mention the effort involved in creating
your own animations and video), research suggests that these materials have a
particularly powerful impact on student learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2002). As
you go over the material you want to present in class, look for places where an
animation or video clip would be particularly helpful in illustrating a dynamic
process that changes over time or has multiple stages. Then look for suitable
ready-made animations or video segments that you could plug into the
presentation. If you can’t locate an acceptable animation, create it yourself,
using the simple animation tools built into PowerPoint or Keynote. Even better,
enlist the aid of a student or campus technology consultant to help you create
it in Flash or some other powerful animation software.
Use Multimedia in Creative Ways.
Although multimedia materials may have some value when merely added to a
PowerPoint lecture outline, many instructors are exploring ways to incorporate
these materials in collaborative learning activities involving case-based
scenarios or problem-based exercises (Ludwig & Perdue, in press; Rogers,
2002; Savery & Duffy, 1996).
Some Specific Tips for PowerPoint Presentations
Designing Presentations
- It’s not about you – Avoid using the presentation as YOUR
lecture notes. A presentation is
for the audience and their learning is the primary objective. Write your
lecture before opening the PowerPoint program and use slides for
information that is best presented visually.
- Minimize text – Less is better. Narration
is better than written words for learning and retention in a classroom
context. Clarity, not comprehensiveness, is your primary objective. In
most cases, this means using short phrases rather than full sentences in
your bullet points.
- Minimize distractions – Plain is better than
flashy.
- Select non-distracting and simple
backgrounds
- Select simple, easy-to-read
fonts (small fonts annoy audiences)
- Select simple and smooth
transitions
- Don’t include irrelevant
illustrations, animations, or sounds
- Be strategic – A good picture is worth a
thousand words and a bad one needs explanation. Choose pictures, graphs and videos that
clearly demonstrate the point you want to make.
- Make it yours – Customize publisher
content. The slides that come with
the book are outlines of the text.
Delete slides to make room for yourself and add your own content to
highlight your own objectives and style.
- Save room for dessert – Leave room for
flexibility, questions, and the occasional tangent.
Presenting the Material in Class
- Cover your backside – Don’t turn your back on
your audience and/or read directly from the slide. Audiences report being annoyed by
presenters who simply read their slides. Instead, print out a copy of your
bulleted lists and narrate the main points while facing the audience (or orient
the classroom computer so that you can view the monitor screen while
facing the audience).
- Be relevant – Students will write down
everything on a slide. To avoid
having them writing down point #3 while ignoring your current lecture on
point #1, reveal info on the slide as you speak of it.
- Fade to black (or white) – There are times when you
will want student attention away from the screen and on you or
discussion. This can be
accomplished by placing a blank slide at relevant points or, by simply
hitting your B key (B blackens the screen, B again brings the slideshow
back on-screen).
- Experiment – Instructor style and
learning objectives interact with presentation mode. Try various strategies, evaluate, and
select those that work best for you.
Some Concluding Thoughts
If done well, multimedia content
organized with a slideware tool can generate productive and stimulating
presentations that lead to greater retention, application to new situations,
and performance on assessments. If not done well, they can be a distraction
from learning and ultimately unproductive.
As the need for visual support
varies as a function of content and objectives, the decision to use slideware
should be made on a lesson-by-lesson basis. At each step in the process, you
should ask yourself if the use of this technology is appropriate for your
teaching style, the content, your audience, and your desired outcomes. If you
decide that using slideware may have a positive effect on your teaching, it is
important that you use it consciously, effectively, and strategically.
As we have watched each wave of
improvements in hardware and software, as well as the evolving trends in
educational pedagogy, it appears to us that the most important lesson is the
necessity of keeping the focus on the instructional goal, not on the technology
itself.
Appendix: Getting Started with
Multimedia in the Classroom
Get the Right Equipment. The equipment is relatively
straightforward, and already widely available in many classrooms (Eskicioglu
& Kopec, 2003): a standard computer system equipped with a CD/DVD drive,
external speakers, and an internet connection, with the computer output
displayed through a digital projector. A TV/VCR may also be required for
instructors who have not yet made the transition to an all-digital format, or for
the presentation of commercial videotapes that cannot be digitized legally.
Obtain Good Multimedia Content --
Legally.
However, the equipment won’t be of much use unless you have a good set of
multimedia materials and a carefully developed plan for organizing the entire
class session to incorporate the media effectively. In the past, obtaining good
media materials was quite a challenge; early adopters of technology often spent
many hours scanning images from textbooks and creating their own audio and video
clips. Fortunately, many textbook publishers now provide libraries of images,
animations, and video segments licensed for use in class—although instructors
may still want to augment these collections with other materials.
The same computer technology that
facilitates multimedia creation and distribution makes it temptingly easy to
obtain materials from a wide variety of sources. Photos may be scanned from magazines, and
images and animations may be captured from web pages; for example, search sites
such as Google allow a user to scan the Internet for a vast selection of images
using a powerful keyword search engine.
Audio and video clips may be digitized from videotape or captured from
CD or DVD sources, or downloaded from the Internet.
Although
the fair use provision introduced by the 1976 Copyright Act grants
educators and students remarkable latitude in the use of materials for
non-commercial, instructional purposes (United States Copyright Office, 2004;
specifically see Section 107 at www.copyright.gov/title17), instructors should
be vigilant about the inclusion of copyrighted content in their presentations.
If in doubt, it is always wise to seek permission from the copyright holder, or
consult with a library media specialist. Some colleges or universities have
adopted specific policies about the use of such supplementary materials,
including limits on the number of images that may be obtained from a single
source, the duration of video that may be sampled (e.g., 10% of a complete
film, or three minutes of a television program), or the length of time that an
instructor may make the content available to students (e.g., 9 presentations,
45 consecutive days, or a single semester).
Carefully
Consider the Pitfalls of Slideware. A good place to start is by reading these key
references on the various controversies surrounding PowerPoint presentations.
- Atkinson,
C. (2004b). Five experts dispute Edward Tufte on PowerPoint. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_dispute.htm
- Atkinson,
C. (2004a). An interview with Richard Mayer. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/personality/richardmayer.html
- Bucholz,
S., & Ullman, J. (2004, June/July). Twelve commandments for
PowerPoint. The Teaching Professor. Magna Publications. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_6/news/596302-1.html
- Daniel, D. B. (in
press). Using technology to ruin a
perfectly good lecture. To appear in
Perlman, B., McCann, L. & Buskist, B., (Eds.). Voices of NITOP: Favorite talks from the National
Institute on the Teaching of Psychology. American Psychological Society.
- Magna
Publications. (2004, November). To Read or Not to Read PowerPoint slides. The
Teaching Professor. Magna Publications. Retrieved
Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_9/news/596791-1.html
- Paradi, D. (2003). Survey
shows how to stop annoying audiences with bad PowerPoint. Retrieved Dec.
20, 2004 from http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com/articles/pptsurvey_article.htm
- Tufte,
E. (2003, Nov. 9). PowerPoint is evil. Wired. Retrieved Dec. 20,
2004 from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
- Young,
J. R. (2004, Nov. 12). When good technology means bad teaching. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 (12), A31. Retrieved Dec. 20 from
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i12/12a03101.htm
Then develop your own goals for the use of slideware in your
courses, and try to work consistently toward those goals.
References Cited in
the Report
Astleitner, H., &
Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation. Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 3-21.
Atkinson, C. (2004a). An interview
with Richard Mayer. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/personality/richardmayer.html
Atkinson, C. (2004b). Five
experts dispute Edward Tufte on PowerPoint. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004, from
http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_dispute.htm
Bagui, S. (1998). Reasons
for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia
and Hypermedia, 7, 3-18.
Bucholz, S., & Ullman,
J. (2004, June/July). Twelve commandments for PowerPoint. The Teaching
Professor. Magna Publications. Retrieved
Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_6/news/596302-1.html
Clark, J. M., &
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology
Review, 3, 149-170.
Daniel,
D. B. (in press). Using technology to
ruin a perfectly good lecture. To appear in
Perlman,
B., McCann, L. & Buskist, B., (Eds.).
Voices of NITOP: Favorite
talks
from the National Institute on the Teaching of
Psychology. American Psychological Society.
Eskicioglu, A. M., &
Kopec, D. (2003). The ideal multimedia-enabled classroom: Perspectives from
psychology, education, and information science. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 199-221.
Fletcher, J. D. (2003).
Evidence for learning from technology-assisted instruction. In H. F. O'Neil,
Jr. & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A
learning view (pp. 79-99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kozma, R. (1991).
Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.
Ludwig, T. E., &
Perdue, C. W. (in press). Multimedia and
computer-based learning in introductory psychology. In D. Dunn & S. Chew
(Eds.), Best practices in teaching introductory psychology. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Magna Publications. (2004,
November). To read or not to read PowerPoint slides. The Teaching Professor.
Magna Publications. Retrieved
Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_9/news/596791-1.html
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J.,
& Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
Mayer, R. E., &
Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence
for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 312-320.
Mayer, R. E., &
Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational
Psychology Review, 14, 87-99.
Najjar, L. J. (1996).
Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia,
5, 129-150.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental
representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Paradi, D. (2003). Survey shows how to stop annoying
audiences with bad PowerPoint. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com/articles/pptsurvey_article.htm
Rogers, P. L.
(Ed). (2002). Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning. Hershey,
PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Savery, J. R.,
& Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and
its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning
environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Shuell, T. J., &
Farber, S. L. (2001). Students’ perceptions of technology use in college
courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24, 119-138.
Tufte, E. (2003, Nov. 9).
PowerPoint is evil. Wired. Retrieved July 2, 2004 from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
United States Copyright
Office. (2004). Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Yarbrough, D. N. (2001). A
comparative analysis of student satisfaction and learning in a
computer-assisted environment versus a lecture environment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,
12, 129-147.
Young, J. R. (2004, Nov.
12). When good technology means bad teaching. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51 (12), A31. Retrieved Dec. 20 from
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i12/12a03101.htm
Other References, Organized by
Category
Classroom Presentations – Value of
Multimedia
Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C.
(2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 3-21.
Bagui, S. (1998). Reasons for increased
learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 7,
3-18.
Barrett,
E., & Nugent, L. (2000/2001). The relationship between interest and
learning in lectures. Unpublished manuscript, James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, VA. (students who got
a more interesting presentation/lecture retained more info than the ones who
got a less interesting lecture - no difference due to amount of text: minimal
text, minimal text w/ graphics, lots of text w/o graphics)
Brown,
D. G. (2000). Teaching to an unfamiliar student norm. Syllabus, 14 (5),
22. (talks about the need to embrace
multi-tasking/many modes of learning in a classroom)
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991).
Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,
8, 293-332.
ChanLin,
L.-J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25 (3), 166-175. (descriptive facts: low prior knowl-still
graphic & animation > no graphic; high prior knowl-animation>no
graphic; procedural knowl: low prior knowl-no diff bt treatments; high prior
knowl-still graphic>no graphic)
Chen,
L. C. (1997, February). The effects of color and background information in
motion visuals on children's memory and comprehension. Paper presented at the
1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology, Albuquerque, NM. (compared
outline of animals with no color to outlined colored in with colors to outline
with colors and background - 3rd graders did best with outline/color - no diff
bt treatments for 6th/8th graders)
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991).
Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-170.
Erwin,
T. D., & Rieppi, R. (1999). Comparing multimedia and traditional approaches
in undergraduate psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 58-61. (Compared multimedia & traditional
sections of psychology courses; multimedia students had higher grades, better
attendance and higher satisfaction for some courses but not for others)
Eskicioglu, A. M., & Kopec, D.
(2003). The ideal multimedia-enabled classroom: Perspectives from psychology,
education, and information science. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 12, 199-221.
Farley,
F. H., & Grant, A. P. (1976). Arousal and cognition: Memory for color
versus black and white multimedia presentation. The Journal of Psychology, 94,
147-150. (used slide/tape presentation - slides
either black/white or color - more Ss in color cond increased retention from
short to long-term test; fewer color Ss increased forgetting from short to
long-term test)
Giannini,
A. J., Giannini, J. N., Bowman, R. K., & Giannini, J. D. (2001). Teaching
with symbols tangentially related to topic: Using a linked multimedia approach
to enhance learning. Psychological Reports, 88, 403-409. (students heard lecture w/ course content
slides only or course content + symbolic slides (art work, etc). - students w/
symbolic slides had higher test scores than those course content slides only)
Goolkasian,
P. (2000). Pictures, words, and sounds: From which format are we best able to
reason? The Journal of General Psychology, 127, 439-459. (reasoning test
stimulus: picture only, words only, spoken only, P/W, P/S, W/S, P/W/S; anything
w/ P better reaction time & accuracy - P/S = P, W/S = W - P/W/S & P/W
longer than indiv - clear picture adv)
Gordon,
S. B., & Maples, Jr., J. M. (1995). Using interactive technology to enhance
student comprehension and retention. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems,
9, 26-29. (Describes CACTIS, an
interactive cordless keypad system used with multimedia presentations to assess
student learning)
Head,
M. K. (1998, March). Using animated lectures to improve listening skills. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages, Seattle, WA. (plan to
develop audio lectures accompanied by animated illustrations on CD-ROM as a way
to enhance the listening and note-taking skills of students)
Janda,
K. (1992). Multimedia in political science: Sobering lessons from a teaching
experiment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 341-354. (No differences in performance measures,
interest in the course, or self-perceived level of knowledge due to
participation in multimedia-based discussion sections of political science
course at Northwestern University)
Johnson,
L. (2001). The effects of technology on learning. Unpublished manuscript, James
Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA. (summary
of research examining effects of multimedia presentations in conjunction with
gender differences and learning style differences)
Jones,
A., & Pappalardo, K. (none). The effect of technology on learning.
Unpublished manuscript, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA. (audio lecture accompanied by one of
three presentations: minimal text, minimal text w/ graphics, lots of text w/o
graphics; no differences in test of knowledge due to type of presentation (but
did get more correct for "love" topic than "botany" topic)
Kalyuga,
S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience
into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
92, 126-136. (diagram only, D +
visual text, D+auditory text, D+V+A; inexperienced learners: D+AT>perf than
D, D+VT or D+VT+AT – D was worst; experienced: D = D+AT - if had to listen to
AT, D>D+AT)
Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media.
Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211.
Larrabee,
M. J., & Blanton, B. L. (1999). Innovations for enhancing education of
career counselors using technology. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36,
13-23. (Describes continuing
education training in the use of multimedia presentations for counselor
educators teaching career counseling courses; describes the modules available
on CD developed for this training & use in the classroom)
Larson,
T. D. (2001). A comparison of fifth grade children receiving both a traditional
and a technology based means of instruction in social studies. Master's thesis
presented at Johnson Bible College. (students
participated in 2 weeks of traditional lecture and 2 weeks of PowerPoint
presentations; no difference between two methods in knowledge scores)
Ludwig,
T. E., & Perdue, C. W. (in press).
Multimedia and computer-based learning in introductory psychology. In D.
Dunn & S. Chew (Eds.), Best practices in teaching introductory
psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mackenzie,
D. S., & Jansen, D. G. (1998). Impact of multimedia computer-based
instruction on student comprehension of drafting principles. Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (4), 61-81.
(traditional [used BB, B/W transparencies, physical models] vs. mm
computer-based instruction [animation, 2D, 3D images, video]; students
perceived MCBI more effective, MCBI > learning on both posttests)
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A
split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing
systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002).
Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14,
87-99.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S.
(2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more
material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93,
187-198.
McCannon,
M., & Morse, G. E. (1999). Using multimedia visual aids in presentations:
The demise of the transparency has been greatly exaggerated. TechTrends, 43
(6), 29-31. (surveyed businesses to
determine how many use presentation software - 89% of respondents used
presentation software - educators must train students to use it as well)
Michas,
I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of
multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555-575. (text only, line drawings only, text +
line drawings, video, video stills: text+line drawings > perf & test
responses than either alone; video > video still or line drawings alone;
video = text+line drawings)
Najjar, L. J. (1996). Multimedia
information and learning. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129-150.
Nix, D., & Spiro, R. (Eds.). (1990).
Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Nowaczyk,
R. H., Santos, L. T., & Patton, C. (1998). Student perception of multimedia
in the undergraduate classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media,
25, 367-382. (assessed students'
perceptions of commercially-prepared mm materials & instructor-prepared mm
materials - mm = text slides, slides w/ graphics, slides w/ animation - rated
mm favorably but concerned re student-instructor interaction in mm class)
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental
representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Sammons,
M. C. (1995). Students assess computer-aided classroom presentations.
Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 22(10). (Survey of 500 Wright State University
students enrolled in multimedia courses found 70% thought multimedia
presentations very organized, interesting, helpful for taking notes; 65%
thought helped clarify information; 53% thought helped them remember info)
Smith,
S. M., & Woody, P. C. (2000). Interactive effect of multimedia instruction
and learning styles. Teaching Psychology, 27 (3), 220-223. (beg sem, mm < perf trad class – end
sem, interaction bt learning style & class type: trad class, verbal
learners > perf than visual learners BUT in mm class, visual learners
slightly but non-sig > verbal learners)
Stoloff,
M. (1995). Teaching physiological psychology in a multimedia classroom.
Teaching of Psychology, 22, 138-141. (describes
use of mm presentation course format - no diff bt mm version and traditional
version of course)
Wright,
R. (1993). Presidential multimedia. Technological Horizons in Education
Journal, 21(3), 65-68. (Bakersfield
College used multimedia classroom for introductory psychology course; students
in multimedia section had higher grades & greater satisfaction than
students in traditional section of his course)
Yaverbaum,
G. J., Kulkarni, M., & Wood, C. (1997). Multimedia projection: An
exploratory study of student perceptions regarding interest, organization, and
clarity. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6, 139-153. (students rated screens on increased
interest, organization of material, & clarity; each screen had text &
graphics, some also had animation, music + animation, voice; viewed screens w/
animation, music, voice better org, clearer, more interesting)
Classroom Presentations – PowerPoint
Issues
Ahmed,
C. (1998, November). Powerpoint versus traditional overheads. Which is more
effective for learning? Paper presented at a Conference of the South Dakota
Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Sioux Falls,
SD. (no difference in college
students' performance on test questions taken from lecture given in PP or as
traditional lecture)
Atkinson, C.
(2004). An interview with Richard Mayer. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/personality/richardmayer.html
Atkinson, C. (2004). Five experts
dispute Edward Tufte on PowerPoint. Retrieved July 6, 2004, from
http://www.sociablemedia.com/articles_dispute.htm
Brown,
D. G. (2001). Judicious PowerPoint. Syllabus, 14 (8), 27. (16 suggestions sent in by the magazines
readers for how to use power point productivity)
Bucholz, S.,
& Ullman, J. (2004, June/July). Twelve commandments for PowerPoint. The
Teaching Professor. Magna Publications. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_6/news/596302-1.html
Bushong,
S. (1998). Utilization of PowerPoint presentation software in library instruction
of subject specific reference sources. Master's Thesis, Kent State
University. (explores the efficiency
of PowerPoint's effectiveness in explaining two specific reference materials)
Daniel, D. B.
(in press). Using technology to ruin a perfectly good lecture. To appear in
Perlman, B., McCann, L. & Buskist, B., (Eds.). Voices of NITOP: Favorite
talks from the National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology. American
Psychological Society.
Magna
Publications. (2004, November). To Read or Not to Read PowerPoint slides. The
Teaching Professor. Magna Publications. Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.magnapubs.com/issues/magnapubs_tp/18_9/news/596791-1.html
Mantei,
E. J. (2000). Using Internet class notes and PowerPoint in the physical geology
lecture: Comparing the success of computer technology with traditional teaching
techniques. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 301-305. (PowerPoint presentation + Internet notes
compared to traditional course - mm resulted in better course performance than
traditional (confound in that both PP and notes - not just PP)
Murray,
B. (2002). Tech enrichment or overkill: Amid growing awareness that
computerized slide presentations can bore students, academics look to use the
software more interactively. Monitor on Psychology, 33 (4), 42-44. (a look at whether technology is being
used in a dull manner, and insights on how to use software in a more
interesting way)
Paradi, D.
(2003). Survey shows how to stop annoying audiences with bad PowerPoint.
Retrieved Dec. 20, 2004 from
http://www.communicateusingtechnology.com/articles/pptsurvey_article.htm
Szabo,
A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should
we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35,
175-187. (lecture using overhead
transparencies, lecture using PowerPoint, lecture using PP plus lecture notes -
no diff bt PP and PP + notes, both PP's resulted in higher test scores than
overheads)
Tufte, E.
(2003, Nov. 9). PowerPoint is evil. Wired. Retrieved July 2, 2004 from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/ppt2.html
Computer Activities / Interactive
Multimedia
Atkins, M. J.
(1993). Evaluating interactive technologies for learning. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 25(4), 333-342. (Identifies
potential strengths & limitations of interactive multimedia technology from
2 perspectives: learning as knowledge acquisition and learning as development
of conceptual understanding & change)
Baird, B.
(2001). Circular modules: 3D and immersive visualization tools. Syllabus, 14
(9), 23-26. (student/faculty teams
use virtual reality & simulation and combine technology and art to create
3D projects that explain scientific and mathematical concepts difficult to
understand with 2D models.)
Baxter, J. H.,
& Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Interactive multimedia and concrete
three-dimensional modeling. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15,
323-331. (no difference in learning
using mm vs conventional 3-dimensional model in teaching phases of the moon)
Beckwith, D.
(1993). Creative group problem-solving: An innovative computer application to
facilitate learning and retention of difficult scientific principles.
Collegiate Microcomputer, 11(2), 70-74.
(Fr undergrads interested in medical career developed
self-instructional, interactive, multimedia programs to facilitate learning
concepts in biology & chemistry - this structured, prob-solving approach
facilitated learning in creators as well as other fr)
Brown, M. F.
(1999). Wildcat World: Simulation programs for teaching basic concepts in
psychological science. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
31, 14-18. (Describes Wildcat World,
software that allows students to design, implement and analyze studies through
computer simulations - studies deal with human facial features)
ChanLin, L.-J.
