Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions

In this study, 364 first-year physics students were randomly assigned to one of four online multimedia treatments on Newton's First and Second Laws of Motion: (1) the ‘Exposition’, a concise lecture-style presentation; (2) the ‘Extended Exposition’, the Exposition with additional interesting information; (3) the ‘Refutation’, the Exposition with common misconceptions explicitly stated and refuted; or (4) the ‘Dialogue’, a student–tutor discussion of the same material as in the Refutation. Students were tested using questions from mechanics conceptual inventories before and after watching the multimedia treatments. Results show the Refutation and Dialogue produced the greatest learning gains, with effect sizes of 0.79 and 0.83, respectively, compared with the Exposition. Students with low prior knowledge benefited most, however high prior knowledge learners were not disadvantaged by the misconception-based approach. The findings suggest that online multimedia can be greatly improved, promoting conceptual change in students with all levels of experience, by including a discussion of misconceptions.

[1]  Z. C. Zacharia,et al.  Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[2]  Peter S. Shaffer,et al.  Tutorials in Introductory Physics , 1998 .

[3]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[4]  Richard Cox,et al.  Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning , 1998, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[5]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[6]  Miky Ronen,et al.  Simulation - a bridge between theory and reality: the case of electric circuits , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[7]  D. Treagust,et al.  Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning , 2003 .

[8]  Gabriela C. Weaver,et al.  Strategies in K‐12 science instruction to promote conceptual change , 1998 .

[9]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension , 1981 .

[10]  Irene-Anna N. Diakidoy,et al.  Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change , 2003 .

[11]  D. Hestenes,et al.  Force concept inventory , 1992 .

[12]  M. Chi,et al.  From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts , 1994 .

[13]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[14]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[15]  David F. Treagust,et al.  What do students really learn from interactive multimedia? A physics case study , 2004 .

[16]  J. Dauben.  Georg Cantor and the Origins of Transfinite Set Theory , 1983 .

[17]  David Hestenes,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller , 1995 .

[18]  Lillian C. McDermott,et al.  Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap , 1991 .

[19]  H. Tabbers,et al.  Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[20]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning , 2004 .

[21]  Richard R. Hake,et al.  Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory , 1992 .

[22]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[23]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[24]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[25]  S. Vosniadou.  Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. , 1994 .

[26]  Edward F. Redish,et al.  Teaching Physics: Figuring out What Works , 1999 .

[27]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science , 2001 .

[28]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[29]  S. Vosniadou,et al.  Extending the conceptual change approach to mathematics learning and teaching , 2004 .

[30]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[31]  Alberto Mendez,et al.  The Relationship Between Attendance in Student‐centred Physics Tutorials and Performance in University Examinations , 2005 .

[32]  Douglas Huffman,et al.  Interpreting the force concept inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun , 1995 .

[33]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[34]  R. Mayer.  Teaching of subject matter. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[35]  J. Sweller.  COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[36]  A. Graesser,et al.  Question Asking During Tutoring , 1994 .

[37]  Dan MacIsaac,et al.  Standardized Testing in Physics via the World Wide Web , 2002 .

[38]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. , 1996 .

[39]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[40]  J. Hedberg.  The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , 2007 .

[41]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[42]  Richard Cox,et al.  Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse -- A controlled comparison , 1999 .

[43]  R. Hake.  Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction* , 1998 .

[44]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education , 1993 .

[45]  M. Limón.  On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal , 2001 .

[46]  R. Cox,et al.  Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse , 1999 .

[47]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[48]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  The initial knowledge state of college physics students , 1985 .

[49]  Susan Ramlo,et al.  The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. , 2002 .

[50]  T. Mayes,et al.  Vicarious Learning: Cognitive and Linguistic Effects of Observing Peer Discussion. , 1999 .

[51]  Derek A. Muller,et al.  Inside the quantum mechanics lecture : Changing practices , 2005 .

[52]  J. Clement.  Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics , 1982 .

[53]  Richard E Mayer,et al.  The case for coherence in scientific explanations: quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[54]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[55]  Charles Henderson,et al.  Common Concerns About the Force Concept Inventory , 2002 .

[56]  L. McDermott,et al.  Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension , 1980 .

[57]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts , 1997 .