Impressed again by the New York Times multimedia coverage of stories. There must be a good commitment of resources for this quality.
Tomorrow I will be attending Innovate Impact at Ohio State University and hope to hear the latest in instructional design methods and the use of animation and visuals to improve instructional design strategies.
“With Impact as our theme for 2017, we’re sharing innovations that let educators re-imagine their instruction without sacrificing pedagogical quality and rigor. It’s fun to experiment and enjoy the novelty of cutting edge technologies, but we’re always looking at the way that technology has a positive impact on our students, instructor best practices, the educational community and beyond.
Innovate is a time for bringing people together across disciplines and across adoption barriers. The conference is built with the educator in mind: you don’t have to be tech savvy to fully participate in this day of presentations, demonstrations and valuable dialog.
In this article the researchers have some strong results in their comparisons of the instructional effects using either static or dynamic content. Such results go a long way in affecting the use of animations for better instruction. I applaud these researchers as the results are meaningful and clearly presented.
“There is an increase between the grade obtained by the students in the pre-test and post-test, indicating that the augmented reality application developed and both approaches for static and dynamic contents, are effective in teaching the concepts described in second section as is observed in Figure 4 and 5. Additionally, the average increment grade for the second approach is higher (M=4.53, SD=0.971) than the obtained using the first approach (M=3.594, SD=1.102). Besides, it is worth to mention that the interaction of students with the application was short and the amount of taught and tested concept was high. p. 312
From the results can be concluded that the augmented reality application using the two approaches for configuring dynamic and static contents are effective for teaching concepts of the fundamentals of electronics course. Additionally, it can be observed that there is a difference in the learning performance of students when they use dynamic contents, besides better results were obtained using the second approach.
On the other side, the perception of students is that learning the concepts is more easily when they use dynamic contents than when they use static ones. Additionally, a major percentage of students consider that it is easier to understand the concepts using the second M. H. Montoya et al.
approach than using the first approach. This last conclusion is affirmed by the performance results obtained. pp. 315-316
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education © Authors. Terms and conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) apply. Correspondence: Mauricio Hincapié Montoya, Institución Universitaria Salazar y Herrera, Carrera 70 N° 52-49, Barrio los colores, 0000 Medellín, Colombia email@example.com
Evaluating the Effect on User Perception and Performance of Static and Dynamic Contents Deployed in Augmented Reality based Learning Application
Mauricio Hincapié Montoya Institución Universitaria Salazar y Herrera, COLOMBIA Christian Andrés Díaz
Institución Universitaria Salazar y Herrera, COLOMBIA Gustavo Adolfo Moreno Institución Universitaria Salazar y Herrera, COLOMBIA
Good Abstract from Springer Publishers, Educational Psychology Review, pp. 1-27
Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures
Andreas Korbach (1) Email author (firstname.lastname@example.org) Roland Brünken (1) Babette Park (1)
1. Department of Education, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
“Recent studies about learning and instruction use cognitive load measurement to pay attention to the human cognitive resources and to the consumption of these resources during the learning process. In order to validate different measures of cognitive load for
different cognitive load factors, the present study compares three different methods of objective cognitive load measurement and one subjective method. An experimental three-group design (N = 78) was used, with exposure to seductive details (extraneous cognitive load factor), mental animation tasks (germane cognitive load factor), or the basic learning instruction (control group). Cognitive load was measured by the rhythm method (Park and Brünken 2015), the index of cognitive activity (ICA) (Marshall 2007), and the subjective ratings of mental effort and task difficulty (Paas 1992). Eye-tracking data were used to analyze the attention allocation and as an indicator for cognitive activity. The results show a significantly higher cognitive load for the mental animation group in contrast to the control and the seductive detail group, indicated by rhythm method and subjective ratings, as well as a higher cognitive activity, indicated by eye tracking. Furthermore, the mental animation group shows significantly higher comprehension performance in contrast to the seductive detail group and significantly higher transfer performance in contrast to the control group. The ICA values showed no significant differences in cognitive load. The results provide evidence for the benefits of combining eye-tracking analysis and the results of cognitive load ratings or secondary task performance for a direct and continuous cognitive load assessment and for a differentiating access to the single cognitive load factors."
Such a good explanation, did not want to spoil it.
This is my start of a literature review on animation as a tool for Instructional Designers. Adding reviews of articles around the topic of why using animation should be your next instructional design tool. Or put another way, applying animation/video techniques, storytelling and instructional design practices to lesson development.
Key concepts found include: Constructivism, Mayer theories, cognitive load theory (channels, modality), active learning(interactivity) , problem-based learning, engagement, student focus, discovery, analogies, efficiency and efficacy, visual, digital literacy, enrichment, simulation, performance, mental effort, multimodal measurements.
First article is an easy one. Adobe did a study of the GenZ learners and their teachers.
They asked students: How are you more creative?
- Visual skills, access to greater variety of tools, etc. for expression
- social skills, personal branding
- Natural explorers
- access to information and ideas, inclusion
They asked teachers: What are the challenges?
- technological dependence
- independence and logical thinking not adequately developed
One finding: Learn outside of classroom, learn best when creating, more interactive tools
Supporting this is an article out of Durham University
Correspondent Author: Artemis, Kyriakou, Michaella Court 102, Nikou Kavadia 31, 3046, Cyprus, e-mail: email@example.com e-publisher: National Documentation Centre, National Hellenic Research Foundation
Interactions within classroom. Teacher—> student Language of use. And richer interactions. quality interactions and classroom discourse.
Externalizing thinking. formative assessment=interactive, summative=scorin
And from Seoul descriptive questioning: Pandabout: Multimodal Story Learning with Dynamic Memory Construction, Yu-Jung Heo, Eun-Sol Kim, Kyoung-Woon On and Byoung-Tak Zhang, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University:
Three types of questions for animations: 1. story content, 2. visual information, 3. emotional content
An example of how we do not have to be alone with our problems. These violinists used youtube and twitter when faced with “sidewalk bureaucrats.”
Check out the story. Had a similar experience with the airlines which also seemed to have been solved using Twitter.