(1998). Students cognitive styles and the need of visual control in animation.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 353-365. (2 [self-controlled animation vs
system-controlled animation]. X 2 [field-dependent style vs field-independent
style]; only differences was self-controlled animation learned more than
system-controlled)
Cronin, M. W.
(1993). Teaching listening skills via interactive videodisc. Technological
Horizons in Education Journal, 21(5), 62-68.
(Interactive videodisc gives students missions to identify bad
listening habits & evaluate own listening skills; students who used disc
showed significant improvement in listening skills; no control group, however)
Cronin, M. W.,
& Myers, S. L. (1997). The effects of visuals versus no visuals on learning
outcomes from interactive multimedia instruction. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 8 (2), 46-71. (interactive
mm instruction (IMI). with visuals (pictures, video, animation). compared to
IMI w/o visuals - found no difference in test scores or listening behavior -
both groups enjoyed IMI)
Cronin, M.W,
& K.A. (1992). Recent empirical studies of the pedagogical effects of
interactive video instruction in "soft skill" areas. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 3 (2), 53-85.
(case study displaying the advantages of interactive video
instruction (IVI). over traditional methods)
Dewhurst, D. G.,
Macleod, H. A., & Norris, T. A. M. (2000). Independent student learning
aided by computers: An acceptable alternative to lectures? Computers &
Education, 35, 223-241. (six 1-hr
lectures vs computer-based materials - students positive about CBL, were able
to organize their own learning effectively, & were equivalent in
performance to lecture group)
Diem, R. A. (1994,
April). The socio/cultural effects of a technology based intervention in school
environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
(Examined how students and teachers reacted to the introduction of
computer-based tutorials in pre-algebra and English classes; for technology to
be effective need to redefine role of teacher & teacher must be active
participant in learning process)
DiFonzo, N.,
Hantula, D. A., & Bordia, P. (1998). Micorworlds for experimental research:
Having your (control and collection). cake, and realism too. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 30(2), 278-286. (Behaviorbenefits of use of microworlds
for research are increased experimental control, improved accuracy, greater
internal validity, greater mundane realism, and greater external validity.)
Ellis, T. J.
(2001). Multimedia enhanced educational products as a tool to promote critical
thinking in adult students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
10(2). 107-124. (written instructions
vs interactive multimedia tutorials; assessed pre-post knowledge gain [facts].
& ability to solve problems; no diff in methods for overall learning or
factual learning - mm > written in conceptual learning)
Eva, K. W.,
MacDonald, R. D., Rodenburg, D., & Regehr, G. (2000). Maintaining the
characteristics of effective clinical teachers in computer assisted learning
environments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 5, 233-246. (delineate ways to construct instructional
multimedia programs so they more closely mimic qualities of expert teachers so
as to enhance learning, motivation, ability to transfer learning, ability to
direct own learning, etc.)
Falk, D. R.,
& Carlson, H. L. (1990). Interactive technology impacts on increasing
cultural awareness in education for the human services. Computers in Human
Services, 7, 265-276. (Used
interactive videodisc to provide self-paced instruction and simulations of
interactions with Southeast Asian refugees and American Indians; majority of
students found this a valuable learning activity)
Ford, N., &
Chen S. Y. (2000). Individual differences, hypermedia navigation, and learning:
An empirical study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4).
281-312. (field-dependent differed
from field-independent learners in strategies used with interactive hypermedia
lesson but didn't differ in learning outcomes; field-dep > use of topic map,
< use of topic index, < use of back/forward buttons, more random order
app)
Garg, A.,
Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999). Do virtual computer
models hinder anatomy learning? Academic Medicine, 74, S87-S89.
Goldman, E.,
& Barron, L. (1990). Using hypermedia to improve the preparation of
elementary school teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 21-31. (Peabody College of Vanderbilt Univ
developed interactive videodisc of classroom situations; no difference in
performance on recall tests bt multimedia & traditional sections of course
but multimedia group more confident in their skills)
Herrington, J.,
& Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate
higher-order thinking. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 3-24. (Developed interactive multimedia
activities based on situated learning framework (learning embedded in social
& physical context). - analysis of students' dialogue while working on
activities indicated they used substantial levels of higher-order thinking)
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., Oliver,
R., & Woo, Y. (2004). Designing authentic activities in Web-based courses.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16, 3-29.
Huang, S.-T. T.,
& Lin, M.-J. H. (2001). Designing efficient text presentation of multimedia
CAI - the evaluation of dynamic text patterns and the negative repetition
effect on memory. Computers and Education, 37, 127-140. (varied text pattern used to present
definitions to be learned (static, stripe, checkboard, random row, vertical
center-out). students preferred static & stripe to others but no difference
in memory of terms due to pattern)
Ikegulu, P. R.
(1998). Effects of screen designs in CBI environments. ERIC document ED 428
757. (overview of elements of screen
design that should be considered when designing presentations - not very
informative article)
Isakowitz, T., Stohr, E. A., &
Balasubramanian, P. (1995). A methodology for hypermedia design. Communications
of the ACM, 38, 34-44.
Kettanurak, V.,
Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. D. (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. (high interactivity (student controlled
sequence, pacing, review, menu, etc): accommodators most favorable attitude,
convergers & divergers least favorable attitude; low interactivity:
assimilators most favorable, divergers least favorable)
Koch, C., &
Gobell, J. (1999). A hypertext-based tutorial with links to the web for
teaching statistics and research methods. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 31, 7-13. (Compared
students who used on-line tutorial w/ those who didn't; on-line grp more
accurate in decisions about statistics to use, more confident in their
decisions, showed improved prob-solving ability in later scenarios)
Koroghlanian,
C., & Klein, J. D. (2000, October). The use of audio and animation in
computer based instruction. Paper presented at the National Convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO. (2 [Instructional Mode: Text vs Audio]. x
2 [Illustration Mode: static vs animated]. x 2 [Spatial Ability: low vs high].
- no differences for any variable on posttest - spent more time on animated than
static programs - high spatial ability > effort than low)
Kruse, K., &
Keil, J. (2000). Technology-based training: The art and science of design,
development, and delivery (Chapter 4: Designing lessons for adult learners).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. (ideas
for constructing presentations (e.g., gain attention from beginning, use list
of objectives, chunk & organize content))
Lai, S.-L.
(2000). Increasing associative learning of abstract concepts through
audiovisual redundancy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23,
275-289. (static graphic,
static+full audio, animation, animation+cued audio, animation+full audio --
static graphic = animation+full audio both better scores than static+audio or
animation)
Lane, D. M.
(1999). The Rice virtual lab in statistics. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, and Computers, 31, 24-33. (Describes
Rice Virtual Lab in Statistics; gives examples of use of hypertext links and
simulations/demonstrations of statistical concepts)
Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller,
J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of
multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401-418.
Lee, M. (1995,
November 13). Leading the way. The Wall Street Journal, R28. (Rensselear Polytechnic Institute uses
multimedia studios for introductory physics course; students reported greater
satisfaction with this approach compared to traditional labs but grades &
tests scores no better with multimedia studio)
Leutner, D.,
& Plass, J. L. (1998). Measuring learning styles with questionnaires versus
direct observation of preferential choice behavior in authentic learning
situations: The visualizer/verbalizer behavior observation scale (VV-BOS).
Computers in Human Behavior, 14 (4), 543-557.
(observed preferential choice behavior in use of interactive
multimedia program to enhance comprehension of 2nd language - provided data to
support validity of VV-BOS)
Liu, M., &
Reed, W. M. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and
learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10
(4), 419-434. (Field-dependent
styles chose video [global]. tools but field-independent chose relationship
options of words to help understand passage; FI might do better in formal class
setting, focused activities; FD learn better thru communication [interaction] )
Mangan, K. S.
(2000). Teaching surgery without a patient. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
46 (25), A49 - A50. (Doctors use
virtual reality to practice routine and delicate procedures at Penn State
University)
Mautone, P. D.,
& Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389. (3 experiments: #1 - signaled vs
non-signaled text; #2 - signaled vs non-signaled speech; #3 - signaled vs
non-signaled narrated animation [multimedia pres] --- signaling improved
prob-solving transfer but no effect on retention)
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing
instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. (Vol. 2, pp.
141-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). Theories of
learning and their application to technology. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. & R. S.
Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp.
127-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E.,
& Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning:
Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 312-320. (2
experiments, both compared 2 grps: concurrent animated graphics + audio [AN] or
concurrent animated graphics + text [AT] - results: AN outperformed AT both
times - integrate audio & graphics better than text & graphics)
Mayer, R. E.,
Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia
learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
(adding text -- whether summary of audio or exact same as audio -- or
adding seductive details decreases retention and decreases # creative solutions
in transfer problems - video as seductive detail does not help learning)
Mayer, R. E.,
Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist
learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 638-643.
(3 groups: concurrent audio (A) + animated graphics (ANIM),
"large bites"-all 140 sec of A (or ANIM). followed by all 140 sec
ANIM (or A), "small bites"-16 segments, altered ANIM/A; results:
small bites=concurrent - both>large bites for retention)
McNulty, J. A., Halama, J.,
Dauzvardis, M. F., & Espiritu, B. (2000). Evaluation of web-based
computer-aided instruction in a basic science course. Academic Medicine, 75,
59-65. (Examined usage of Web-based
computer-aided instruction; found: computer literacy not good predictor of
usage, degree & manner of usage correlated with performance in class)
Mills, S., &
de Araujo, M. M. (1999). Learning through virtual reality: A preliminary
investigation. Interacting with Computers, 11, 453-462. (Describes prototype of virtual reality
learning project; students in VR group performed no differently than students
in traditional group; VR group enjoyed experience; small sample size)
Mioduser, D.,
& Margalit, M. (1997). TTIPSS--a computer-based system for training problem
solving and educational planning. Journal of Special Education Technology,
13(3), 1-13. (Describes interactive
software (text-based). designed to improve teachers' problem-solving skills in
understanding challenging behavior and planning educational strategies for
special education students)
Mitchell, E. J.,
& Frisbie, S. H. (2001). An experiment with student-centered learning.
Syllabus, 15 (2), 30-32. (a study
found that although students were satisfied with self-paced interactive
multimedia lessons, they preferred teacher-centered lecture to self-paced
materials)
Moreno, R.,
& Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The
role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
358-368. (Exp1: got modality effect
(narration+animation > animation+close text or animation+far text). &
spatial contiguity effect (close text > far text); Exp2: got modality effect
(N+Anim > text). but temporal contiguity not supported)
Morris, E. J., Joiner, R. & Scanlon,
E. (2002). The contribution of computer-based activities to understanding
statistics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 114-124.
Najjar, L. J. (1998). Principles of
educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors, 40, 311-323.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web
usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
O'Hanlon, N.
(1999). Web-based tutorials: Does course use differ from general use? Journal
of Interactive Learning Research, 10, (Tutorial
--lessons, quizzes, supplementary material-- to boost Internet literacy;
general uses more likely to view lessons & spend more time on them, less
likely to do quizzes than course-affiliated users; few used supplementary
materials)
Quealy, J.,
& Langan-Fox, J. (1998). Attributes of delivery media in computer-assisted
instruction. Ergonomics, 41, 257-279. (3
(text+still graphic; text+still graphic+audio; text+video+audio). X 2
(declarative vs procedural knowledge). x 2(graphic cue vs no cue for recall). -
no media effects on short or long-term recall)
Robertson, J.
