This study compared the effectiveness of textual feedback to video feedback during Computer Assisted Learning (CAL). Based upon the assertions of Dual Coding Theory (Paivio), it was hypothesized that video feedback would result in superior learning and retention compared to textual feedback. Two computerized biology lessons were administered to secondary students (N = 60). Lessons consisted of a brief text introduction followed by multiple-choice questions with text or video feedback. Students received one lesson with textual feedback and one with video. Learning and retention were tested at the knowledge and comprehension levels. Students also indicated preference for feedback type. Between-subject MANCOVAs comparing text to video found that video feedback resulted in superior learning and comprehension. A Chi-square analysis indicated that students preferred video to text as feedback.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bangert-DrownsR. L.KulikC.-L. C.KulikJ. A.MorganM., The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events, Review of Educational Research, 61:2, pp. 213–238, 1991.
2.
BrophyJ., Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis, Review of Educational Research, 51, pp. 5–32, 1981.
3.
SchimmelB. J., Providing Meaningful Feedback in Courseware, in Instructional Designs for Microcomputer Courseware, JonassenD. H. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 183–195, 1988.
4.
ClarianaR. B.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R., The Effects of Different Feedback Strategies Using Computer-Administered Multiple-Choice Questions as Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39:2, pp. 5–17, 1991.
5.
ShuellT. J., Designing Instructional Computing Systems for Meaningful Learning, in Adaptive Learning Environments: Foundations and Frontiers, JonesM.WinneP. H. (eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
6.
BryantB.AinsfeldM., Feedback versus No-Feedback in Testing Children's Knowledge of English Pluralization Rules, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8:2, pp. 250–255, 1969.
7.
HannafinM. J., The Effects of Systematized Feedback on Learning in Natural Classroom Settings, Educational Research Quarterly, 7:3, pp. 22–29, Fall 1982.
8.
AndersonR. C.KulhavyR. W.AndreT., Feedback Procedures in Programmed Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, pp. 184–186, 1971.
9.
RoperW. J., Feedback in Computer-Assisted Instruction, Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14, pp. 43–49, 1977.
10.
MajerK.HansenD.DickW., Notes on Effects of Individualized Verbal Feedback on Computer-Assisted Learning, Psychological Reports, 28, pp. 217–218, 1971.
11.
MosleyM. L., Computer Assisted Instruction and Continuing Motivation, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 243 432, 1984.
12.
DaltonD.HannafinM., Examining the Effects of Varied Computer-Based Reinforcement on Self-Esteem and Achievement: An Exploratory Study, AEDS Journal, 18:3, pp. 172–182, 1985.
13.
MevarechZ. R.Ben-ArtziS., Effects of CAI with Fixed and Adaptive Feedback on Children's Mathematics Anxiety and Achievement, Journal of Experimental Education, 56, pp. 228–232, 1987.
14.
SurberJ. R.LeederJ. A., The Effect of Graphic Feedback on Student Motivation, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15:1, pp. 14–17, 1988.
15.
ChenH. C.BrownS.YoungM., Effects of Different Forms of Feedback on Learning through Memorization and Active Problem Solving, Northeastern Educational Research Conference, Ellenville, New York, 1993.
16.
HuangJ. C., Digitized Speech as Feedback on Cognitive Aspects of Psychomotor Performance during Computer-Based Instruction, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 303, 1995.
17.
RieberL. P., Feedback and Elaboration within a Computer Based Simulation: A Dual Coding Perspective, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 829, 1996.
18.
WaughM. L.JacobsonM. J., The Influence of Videodisc-Enhanced Drill on Student Achievement in an Introductory Art Appreciation Course, Visual Arts Research, 15:2, pp. 31–41, 1989.
19.
PaivioA., Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
20.
BloomB. S.EnglehartM. D.FurstJ. E.HillW. H.KrathwohlD. R., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, Longmans, Green, New York, 1956.
21.
HyperCard 2.2, [Computer Software], Apple Computer Company, 1993.
22.
National Geographic Society, Animals, [Laserdisc], National Geographic, Washington, 1990.
23.
National Geographic Society, Reptiles and Amphibians. [Laserdisc], National Geographic, Washington, 1993.
24.
GentileJ. R., Significance of Single-Subject Studies (and Repeated-Measures Designs), Educational Psychologist, 17:1, pp. 54–60, 1982.
25.
CohenJ.CohenP., Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1983.
