Itiel Dror provided us with another highly entertaining session at Learning Technologies 2009. This time he shared the results of two new studies which attempt to shed some light on what it is that helps learners to remember new material.
In the first study 180 people were presented with new material in one of three alternative forms:
- With simple linear navigation.
- With random access to the material through a menu.
- With a combination of 1 and 2.
Subjects were tested for recall immediately on completion and then again after two weeks. With the immediate test, the method of navigation seemed to make no significant difference. However, after two weeks, those who had been allowed only simple linear navigation scored much better.
Why should this be? Good question, and Itiel admitted there were no clear-cut explanations, although it was possible that those following the simple linear approach had to devote less resources to deciding what to do next. This does seem logical, particularly with novice learners.
Another angle on this first study was that some of the subjects were presented with more simple material and some more complex. On immediate recall, those presented with the simple material scored higher; after two weeks there was no difference. Work that out.
In the second study involving 60 learners, three different approaches were tried to the use of a video resource:
- A simple, non-interactive video.
- An interactive version of the video, requiring learners to point to, explain, detect, answer questions on aspects of the content.
- A simple, non-interactive video, followed by a lecture and discussion.
Those who experienced only the simple, non-interactive video scored 40.83, those who used the interactive version scored 73.22, and those who experienced the video followed by lecture and discussion scored 64.44.
Clearly interactivity, whether with the system or with an expert and peers in a discussion, added significantly to scores. Apparently, qualitative feedback from learners was that they enjoyed the interactive video, but liked the opportunity for social interaction as well. Dare I say that this suggests a blend?
Hi Clive,
ReplyDeleteI had big questions about Itiel's first investigation. The key thing for me was that the pages of content were unrelated. This, therefore, bears no relation to real-life situations where the content within a site/module is usually related in some way.
All the learners were being asked to do was remember the content on the pages. So, it may be that the "linear" one just offered fewer distractions and allowed them to focus on one topic at a time.
Itiel's second test was far more realistic, and therefore far more impressive. It clearly showed the benefits of interacting with the content (as well as people). But then people like Terry Anderson have been saying that for years.
The critical thing here is understanding the nature of interaction.
It's not something that can be added in to the content at the last minute, it needs to be embedded as a coherent part of the way the content works.
An interaction, for me, is where the learner does something to the content - expecting a response, or vice versa.
It could be as simple as asking a question which then pushes the learner into the next stage of the materials.
Or a set of questions which force the learner to reflect on the previous chunk of content. But, write the questions first, then the content.
Or a branching navigation, where your score is displayed progressively as you make your choices.
At it's most effective, we get games. And here I mean real games, that are engrossing, even addictive, demanding time, ingenuity and imagination from the learner.
This sounds like an interesting study. Do you know if Itiel's sessions were recorded at the conference and are available to listen to online?
ReplyDeleteNatalie
Itiel's sessions were recorded, but I think you have to be a conference delegate to access the recordings.
ReplyDeleteInteresting statistics. I'd like to see a wider a pool with a wider range of topics.
ReplyDeleteI see 'interaction', but I think collaboration. The learners are actually agreeing to learn (by their participation). Subsequently, agreeing means that they are more likely to accept ownership (even if partly) of the outcome.
Thanks again, great site and I always leave with something to think about.