(1998). Paradise lost: Children, multimedia and the myth of interactivity.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14, 31-39. (Discussions with teachers suggest that
over the years there has been a reduction (not an increase). in the
interactivity of instructional multimedia software for children)
Robison, S. A.
(1997). Computer animation of trigonometric functions using mathematica. In
J.A. Chambers (Ed.). Selected papers from the 8th national conference on
college teaching & learning. Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community
College. (no diff in achievement,
attitudes toward math, or attitudes toward computers due to use of still
graphic vs animated graphic)
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M.
(1996). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist
framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case
studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
Schneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the
user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (3rd ed.).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Siegle, D.,
& Foster, T. (2000, April). Effects of laptop computers with multimedia and
presentation software on student achievement. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (students used mm software &
PowerPoint on laptops for anatomy/physiology course - students learned more
when they had access to laptops, used mm software, created projects using PP)
Simpson, M. S.
(1994). Neuropsychological considerations related to interactive multimedia.
Educational Technology Research & Development, 42, 75-81. (Reviews neuroscience & communication
research to show why interactive multimedia may improve memory & increase
learning; research evaluating impact of interactive multimedia should include
neurological measures)
Stevenson, A.
K., Francis, G., & Kim, H. (1999). Java experiments for introductory
cognitive psychology courses. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 31, 99-106. (Describes
selection, design & implementation of a series of on-line experiments for
introductory cognitive psychology course; appropriate experiments: not easily
demonstrated by other means, represent important findings, robust effects)
Summerville, J.
B. (1998, February). The role of awareness of cognitive style in hypermedia.
Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO.
(field-dependent vs field independent learning style; 1/2 students
knew their LS, 1/2 didn't; for some, LS matched hypermedia design, for others
mismatched; neither awareness or matching affected sat w/ learning environment)
Swan, K. (1996).
Exploring the role of video in enhancing learning from hypermedia. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 25, 179-188.
(more learning when hypermedia materials included embedded video than
when it didn't include it)
Trautwein, U.,
& Werner, S. (2001). Old paintings, new technology: Does instructive
animation make sense in art education? Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 10, 253-272. (4 grps
viewed paintings: audio+animation, audio+relevant animation, audio+irrelevant
animation, no audio/no animation; results: audio+relevant anim better
understanding of art than other 3 - didn't affect interest in art)
van Daal, V. H.
P, & Reitsma, P. (2000). Computer-assisted learning to read and spell:
Results from two pilot studies. Journal of Research in Reading, 23(2),
181-193. (kindergarteners using CAL
learned in 16 hrs of comp practice what normally takes 3 mths classroom
instruction - computer-based spelling practice < non-task beh in comp
sessions & classroom)
Welsh, J. A.,
& Null, C. H. (1991). The effects of computer-based instruction on college
students' comprehension of classic research. Behavior, Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 23, 301-305.
(Comparison of computer-based labs to teach psychological research
methods with traditional labs found higher performance and better understanding
of research principles with traditional labs)
Williams, J. E.,
McGraw, K. O., & Tew, M. D. (1999). Undergraduate labs and computers: The
case for PsychExps. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31,
287-291. (Describes PsychExps, an
interactive on-line psychology laboratory designed to facilitate teaching and
conducting research over the Internet)
Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). (1996).
Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Yang, S. C.
(2000). Hypermedia learning and evaluation: A qualitative study of learners'
interaction with the Perseus Project. Computers in Human Behavior, 16,
451-472. (study explores the Perseus
project and attitudes and cognitive perceptions of hypermedia in general -
attitudes were +ve but students liked mix of assignments, not just Perseus)
Yarbrough, D. N. (2001). A comparative
analysis of student satisfaction and learning in a computer-assisted
environment versus a lecture environment. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching, 12, 129-147.
Yee, P. L.,
& Vaughan, J. (1999). A web-accessible tutorial for PsyScope based on
classic experiments in human cognition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computers, 31, 107-112. (Describes
the on-line tutorial to facilitate use of PsyScope, a graphically-oriented
script-based program to control lab experiments in cognitive psychology &
linguistics; PsyScope is free & available on-line)
Developmental, Personality, Social, and
Gender Issues
Barrett, E.,
& Lally, V. (1999). Gender differences in an on-line learning environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 48-60. (Men & women were similar in cog &
metacog content of messages but men's messages were more frequent, longer &
more socio-emotional content whereas women sent more interactive messages)
Becker, H. J.
(2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of computer
technology. The Future of Children, 10 (2), 44-75. (comp in non-core courses>core courses
(Eng, Math, Sci, SocSt); most common sch uses: wp, info gather; home - no
gender diff overall - boys>girls games, girls>boys wp, boys=girls
Internet use; Roper Youth Report: girls>b chat room/email, boys>g games,
download)
Bikson, T. K.,
& Panis, C. W. A. (1997). Computers and connectivity: Current trends. In S.
Kiesler (Ed.). Culture of the Internet (pp. 407-430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc. (households w/ comp
& at least 1 child, children use comp ~75% of them - no diff in freq of use
bt boys & girls; girls>boys related to sch, girls=boys educ games, boys>girls
non-educ games)
Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender
gap on the Internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 868-876.
Blum, K. D. (1999). Gender differences
in asynchronous learning in higher education: Learning styles, participation
barriers and communication patterns. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
3, 46-66.
Camp, T. (2001).
Women in computer sciences: Reversing the trend. Syllabus, 15 (1), 24-25,
28. (what faculty and universities
can do to reverse the decline of women getting bachelor's degrees in computer
science)
Char, C. A.
(1990). Interactive technology and the young child: Insights from research and
design. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational
Research Association, Boston, MA. (Provides
historical, current and futuristic perspectives on the impact of interactive
technology on the cognitive and social development of young children)
Cordes, C.,
& Miller, E. (2000). Fool's gold: A critical look at computers in
childhood. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. (Critical examination of the impact of
interactive technology on social, emotional, physical and educational
development of children)
Federico, P. A.
(2000). Learning styles and student attitudes toward various aspects of
network-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 359-379. (using Kolb's inventory: assimilators and
accommodators had more favorable attitudes toward, beliefs about, and
willingness to use network-based instruction & hypermedia than convergers
or divergers)
Griffiths, M.
(1997). Friendship and social development in children and adolescents: The
impact of electronic technology. Educational and Child Psychology, 14,
25-37. (Reviews research on types of
adolescent arcade game players - uses this literature to suggest future
research on the impact of computer games on child and adolescent socialization)
Jackson, L., Ervin, K., Gardner, P. D.,
& Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men
searching. Sex Roles, 44, 363-379.
Jennings, S. E., & Onwuegbuzie, A.
J. (2001). Computer attitudes as a function of age, gender, math attitude, and
developmental status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 367-384.
Katz, L.,
Maitland, M., Hannah, R., Burggraf, K., & King, S. (1999). The effects of
gender & academic prog. on learning styles & attitudes of undergrad.
students using mm., web-based anatomy labs. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.). Selected
papers from the 10th Internat. Conf. on College Teach. & Learning.
Jacksonville: FL Comm Coll. (no diff
due to gender; visual learners & those who like detail more comfortable
with computer)
King, J., Bond,
T., & Blandford, S. (2002). An investigation of computer anxiety by gender
and grade. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 69-84. (in general, students had low to middle
anxiety scores; gr 11 < anxiety than gr 7 or 9; interaction: gr 7 - girls
> anxiety than boys, gr 9 - girls = anxiety to boys, gr 11 - girls <
anxiety than boys)
Koch, J. V.
(1998). How women actually perform in distance learning. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 45 (3), A60. (no
diff bt men & women in satisfaction with or how much they like dist-ed; at
Old Dominion University, women outperform men in dist-ed courses)
Kraut, R.,
Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Keisler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031. (longitudinal study of 73 households using
Internet for 1 - 2 years; studied impact on social involvement and psyc
well-being; greater use assoc w/ decreased communication w/ family, decreased
soc circle, increased)
Lebo, H. (2000). The UCLA
Internet report: Surveying the digital future. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for
Communication Policy (girls 12-15/women
46-55 use Int more than men;other age grps, men > women; men = women for
entertainment; women slightly more than men for school/work; men slightly more
than women for commerce; 12-17boys > girls for games; 12-17 girls > boys
for school)
MacGregor, S. K.
(1999). Hypermedia navigation profiles: Cognitive characteristics and
information processing strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
20(2), 189-206.
Mitra, A.
(1994). "Instructor-Effect" in determining effectiveness and attitude
towards technology-assisted teaching: Report of a case study. Journal of
Instruction Delivery Systems, 8 (3), 15-21.
(case study exploring the overall attitudes of students towards
technology in the classroom)
North, A. S.,
& Noyes, J. M. (2002). Gender influences on children's computer attitudes
and cognitions. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 135-150. (children had low "technophobia"
scores (based on attitudes & cognitions); no differences bt males &
females on computer attitudes or cognitions; no sex role differences on total
attitude or cognition scores; boys had more computer experience than girls)
Ono, H. & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender
and the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 111-121.
O'Toole, K.
(2000, February 16). Study takes early look at social consequences of Net use.
Stanford Online Report, February 16, 2000.
(study of 35,000 people (some new Internet users, others with prior
experience). provides evidence of people spending more time with computer and
less time with people)
Parks, M. R., &
Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication,
46(1). (examines the social
relationships created through Internet discussion groups)
Reinen, I. J.,
& Plomp, T. (1997). Information technology and gender equity: A
contradiction in terms? Computers in Education, 28, 65-78. (survey male & female students at all
levels in 10 countries in 1992 re access to computers, attitudes toward
computers, enjoyment of use, knowledge about use - for most part USA showed
gender equity in these measures)
Reisberg, L.
(2000). 10% of students may spend too much time online. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 46 (41), A43. (10% of
students use the Internet so much that it interferes with their grades, health,
and social lives, especially at sci + eng schools)
Rheingold, H.
(2001). Face-to-face with virtual communities. Syllabus, 14 (12), 8, 9,
12. (considers the question of
virtual communities on campus - the role they play in education)
Roschelle, J.
M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N., & Means, B. M. (2000).
Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based
technologies. The Future of Children, 10 (2), 76-101. (overview of how computers could enhance
learning through active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction
& feedback, and connections to real-world contexts)
Schumacher, P.,
& Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and
experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-110. (classes of 1989, 90, 97; 89/90-males more
experienced w computers, more likely taken hs comp courses, reported higher
skill; no gender diff in computers in 97; in 97 re Internet, boys >
experience & self-reported skill but no gender diff w email)
Shaw, G., &
Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender, attitudes, and
perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning.
Computers & Education, 33, 223-234.
