Prior research has produced mixed results regarding the usefulness of interactivity in multimedia learning. In this study, participants learned to solve part of a Rubik’s Cube using either a tutorial with interactive features or a passive (video-based) tutorial. Participants with low spatial ability benefited more from interactivity than those with high ability, though no performance main effects were found between the tutorials. Targeted use of interactivity could be effective in engaging students and helping them learn.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChapmanP.SelvarajahS.WebsterJ. (1999). Engagement in multimedia training systems. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Maui, HI, USA.
2.
DomagkS.SchwartzR. N.PlassJ. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (5), 1024- 1033.
FlavellJ.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL.B. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
HofflerT.N.LeutnerD. (2010). The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations – Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (1), 209-216.
6.
KalyugaS. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387-399.
7.
KhalifaM.LamR. (2002). Web-Based Learning: Effects on Learning Process and Outcome. IEEE Transactions on Education, 45 (4), 350-356.
8.
KlineK.CatramboneR. (2011). Learning from Multiphase Diagrams: Effects of Spatial Ability and Visuospatial Working Memory Capacity. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, 570-574.
9.
MayerR.E. (Ed). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
10.
MayerR.E.ChandlerP. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
11.
MayerR.E.SimsV.K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 389-401.
12.
MorenoR.MayerR.E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (1), 117-128.
MorenoR.ValdezA. (2005). Cognitive Load and Learning Effects of Having Students Organize Pictures and Words in Multimedia Environments: The Role of Student Interactivity and Feedback. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 53 (3), 35-45.
SchwanS.RiemppR. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293-305.
17.
TabbersH.K.MartensR.L.van MerrienboerJ.J.G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (1), 71-81.
