Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The ubiquitous nature of technology presents new paradigms for higher education as students are bombarded by information in a media-rich world. College students are taking multiple courses at a time, over many semesters, and using many different educational technologies. The purpose of this qualitative case study is to describe the experiences with interactive instructional technology from the perspective of college students. Findings identified communication as the number one priority as the lines between personal and professional lives are blurred. However, technology introduces layers of separation between students, faculty, and course content. Faculty must be comfortable with technology to build trust with students while students are required to solve problems when technology is not working.

Keywords

instructional technology instructional design interactive media digital media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broeckelman-Post

M. A.

MacArthur

B. L.

(2017). Are we violating student expectations? Availability, workload, class time use, and technology policies in undergraduate courses. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1077695817736687

Clark

R. E.

Feldon

D. F.

(2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer

(Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 97-115

Creswell

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dahlstrom

Walker

J. D.

Dziuban

(2013, September 16). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2013. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2013

Hassenzahl

Tractinsky

(2006). User experience—A research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25, 91-97.

Kalyuga

(2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387-399.

Kalyuga

Chandler

Sweller

(1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.

Kalyuga

Chandler

Sweller

(2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46, 567-581.

Kirschner

(2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.

10.

Kozma

(1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.

11.

Marchitto

Canas

(2011). User experience as a challenge for cognitive psychology and ergonomics. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Humans in ICT Environments, 7, 268-280.

12.

Mayer

(2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Mayer

Moreno

(1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.

14.

McLuhan

(1974). The medium is the message. Marshall Mcluhan Speaks. Retrieved from http://marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/sayings/1974-the-medium-is-the-message.php. http://www.marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/astheyhavemovedthevideotothehomepage.

15.

McLuhan

(1995). The medium is the message. In McLuhan

Zingrone

(Eds.), Essential McLuhan (pp. 151-161). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Reprinted from Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 1964)

16.

Moreno

Mayer

(1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.

17.

Moreno

Mayer

(2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.

18.

Moreno

Mayer

(2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-326.

19.

Reed

(2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41, 87-98.

20.

Rogers

(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

21.

Tullis

Albert

(2008). Measuring the user experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

22.

Yin

(2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Zhou

Jiao

(2011). Fundamentals of product ecosystems design for user experience. Research in Engineering Design, 22, 43-61.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.59 MB

Understanding of How Communications Students Use Interactive Instructional Technology From a User Experience Perspective

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material