(students were uncomfortable w/ computers, unhappy about lack of
personal contact, preferred to learn in more traditional mode; 1st yr students
more +ve att; 3rd yr theoretical learning style more negative views of ICT
--only 6% of variance though)
Subrahmanyam,
K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., & Gross, E. F. (2000). The impact of
home computer use on children's activities and development. The Future of
Children, 10 (2), 123-144. (1999
national survey: 8-13 yr olds - boys>girls playing games but boys=girls in
comp use for school, chatting, email, visiting web sites; 14-18 yr olds -
boys=girls except boys visit more web sites; 97 Gallup survey: boys=girls #
using comp & confidence)
Venkatesh, V.,
Morris, M.G., & Ackerman, P.L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation
of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making
process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83 (1),
33-60. (men more strongly influenced
by attitudes re technology than women in decision to use new software; women
more strongly influenced by subjective norm (peer & superior's influence).
& perceived behavioral control)
Wartella, E. A.,
& Jennings, N. (2000). Children and computers: New technology--old
concerns. The Future of Children, 10 (2), 31-43. (compares comp to intro of TV, radio; 2-5
yr olds: use comp 27 min/day; in sch shared comp --> grp interaction,
cooperation, friendships, constructive grp play; comp can impact self-worth,
self-efficacy)
Wartella, E., O'Keefe, B., &
Scantlin, R. (2000). Children and interactive media: A compendium of research
and directions for the future. A report to the Markle Foundation. (Discussion of critical issues regarding
impact of interactive technology on children; length annotated bibliography)
Yelland, N. A.,
& Lloyd, M. (2001). Virtual kids of the 21st century: Understanding the
children in schools today. (reports
of interviews of 934 kids ranging from 10 to 13 about their ownership, use, and
views of computer and video games)
Educational Technology and Pedagogical
issues
American Psychological Association.
(1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school
redesign and reform. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from
http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html
Ballard, R.M.
(1998). What everyone should know about information technology: Questions for
K-12 and post-secondary educators. (paper
dealing with commonly raised and important questions for all levels of
education)
Bell, S. (2001).
Web-based utilities for learning and collaboration in the classroom. Syllabus,
14 (12), 32-35. (how web-based
utilities have potential as teaching tools, especially for collaboration and
resource sharing)
Biemiller, L.
(2000, March 17). A computer scientist uses his art to question the embrace of
technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A45. Professor uses a combination of art,
technology and culture in his teaching style)
Boettcher, J. V.
(2000). Computer literacy spiral: What do students need to know? Syllabus, 14
(3), 42, 44-45. (the author
contemplates the changing definition of computer literacy and the effect it has
on students, classrooms, and ourselves)
Boettcher, J. V.
(2000). What is meaningful learning?. Syllabus, 14(1), 54-56. (the author encourages instructors to
consider the learning process as they integrate technology into course
materials)
Boettcher, J. V.
(2001). The spirit of invention: Edging our way to 21st century teaching.
Syllabus, 14 (11), 10-13. (a
consideration of how developments at the edges of technological innovation
change teaching and learning)
Bork, A. (1991).
Is technology-based learning effective? Contemporary Education, 63, 6-14. (Points out problems & limitations of
early research on effectiveness of technology in improving learning and need
for large-scale studies, intensive small grp studies and compelling examples)
Brandon, D. P.,
& Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computer-supported
groups. Communication Education, 48, 109-126.
(Highlights issues & decisions involved in developing and
implementing learning activities for on-line collaborative groups in
communication courses)
Brown, D. G.
(2000). It's all about empowering students. Syllabus, 14 (3), 28. talks about the importance of the web to
give students higher independence and confidence about their knowledge and
access to it)
Brown, D. G.
(2000). Teaching without "dumbing down" our courses. Syllabus, 14
(2), 28, 58. (college world is
divided into those who assume students have internet access and those who don't
- must design courses with assumption they do have Internet access and must
provide this access)
Brown, D. G.
(2000). The jury is in! Computer-enhanced instruction works. Syllabus, 14(1),
22 (gives examples of how
computer-enhanced instruction has demonstrated increased learning)
Brown, D. G.
(2000). The low-hanging fruit. Syllabus, 14 (4), 28. (when learning new technology its
important to set realistic goals within the limits of time, advice, and
equipment)
Brown, D. G.
(2001). Hybrid courses are best. Syllabus, 15(1), 22. (media enhanced courses that reduce
lecture time are rated as the best according to research at U of Central
Florida - gives advantages & disadvantages of using virtual communication)
Brown, D. G.
(2001). The power of e-mail. Syllabus, 14 (12), 28. 12 recommendations for using e-mail
effectively in courses to facilitate learning and communication)
Brown, J. S.
(2000). Growing up digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways
people learn. Change, 32 (2), 11-20. (importance
of multiprocessing; describes 4 dimensions of learning, how students have
shifted on these dimensions & how Internet facilitates this new type of
learning; web facilitates sharing explicit & tacit knowledge)
Bruce, B. C.,
Peyton, J. K., & Batson, T. W. (Eds.). (1993). Network-based classrooms:
Promises and realities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, T.
(1998). Using the World Wide Web for formative assessment. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 27, 71-79.
(Describes PsyCAL, package of multiple choice questions students use
as a formative assessment of their knowledge - some minimal evaluation
provided)
Carlson, S.
(2000). Campus survey finds that adding technology to teaching is a top issue.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (9), A46.
(2000 Campus Computing Project: 60% college courses use e-mail; >
30% college courses have web sites)
Carlson, S.
(2001). A small college's mixed results with technology. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 47 (27), A35-A36. (description
of West Virginia Wesleyan's (a small college). efforts to bring technology to
campus life - examples of how used on campus)
Castellman,
N.J.Jr. (1993). Evaluating information technology in teaching and learning.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25 (2), 233-237. (how to appropriately evaluate the
effectiveness of outcomes of instructional technology)
Dijkstra, S.,
& Seel, N. M. (Eds.). (1997). Instructional design: International
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ehrmann, S. C.
(2000). The flashlight program: Evaluating instructional uses of the web.
Syllabus, 14 (2), 38, 40, 42. (institution
must decide on clear criteria for measuring improvement in learning and
teaching - offers six objectives on which assessment could be based -
university should select at least one of these to guide assessment of web-based
instruction)
Fletcher, J. D. (2003). Evidence for
learning from technology-assisted instruction. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. & R. S.
Perez (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp.
79-99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Foster, A. L.
(2001). How a Princeton classicist leads in instructional technology. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (42), A28 - A29. (Princeton moves to broaden online
educational reach to alumni - one woman's journey to expand instructional )
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes
and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American
Psychologist, 39, 377-385.
Gilbert, S. W.
(2000). Choosing between personalization and standardization. Syllabus, 14 (5),
14. (talks about the advantages of
bringing tech into the classroom, the process of doing it, and the options you
have)
Gilbert, S. W.
(2001). Changing education is lifelong learning. Syllabus, 14 (10), 22. (talks about how the changing educational
process -- integrating technology -- is an education process in itself.)
Goldman-Segall, R., & Maxwell, J. W.
(2003). Computers, the Internet, and new media for learning. In W. M. Reynolds
& G. E. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of psychology: Educational psychology
(Vol. 7, pp. 393-427). New York: Wiley.
Gordon, H. R. D.
(1998, April). Selected instructional delivery methods and teaching techniques
for teaching school law courses. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA. (interaction
of learning styles, instructional delivery methods, & hypermedia - good
simple summary of learning styles & design issues to consider when using
hypermedia)
Gueldenzoph, L., & Chiarelott, L.
(2002). Using educational technology to improve constructivist instruction in
higher education. Journal on Excellence
in College Teaching, 13, 43-56.
Harley, D.
(2001). Higher education in the digital age: Planning for an uncertain future.
Syllabus, 15 (2), 10-12. (careful
planning re how they use the Internet will be necessary for all institutions of
higher education because there is no "one size fits all" model for
the future.)
Herson, K.,
Sosabowski, M. H., & Lloyd, A. W. (1999). Intranet-based learning: A
one-year study of student utilization. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
15, 269-278. (Developed intranet
resources for pharmacy program & monitored usage - identified barriers to
usage: concern re plagiarism of materials, peer scrutiny, additional time
involved in preparation, competency of students & faculty to use intranet)
Jakobi, P.
(1999). Using the World Wide Web as a teaching tool: Analyzing images of aging
and the visual needs of an aging society. Educational Gerontology, 25,
581-593. (Describes assignment in
which students evaluate images on web sites designed for older people and
determine if consistent with needs of older people)
Johnstone, S. M.
(2001). Virtual worlds: Generating a whole new set of challenges. Syllabus, 14
(10), 20. (a description Virtual
Worlds: a new type of online resource for active learning)
Jones, L.L.,
& Smith, S.G. (1992). Can multimedia instruction meet our expectations?
Education Communication Review, 27, 39-43.
(the effects and procedures of computer aided multimedia instruction)
Katz, S. N.
(2001). In information technology, don't mistake a tool for a goal. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (40), B7-B9
(author points out the importance that technology serves the
university, not the other way around - identifies issues universities must
address to use new technology wisely and effectively)
Lee, F. L.,
Liang, S., & Chan, T. W. (1998). An attempt to design synchronous
collaborative learning environments for peer dyads on the world wide web.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21, 221-253.
Lindquist, C. (2000, April 6).
Virtual Diploma. Upside Today, April 6, 2000.
(The surge of ".com" into today's universities - issues
they face in marketing their courses & programs to students and finding
funding to support their activities)
McClenney, K.M.
(1998). Community colleges perched at the millennium: Perspectives on
innovation, transformation, and tomorrow. Leadership Abstracts, 11 (8). (factors,
influences, and methods of taking innovations to a higher level in the new
millennium)
McCollum, K.
(1998). How a computer program learns to grade essays. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 45 (2), A37-A38. (researchers have created technology that can
scan an essay and report what a student has put in and left out.)
McCollum, K.
(1999). Technology and collaboration are needed for "lifelong
learning", Presidents say. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News,
September 16, 1999. (institutions
need to teach more critical thinking skills and must upgrade technologies on
campus to facilitate lifelong learning)
McComb, M.
(1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication
Education, 43, 159-170. (explores
how computer-mediated communication (CMC). can enhance communication between
teachers and students)
McConnell, D.
(1999). Examining a collaborative assessment process in networked lifelong
learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 232-243. (Case study of use of Internet networks to
foster collaborative learning on assignments requiring peer assessment of
course work; discusses benefits of this type of network learning)
McMahon, J.,
Gardner, J., Gray, C., & Mulhern, G. (1999). Barriers to student computer
usage: Staff and student perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
15, 302-311. (Examined students' perceptions of barriers to their use of
computers; most important barrier was lack of sufficient training; other
barriers: lack of support & information for users and lack of access &
time to use computers)
Olsen, F.
(2000). The role of the web Is expanding in accreditation reviews. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7), A67.
(small but growing number of colleges are now using the web in
accreditation reviews.)
Pear, J. J.,
& Crone-Todd, D. E. (1999). Personalized system of instruction in
cyberspace. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 205-209. (Used computer-aided personalized system
of instruction to present unit, midterms & final tests & assign grading
to proctors (students who passed unit), GA or instructor; no class meetings;
most students reasonably satisfied w/ course & >= avg grade)
Rogers, P. L. (Ed). (2002). Designing
instruction for technology-enhanced learning. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Ross, J. A.,
Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999). Predictors of teachers' confidence
in their ability to implement computer-based instruction. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 21, 75-97.
