Effects of hypermedia on students' achievement: a meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize existing research comparing the effects of hypermedia verse nonhypermedia instruction (e.g., CAI, text, traditional, videotape instruction) on students' achievement. Forty-six studies were located from three sources, and their quantitative data were transformed into Effect Size (ES). The overall grand mean of the study-weighted ES for all 46 studies was 0.41. The results suggest that hypermedia instruction is more effective when there is no instruction for the comparison group or when the comparison group used videotape instruction. However, CAI and text instructions are slightly more effective than hypermedia instruction. As a whole, the results of this analysis suggest that the effects of hypermedia instruction on students' achievement are mixed, depends on what type of instruction it compares to. In addition, four of the seventeen variables selected for this study (i.e., instrumentation, type of research design, type of delivery system, and comparison group) had a statistically significant impact on the mean ES. The results from this study suggest that the effects of using hypermedia in instruction are positive over non-hypermedia instruction as a whole. The results of this study also provide to classroom teachers an accumulated research-based evidence for using technology in instruction. Media comparison studies were the primary focus of most research on media in education from 1920s through the 1960s. Yet, during this period many researchers found problems in the nature of media comparison studies. Problems included faulty theoretical assumptions, deficient experimental designs, and lack of consistently significant findings (for details see Thompson, Simonson, & Hargrave, 1992). In 1983, Richard Clark evoked considerable controversy in the field of educational technology with the publication of his article, "Reconsidering Research on Learning From Media," in the Review of Educational Research. (Ross, 1994). After reviewing the results of reviews and meta-analyses of research comparing the learning advantage of various media, Clark (1983) claimed that there are no learning benefits to be gained from employing any specific medium to deliver instruction . According to Clark, the results of those studies that appear to favor one medium over another are not due to medium but due to the method or content that is introduced along with the medium. Clark (1983) concludes that "...media do not influence learning under any conditions" (p.445). Kozma (1994) challenged Clark's claims by refraining the question from "Do media influence learning?" to "Will media influence learning?" Komza analyzed the results of two significant and effective instructional environments (i.e., ThinkerTools, and The Jasper Woodbury Series) to identify causal mechanisms by which media may have influenced learning. He argued that "...Clark's separation of media from method creates an unnecessary and undesirable schism between the two. Medium and method should have a more integral relationship. Both are part of the instructional design" (p.16). Clark and Kozma may be both right, based on their own definitions of "media" and "method." However, from an