Rutherford,
L.H., & Grana, S.J. (1995). Retrofitting academe: Adapting faculty
attitudes and practices to technology. T.H.E. Journal, September 1995,
82-86. (overcoming the risks and
hardships of integrating technology into the classrooms.)
Schneiderman, B. (2003). Leonardo’s
laptop: Human needs and the new computing technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Shaffer, D. W.,
& Resnick, M. (1999). "Thick" authenticity: New media and
authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10, 195-215. (Brief overview of 4 types of authentic
learning: personally meaningful to learner, relates to real world, think in
modes of discipline, assess in real fashion; connectivity, modeling &
pluralism of Internet facilitates "thick" authenticity)
Shapiro, A. M.
(1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews
during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
20, 143-167.
Shuell, T. J., & Farber, S. L.
(2001). Students’ perceptions of technology use in college courses. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 24, 119-138.
Smith, K. L.
(1990). Collaborative and interactive writing for increasing communication
skills. Hispania, 73, 77-87. (Students
using computer conferencing to respond to Spanish questions had higher oral
performance in the language than those in traditional language lab)
Songer, N. B.
(1996). Exploring learning opportunities in coordinated network-enhanced
classrooms: A case of kids as global scientists. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 5, 297-327. (Compared to
students using traditional, off-line resources, children using Internet showed
similar improvement in understanding weather concepts, better at explaining
weather in distant sites, provided richer explanations)
Sonwalkar, N.
(2001, December). The sharp edge of the cube: Pedagogically driven
instructional design for online education. Syllabus, 15 (5), 12-14, 16. (proposes learning cube combining 6 media
with 5 learning styles with teacher vs student-centered orientation - suggests
ways to use media for each learning style)
Von Holzen, R.
(2000). A look at the future of higher education. Syllabus, 14 (4), 56-57,
65. (Does the shift in education away
from the lecture format fortell a new role for faculty?)
Weigel, V.
(2000). E-learning and the tradeoff between richness and reach in higher
education. Change, September/October, 10-15.
(discusses issues related to the ".com" approach to
bringing education to the Internet - concerns that research shows "no
diff" bt lecture & dist ed - commoditization of educ is not good)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Merlot project brings peer review to web materials for teaching. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, June 1, 2000. (briefly describes Merlot project, a
project that provides systematic reviews and ratings of academic websites)
Internet and Networking -- Technical Issues
Carlson, S.
(2000). High-speed network will serve universities for 3 more years. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, April 12, 2000. (national science foundation and MCI
WorldCom have agreed to a three-year extension of the high performance Backbone
Network)
Carlson, S.
(2000). Universities find wireless systems bring them convenience and savings.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7),
(wireless technology is often less expensive than standard
wire-and-wall-jack installation.)
Carlson, S.
(2001). Obstacles remain to the creation of paperless campuses. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 47 (20), A44. (problems
and advantages for large and small universities in setting up online mailing
systems.)
Disz, T. (2001).
The access grid collaboration environment. Syllabus, 14 (9), 14, 16, 18. (multiple video streams enable
high-quality group-to-group interactions in a virtual space; need specially-designed
dedicated space to make most effective use of this technology)
Evelyn, J.
(2001). Internet2 project may broaden access for community colleges. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (27), A37.
(internet2 officials plan a new effort to reach out to colleges that
aren't research oriented as well as elementary/secondary schools)
Feldman, A.,
Konold, C., & Coulter, B. (2000). Network science, a decade later: The
Internet and classroom learning (Chapters 2, 3, & 6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Describes
National Geographic Kids Network (Gr 3-9); Global Lab (Gr 8-10); Journey North
(Gr 4-8). - points out current challenges & lessons learned in efforts to
develop internet-based inquiry-based teaching & learning)
Futhey, T.
(2000). Wireless Andrew: Everywhere you want to be. Syllabus, 14 (4), 24,
26-27. (campus-wide wireless network
powers new learning applications at Carnegie Mellon - wireless classrooms,
creation of virtual cluster for undergrad & grad students, use of handheld
computers, etc.)
Lundsten, A.
& Flick, E. (2001). Internet2: Making the connection. Syllabus, 14 (8),
10-12, 14. (The next cycle of
Internet innovation promises profound change for higher education)
Miltenoff, P.
(2000). Integrating streaming media to web-based learning: A modular approach.
Syllabus, 14 (1), 58-61. (A glimpse
of St. Cloud State Universities successful integration of streaming media
technology.)
Olsen, F.
(2000). Bringing a university, a state and a region into the networking era.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (17), A43-A44. (Bonnies Neas put North Dakota State and
the Great Planes on the map in technology)
Olsen, F.
(2000). Carnegie Mellon works to make computers invisible and pervasive. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7), A65.
(The Aura project provides wireless network that allows (among other
uses). researchers to control research projects using robots)
Olsen, F.
(2000). Internet2 efforts aims to build digital -Video networks for higher
education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (33), A49. (improvements in live video and video
clips as a result of Internet2 in distance learning.)
Olsen, F.
(2000). The wireless revolution. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7),
A59-A60, A62. (colleges seeking
convenience and saving embrace 'nomadic' computing, but many educators worry
about privacy and design issues)
Olsen, F.
(2000). Washington U. researchers invent an Internet technology and reap the
rewards. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (32), A65. (professors invent a router for larger
internet capabilities and form a multi-million dollar company)
Sircar, J.
(2000). Streaming media technology: Laying the foundations for educational
change. Syllabus, 14 (3), 54, 56-57. (author
looks at the ways streaming media tech will change education in the engineering
field.)
Syllabus.
(2001). University of South Florida nurses video conferencing onto the
Internet. Syllabus, 15(5), 35. (professor
teaches nursing across live video feeds to students.)
Young, J. R.
(1999). Are wireless networks the wave of the future? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 45 (22), A25-A26. (students
can now attend courses in the library, dormroom or outside using wireless
laptops - describes implementation of wireless technology at several
universities)
Young, J. R.
(2000). SUNY's Morrisville campus sees wireless computing as a way to create a
niche. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (7), A62, A64. (many departments at Morrisville are now
requiring students to lease a laptop computer and a wireless network adapter -
describes some benefits of wireless technology)
Distance Education / Distributed
Education
Abrahamson, C.
E. (1998). Issues in interactive communication in distance education. College
Student Journal, 32(1), 33-42. (Identifies
4 issues relating to interactive communication in distance learning educ:
personal contact bt primary instructor & student; primary & on-site
instructor; on-site instructor & student; students)
Albrektson, J.R.
(1995). Mentored online seminar: A model for graduate-level distance learning.
Technological Horizons and Educational Journal, 23 (3), 103-105. (how to deal and develop long distance
learning at the graduate level)
Armstrong, L.
(2000, November/December). Distance learning: An academic leader's perspective
on a disruptive product. Change, 20-27.
(potential benefits and disruptive nature of Internet-Mediated
Distance Learning; IMDL --> greater pressure to take courses from
"prestigious" universities, more h.s. students take college credit -
impact on univ, more pressure to use IMDL on campus)
Berge, Z. L., Collins, M., &
Dougherty, K. (2000). Design guidelines for Web-based courses. In B. Abbey
(Ed.), Instructional and cognitive impacts of web-based education (pp. 32-41).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Beyon, D., Stone, D., & Woodroffe,
M. (1997). Experience with developing multimedia courseware for the World Wide
Web: The need for better tools and clear pedagogy. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 47, 197-218.
Blumenstyk, G.
(1998). A philanthropy puts millions into asynchronous learning. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, 45 (12), p. A23. (Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation provides grants for distance learning courses offered
anytime and anyplace)
Bonk, C. J. & Cummings, J. A.
(1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the centre of
web-based learning. Educational Media International, 35, 82-89.
Brooks, D. W., Nolan, D. E., &
Gallagher, S. M. (2001). Web-teaching: A guide to designing interactive
teaching for the World Wide Web (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum
Publishers.
Carey, J. M.
(2001). Effective student outcomes: A comparison of online and face-to-face
delivery modes. DEOS NEWS, October 5, 2001.
(compared outcome measures for identical courses offered in two
delivery modes (web-based versus face to face). - no significant differences in
gain in knowledge, final grades, satisfaction)
Carnevale, D.
(1999). How to proctor from a distance. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46
(12), A47-A48. ("experts say
professors need savvy to prevent cheating in on-line courses" - points out
increased difficulty of monitoring cheating in distance-education courses)
Carnevale, D.
(1999). Instructor cuts dropout rate by giving extra attention to on-line
students. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, December 16,
1999. (students who drop online
courses also tend to have a low completion rate in classroom courses as well -
author provides tips for increasing communication with and attention to these
students in on-line courses)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). A college's detailed policy on distance education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46 (36), A49. (San
Diego State University's Senate sets guidelines for distance education courses,
including course design, student rights, and faculty responsibilities and
rights)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Assessing the quality of online courses remains a challenge, educators
agree. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (24), A59. (students want more information re quality
of on-line courses; "neither federal officials nor accreditors offer much
help"; many believe government shouldn't be involved in these evals -
private sector should)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Congressman worries aloud: Is online education any good? The Chronicle
of Higher Education: Daily News, May 10, 2000. (congress worries about lack
of socialization with increasing online education - James Duderstadt responds
that community aspect of classroom can be replicated online)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Legislative audit criticizes Western Governors University. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (October 6), A48. (describes problems confronted by Western
Governors University in recruiting students and implementing programs)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Logging in with … Richard H. Hall: Scholar says "learning by
doing" is the key to quality instruction. The Chronicle of Higher
Education: Daily News, May 30, 2000. (professor
notices no difference in online and face to face styles of teaching - most
effective pedagogy in either format is to engage students actively in learning
process)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Logging in With…Rob Kling: Indiana U. scholar says distance education
requires new approach to teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily
News, February 21, 2000. (case study
focusing on distance learning effects on students - gives suggestions for
course design of distance education courses)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Study assesses what participants look for in high-quality online
courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (9), A46. (high-quality online courses don't require
anything fancy but aren't easy/people don't always agree on what makes good
online courses)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Turning traditional courses into distance education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46 (48), A37-A38 (talks
about how colleges and companies are converting classroom courses into online
formats (tells how they go about doing it)
Carnevale, D.
(2000). Videoconferencing technology permits lectures from a distance. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, April 6, 2000. (a professor at New York U at Buffalo
deployed an inexpensive, high-quality video-conferencing system to teach while
he was overseas - uses Abilene high-speed Internet backbone)
Carnevale, D.
(2001). As online education surges, some colleges remain untouched. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (24), A41-A42. (University of Texas at Austin, Boston
College and University of New Hampshire all resist online courses - outlines
need for selective distance education and need for sufficient support and
funding for distance education)
Carnevale, D.
(2001). Assessment takes center stage in online learning. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 47 (31), A43-A45. ("distance
educators see the need to prove that they can teach effectively" - issues
surrounding when and how assessments of on-line courses are conducted)
Carnevale, D.,
& Young, J. R. (2001). Telecourses change channels. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47 (44), A29-A30. (telecourses
may educate more people than online courses - compares telecourse technology
and course design with online courses - telecourses making use of newest
technology and Internet access as part of their design)
Carpenter, E.
H., Wolfe, F. H., Ricketts, J., & Norvelle, E. (1998). Distributed learning
course creation. Social Science Computer Review, 17, 357-381. (Use Internet & CDs (high-graphic
course content). for distributed-learning course - currently conducting
NSF-funded evaluation of course - describes multimedia classroom used for
taping lectures)
Carr, S. (2000).
A tribal college sticks to its values as it embraces distance education. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (5), A41-A42
(how Salish Kootenai tribal college is developing online education
for remote students with little/no access to technology - organizing online
education centers for students - emphasize community & collaborative
learning)
Carr, S. (2000).
As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (23), A39-A41. Colleges are using online courses to raise
enrollment, but the students are dropping the courses at a higher rate -
discussion of type of students that benefit from distance education)
Carr, S. (2000).
Faculty members are wary of distance-education ventures. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46 (40), A41-A42. (differing
opinions about for-profit distance education unit at Cornell University causes
concerns among faculty)
Carr, S. (2000).
Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (44), A35.
(survey of members of National Education Association indicated
teachers have favorable attitude toward distance education - those who have
taught distance educ course more favorable than those who have not)
Carr, S. (2000).
Psych students learn more through distance ed but are less satisfied. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, February 14, 2000. (undergrad psych students score higher in
online courses but report less satisfaction with them)
Carr, S. (2000).
Science instructors debate the efficacy of conducting lab courses online. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, March 10, 2000. (science instructors have to decide if and
how to teach labs online as more colleges seek to make full degree programs)
Carr, S. (2000).
Teaching distance courses is rewarding, surveys of instructors finds. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, March 15, 2000. (instructors found opportunity to provide
innovative instruction and access to place-bound students as a plus)
Carr, S. (2000).
Test of online advanced placement courses gets mixed reviews. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46 (41), A42. (California
high school students that otherwise wouldn't have AP programs at their schools
were able to take them online - program received mixed reviews from high school
teachers & principals)
Carr, S. (2000).
Wisconsin project seeks to create a common standard for online courses. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, February 17, 2000. (universities and government collaborate
to develop technical platform standards to facilitate transition of online
courses from one platform to another)
Carr, S. (2001).
Governors' association seeks expansion of distance education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 47 (43), A31. (National
Governors' Association released two reports endorsing distance education, one
stresses that more work is needed to evaluate specific courses/prog, other
stresses need for public-private partnerships to develop online courses)
Carr, S. (2001).
PBS sticks to its strategy for telecourses, unafraid of competition from the
internet. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (44), A31-A32. (PBS is expanding its Internet offerings
but still sticks with telecourses - says online developers have lots to learn
about distance education)
Chamberlin, W.
S. (2001). Face-to-face vs. cyberspace: Finding the middle ground. Syllabus, 15
(5), 10-11, 32. (differences,
similarities and middleground of Internet and traditional courses - identifies
strengths of online courses)
Chronicle of
Higher Education (2000). Survey finds accounting professors skeptical of
Internet-based courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (Internet-based courses offer few
improvements over traditional forms of distance ed, like mail correspondence
courses)
Clark, R. E.
(1994). Assessment of distance learning technology. In E. L. Baker & H.
O'Neil (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 63-78).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (Recommendations about when and how
instructors should evaluate distance education programs/courses - distinguishes
bt "delivery technology" (equip, machines, media). &
"instructional technology" --ways to influence learning)
Coble, P. (2000,
August). Assessing learner performance
in web-based courses. In symposium Comparison of theoretical perspectives in
designing web-based courses, presented at meeting of American Psychological
Association, Washington DC.. (compares
the objectivist viewpoint with the constructivist viewpoint in web based
assessment strategies - rubric for assessment on 5 dimensions: who assesses,
what, when, & how assessed, why assessed)
Daniel, J.
(2001). Lessons from the open university: Low-Tech learning often works best.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (2), B24.
(students use the net for specific reasons --administrative
transactions, getting documents and info, communicating, not coursework)
Eleey, M., &
Comegno, M. (1999). Using external collaborations to advance distributed
learning at the University of Pennsylvania. T.H.E. Journal, 26(6), 62-64. (Describes benefits & risks of
universities partnering w/ for-profit organizations to produce & implement
distributed learning - e.g., Wharton School offers exec ed & Sch of Arts
& Sciences offers undergrad courses for high school students)
English, S.,
& Yazdani, M. (1999). Computer-supported cooperative learning in a virtual
university. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 2-13. (Describes how various internet-based
technologies used to simulate cooperative learning team projects - provides
some evaluation data)
Farber, J.
(1998). The third circle: On education and distance learning. Sociological
Perspectives, 41, 797-814. (Comments
on 248+ studies showing no diff bt traditional classroom courses and distance
ed courses -- these studies just assess measurable competence - don't assess
socioemotional or attitudinal effects of college - need more & broader
research on dist ed)
Frankola, K.
(2001). The e-learning taboo: High dropout rates in online courses. Syllabus,
14 (11), 14,16. (how some schools are
addressing the problem of high drop-out in dist ed - blend live sessions w/
asynchronous sessions, greater interactivity & more managerial oversight)
Freitas, F. A.,
Myers, S. A., & Avtgis, T. A. (1998). Student perceptions of instructor
immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication
Education, 47, 366-372. (Students
enrolled in conventional and distributed learning classes did not differ in
perceptions of instructor verbal immediacy but conventional class students
perceived higher rate of instructor nonverbal immediacy than distributed
learning students)
Garrett, L. N.,
& Weiner, B. J. (1999). Keys to success in delivering distance learning on
the Internet. Distance Education Report, 3(4), 6-7. (Advice to administrators about staffing
and preparing for distance education courses)
Gibbs, G. R.
(1999). Learning how to learn using a virtual learning environment for
philosophy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15, 221-231. (Evaluates use of coMentor, a virtual
learning environment supporting discussion, debate & writing - compared
high-use coMentor students to other students - no diff in final grades but
users showed higher levels of deep learning & strategic learning)
Gilbert, S. W.
(2001). The hybrids are in bloom. Syllabus, 14 (6), 16. (some aspects of the Internet-based
technology have been quietly integrated into teaching/learning in schools,
colleges and elsewhere to create hybrid educational offerings &
experiences)
Grasinger, M. F.
(1999). Successful distance learning: Teaching via synchronous video. College
Teaching, 47(2), 70-73. (Describes
use of synchronous video and insights gained by instructor)
Hackmann, D. G.,
& Berry, J. E. (1999). Distance learning in educational administration
doctoral programs: The wave of the future? Journal of School Leadership, 9,
349-367. (Surveyed doctoral programs
in Ed Admin to determine use of distance education - ~50% of 109 responding
programs used distance education - faculty concerns: demands on faculty,
resource availability, program quality, technical issues, program costs)
Hantula, D. A.
(1998). The virtual industrial/organizational psychology class: Learning and
teaching in cyberspace in three iterations. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 30 (2), 205-216.
(describes the development, evolution, successes and challenges from
three iterations of a virtual industrial/organizational psych course)
Inman, E.,
Kerwin, M., & Mayes, L. (1999). Instructor and student attitudes toward
distance learning. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23,
581-591. (Fac thought courses <=
quality; best predictors of instruction qual: qual of fac's material, on-campus
sessions & fac's availability; pred of course qual: qual of telecourse
material, how much learned; pred how much learned: material, how much work req)
Jehng, J-C. J.
(1997). The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peer-based
collaborative interactions with computers. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 17, 19-46. (Compared
students in coop face-to-face interaction vs coop distributed ed environ; dist
ed showed less interdependency, less intensity in communication, more
reflective thought, more equality bt partners, more time on individ task,
deeper thinking skills)
Johnson, J. L.
(1999). Distance education and technology: What are the choices for higher
education? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 21(2), 165-181.
Johnstone, S. M.
(2000). The evolving learning environment. Syllabus, 14 (1), 20. (A commentary on the development of
distributed and distance learning)
Johnstone, S. M.
(2001). Does accredited really mean accredited? Syllabus, 14 (6), 22. (looks at the issues of distance learning
providers and the various accreditation systems)
Johnstone, S. M.
(2001). Electronic learning generations. Syllabus, 15 (2), 14. (the author talks about the importance of
defining the term "distance learning")
Johnstone, S. M.
(2001). Engaging on-campus students online. Syllabus, 14 (8), 26. (account of a conversation between the
author and her grad school profs about how the use of technology is changing
higher education)
Kalish, M.,
Lewandosky, S., & Dennis, S. (1999). Remote delivery of cognitive science
laboratories: A solution for small disciplines in large countries. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 270-274. (Compared traditional lab to distance ed
lab using videoconferencing & synchronous Internet connection; dist ed lab
at least as effective as trad lab; students had no pref for trad or dist ed lab
but more satisfied w/ dist ed lab partly due to its novelty)
Key, C., & Mundell, R. (2004).
Creating online case studies using LOGIC (Learning Object Generator in Case
Studies). Retrieved July 2, 2004, from
http://www.logicproject.ca/text/LOGIC_Whitepaper.pdf
Khan, B. (1997). Web-based instruction.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Lang, D. (2000).
Critical thinking in web courses: An oxymoron? Syllabus, 14 (2), 20-21, 23-24. (the author argues that critical thinking
skills can be honed in distance-education courses even without face-to-face
interaction - on-line courses require writing to express self, give favorable
impression - this promotes critical thinking)
Lau, L. (2000). Distance learning
technologies: Issues, trends, and opportunities. Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Loeding, B. L.,
& Wynn, M. (1999). Distance learning planning, preparation, and
presentation: Instructors' perspectives. International Journal of Instructional
Media, 26, 181-192. (Distance
education instructors share what they learned regarding planning, preparation,
and presentation of distance education courses using live televised
instruction)
Ludwig, B.
(2000, August). Web-based instruction: Theoretical differences in treatment of
subject matter. In symposium Comparison of theoretical perspectives in
designing web-based courses. Presented at meetings of American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC. (views
of learning and teaching have a direct relationship to the treatment of subject
matter; compares objectivist and constructivist; & design of web-based
courses)
Marjanovic, O.
(1999). Learning and teaching in a synchronous collaborative environment.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 129-138. (Describes synchronous face-to-face
electronic meeting systems to foster collaborative learning; students [all in
same room]. enter their contribution on their computer & information shows
on all group members' screens and/or on public screen)
McCollum, K.
(2000). Under new federal rules, satellite broadcaster offers university
programming. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Information Technology, January
28, 2000. (a satellite TV service
began carrying four university channels this month to satisfy new federal
guidelines requiring pub-interest programming)
McHenry, L.,
& Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance: A study of interaction in
a distance education classroom. Communication Education, 44, 362-371. (Examined from students' perspective
communication interaction in a live, interactive television classroom; noted
problems: equipment failure, underused mikes, deadlines not clear, little
evidence of "class community")
McMahon, T.,
Gantz, W., & Greenberg, B. S. (1995). Interactive technology and
inter-university team teaching. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 50,
62-70. (Assessed student attitudes in
distance ed class that used 2-way video & audio links; initially high
expectations for video but preference for video over audio decreased by
semester's end; concerns: poor quality of transmissions, lack of camaraderie)
Merisotis, J.
P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What's the difference? Outcomes of distance vs.
traditional classroom-based learning. Change, 31(3), 13-17. (Noted shortcomings in previous
assessments of and research on distance ed; discusses implications for future
of distance education)
Miller, K. L.
(2000, August). Selecting communication strategies and goals in web-based
courses. In symposium Comparison of theoretical perspectives in designing
web-based courses. Presented at meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC. (communication
needs and communication strategies to enhance learning in on-line courses based
on information processing theory and on constructivist theory)
Miller, L. G.,
Hyatt, S. Y, Brennan, J., Bertani, R., & Trevor, T. (1999). Overcoming
barriers for "niche" learners through distance education. The
Catalyst, 28(1), 14-16. (Describes
how distance education used with non-traditional students and employee training
through use of videocassettes and on-line courses)
National Center for Education Statistics
(2004). Distance education at postsecondary institutions. Retrieved July 6,
2004 from http://www.nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2004/section5/indicator32.asp
O'Bannon, D.,
Scott, J., Gunderson, M. S., & Noble, J. (2000, January/February).
Integrating laboratories into online distance education courses. On the
Horizon. (educators at
Missouri-Columbia have integrated video materials, lab kits, field trips, local
resources, and world wide web into asynchronous learning network courses)
Oliver, R., & Herrington, J. (2001).
Teaching and learning online: A beginner’s guide to e-learning and e-teaching
in higher education. Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University Press.
Olsen, F.
(1999). 'Virtual' institutions challenge accreditors to devise new ways of
measuring quality. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 (48), A29-A30. (as distance education technology makes
inroads in higher education, critics warn of approving "experiments"
in distance education - must be mindful of accreditation issues)
Olsen, F.
(2000). Authors argue that 'distance education' is an oxymoron. The Chronicle
of Higher Education: Daily News, June 2, 2000.
(Brown & Duguid, authors of new book "The Social Life of
Information" say traditional higher education is being challenged by
administrators eager to use technology to reduce expenses)
Palloff, R. M.,
& Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective
strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub. (Describes new roles for students &
teachers in distance ed; offers practical suggestions & poses questions to
help instructors develop syllabus and design course to enhance collaborative
& transformative learning)
Papa, F.,
Perugini, M., & Spedaletti, S. (1998). Psychological factors in virtual
classroom situations: A pilot study for a model of learning through
technological devices. Behavior & Information Technology, 17(4),
187-194. (Describes model for using
psych variables to predict performance in distance ed courses; pilot showed +ve
attitude to dist ed & +ve self-efficacy = improved perf but +ve att &
-ve self-efficacy = lower perf; propose prediction model w/ several variables)
Peirce, W.
(2000). Online stradegies for teaching thinking. Syllabus, 14 (2), 21, 24. (An insightful list of thought-provoking
strategies for use in the online classroom.)
Perley, J.,
& Tanguay, D. M. (1999). Accrediting on-line institutions diminishes higher
education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (10), B4-B5. (totally on-line institutions raise
questions about quality and worthiness for accreditation (are on-line
institutions nothing but a collection of marketable commodities?)
Phillips, M. R.,
& Peters, M. J. (1999). Targeting rural students with distance learning
courses: A comparative study of determinant attributes and satisfaction levels.
Journal of Education for Business, 74, 351-356.
Phipps, R.,
& Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference?: A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education.
Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. (little "good" research
examining effectiveness of dist ed; looks like dist ed = trad ed BUT studies
seriously flawed; points out flaws, identifies gaps in research)
Presby, L.
(2001). Seven tips for highly effective online courses. Syllabus, 14 (11),
17. (strategies for keeping online
students enrolled and engaged)
Richardson, J. T.
E., Morgan, A., & Woodley, A. (1999). Approaches to studying in distance
education. Higher Education, 37, 23-55.
(Large-scale survey of dist ed students showed dist ed (vs
on-campus). students approaches to studying characterized by same concepts, are
more appropriate for higher ed goals (due to students' background not dis ed
per se), & can predict performance)
Saba, F. (1999).
Toward a systems theory of distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education, 13(2), 24-31. (Argues for
a systems approach to describe, define and evaluate distance education)
Schaad, D. C.,
Walker, E. A., Wolf, F. M., Brock, D. M., Thielke, S. M., & Oberg, L.
(1999). Evaluating the serial migration of an existing required course to the
World Wide Web. Academic Medicine, 74, S84-S86.
Schrum, L.
(1999). Trends in distance learning: Lessons to inform practice. Educational
Media and Technology Yearbook, 24, 11-16.
(Brief history of distance education and issues to consider in
designing distance education course)
Shearer, R. L.
(1999). Accreditation of distance learning in higher education. Distance
Education Report, 3(4), 5. (Very
brief overview of issues from 1999 Council for Higher Ed Accreditation
conference on distance education)
Smith, P. L,
& Dillon, C. L. (1999). Comparing distance learning and classroom learning:
Conceptual considerations. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(2),
6-23. (Identifies confounds in
research evaluating distance ed; comparative research should identify &
define attributes of delivery systems & media that support learning;
attribute categories: realism/bandwidth, feedback/interactivity,
branching/interface)
Spector, M. (2000). Designing technology
enhanced learning environments. In B. Abbey (Ed.), Instructional and cognitive
impacts of Web-based education (pp. 241-261). Hershey, PA: Idea Group
Publishing.
Stefanov, K.,
Stoyanov, S., & Nikolov, R. (1998). Design issues of a distance learning
course on business on the Internet. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 14,
83-90. (Describes design for distance
education course on business on the Internet; relates course design to
learner-centered pedagogy; describes evaluation tools that will be used when
course is offered)
Taraban, R.,
Maki, W. S., & Rynearson, K. (1999). Measuring study time distributions:
Implications for designing computer-based courses. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 31, 263-269.
(Beginning & advanced students in both traditional & distance
ed courses reported studying almost exclusively just before exams; students
don't use new tech wisely - use Internet resources same as resources in trad
course; need to restructure courses)
Thoms, K. J.
(1999). Teaching via ITV: Taking instructional design to the next level. T.H.E.
Journal, 26(9), 60-66. (Practical
recommendations for designing visual presentations for distance education
course using interactive television)
Treadwell, T.
(1998). Collaborative inter-class teaching and research over the internet:
Faculty & students' perspectives on the research and learning process. (paper dealing with the collaborative
distance learning models)
Tuovinen, J. E. (2000). Multimedia
distance education interactions. Educational Media International, 37, 16-24.
Turoff, M.
(2000). An end to student segregation: No more separation between distance
learning and regular courses. On the Horizon, 8(1), 1-7. (face-to-face students may be suffering
from the segregation of the college system into separate face-to-face and
distance courses - to enhance learning of face-to-face classes, integrate w/
dist ed - issues re using distance educ)
United States Copyright Office. (2004).
Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
Veronikas, S. W., & Shaughnessy, M.
F. (2004, July/August). Teaching and learning in a hybrid world: An interview
with Carol Twigg. Educause Review, 39, 51-62.
Wagner, E. D., & McCombs, B. L.
(1995). Learner-centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for
distance education. Educational Technology, 35, 32-35.
Wang, Y. C.
(1998). Optimization learning in distributed education: Real-time interactive
multimedia communication interface experience. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 58(9-A), 3480.
Waschull, S. B.
(2001). The online delivery of psychology courses: Attrition, performance, and
evaluation. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 143-47.
(attrition similar for trad & online courses; Study 1 - online
more likely to fail but evaluated course similarly; Study 2 - perf & eval
same for online & traditional)
Webster, J.,
& Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated
distance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1282-1309. (Examined extent to which characteristics
of tech, instructor, course & students predicted students' involvement, cog
engagement, tech self-efficacy, att toward tech, att toward distance ed &
advantage in course)
Weedman, J.
(1999). Conversation and community: The potential of electronic conferences for
creating intellectual proximity in distributed learning environments. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 907-928. (Reviews literature on social dimension of
distance ed & impact of computer-mediated communication on learning
outcomes, reflective thinking, community-building; examines how prof students
used electronic conf they set up)
Welsh, T. M.
(1999). Implications of distributed learning for instructional designers: How
will the future affect practice? Educational Technology, 39(2), 41-45. (Describes taxonomy for defining
distributed instruction: mediation (human/technology), pacing (self/group),
interaction (synchronous/limited synchronous/asynchronous); discusses
implications of taxonomy for distance ed courses)
Williams, M. L.,
Paprock, K., & Covington, B. (1999). Distance learning: The essential
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. (Provides strategies and helpful hints to
structuring distance ed courses using voice teleconferencing, audiographics,
Internet, one-way satellite, compressed video, full-motion video)
Wiorkowski, F.
(2000, August). Learner characteristics in a web based environment. In
symposium Comparison of theoretical perspectives in designing web-based
courses. Presented at meeting of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC. (when designing dist
ed courses must consider learner characteristics: learning style, spatial
ability, metacognitive differences, prior knowledge)
Young, J. R.
(1999). Author warns students -- and colleges -- to avoid on-line education.
The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, November 3, 1999. (Carole S. Fungaroli, author of
Traditional Degrees for Non-traditional Students, says distance education fails
to deliver most important aspect of higher education - inspiration; cites
complaints by students who have taken distance education courses)
Young, J. R.
(2000). David Noble's battle to defend the 'sacred space' of the classroom. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (30), A47-A49
(describes David Noble's criticisms of instructional technology &
distance education, his beliefs that motive behind distance educ is profit, his
problems with administrators at several universities)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Dispatches from distance education, where class is always in session.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (26), A41-A42. (personal experiences of seven students
who enrolled in online courses at several universities)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Logging in with… Ken W. White: Advice for the online instructor: Keep
it interpersonal. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, January 11,
2000. (discusses design of online
courses with Ken W. White, coauthor of The Online Teaching Guide, a book that
explores benefits of and guidelines for online teaching)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Monograph reassures those afraid of creating distance courses. The
Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, January 6, 2000. (describes Judith V. Boettcher's book
Faculty Guide for Moving Teaching and Learning to the Web - book includes
practical suggestions for creating online courses)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Moving the seminar table to the computer screen. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46 (44), A33-A34. (describes
a "virtual classics department" that coordinate the online teaching
efforts of 13 of the 15 institutions in the Associated Colleges of the South)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Scholar concludes that distance ed is as effective as traditional
instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Daily News, February 10,
2000. describes Thomas L. Russell's
book called The No Significant Difference Phenomenon - contains more than 400
studies that purport to assess the quality of distanced education courses -
majority found traditional education = distance education)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Virtual reality on a desktop hailed as new tool in distance education.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47 (October 6), A43-A44. (describes examples of courses that use
virtual reality - classes conducted in a virtual world created by instructor;
universities using virtual tours of campus to attract new students)
Young, J. R.
(2000). Web site provides advice on teaching with technology. The Chronicle of
Higher Education: Daily News, April 5, 2000.
(web site Virtual Resource Site for Teaching with Technology gives
examples of online courses & materials they use - provides tools for
professors to gain ideas and information.)
Young, J. R. (2002).
"Hybrid" teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and
online instruction: BY blending approaches, colleges hope to save money and
meet student's needs. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 58 (28), A33-A34. (steps toward meshing the traditional and
online methods of instruction)
Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’
teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved July 2, 2004, from
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น