The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of orienting activities and locus of instructional control on the learning of factual and procedural knowledge via interactive video. Specifically, the interaction between three levels of instructional control (linear, mixed and learner) and two levels of orienting (orienting versus no orienting) was investigated. It was hypothesized that the provision of an orienting activity would show a greater impact on learning for the learner control condition than for the mixed control and linear control conditions. Subjects consisted of ninety-one university students majoring in either biology, chemistry or exercise science. The dependent variables were recall of facts, recall of procedures, and instructional time.
The results did not support the predicted interaction between orienting activity and instructional locus of control. It was found that provision of the orienting activity significantly facilitated the recall of factual information from the lesson. Both linear and mixed control treatments were significantly superior to the learner control. No significant effects were found for the recall of procedural information. Analysis of the time variable showed that subjects provided with the orienting activity spent significantly more time with the program than those who did not have this activity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McNeilB. J.NelsonK. R., Meta-Analysis of Interactive Video Instruction: A 10 Year Review of Achievement Effects, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18:1, pp. 1–6, 1991.
2.
HannafinM. J., Empirical Issues in the Study of Computer-Assisted Interactive Video, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33:4, pp. 235–247, 1985.
3.
HannafinM. J.PhillipsT. L., Perspectives in the Design of Interactive Video; Beyond Tape Versus Disc, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 21:1, pp. 44–60, 1987.
4.
PalmerM.TovarM., Developing Interactive Videotape in a University Setting, Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16:3, pp. 195–204, 1987.
5.
SmithE. E., Interactive Video: An Examination of Use and Effectiveness, Journal of Instructional Development, 10:2, pp. 2–10, 1988.
6.
HannafinM. J., Guidelines for Using Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Journal of Instructional Development, 7:3, pp. 6–10, 1984.
7.
HannafinM. J.ColamaioM. E., The Effects of Variation in Lesson Control and Practice on Learning from Interactive Video, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35:4, pp. 203–212, 1987.
8.
KinzieM. B., Requirements and Benefits of Effective Interactive Instruction: Learner Control, Self-Regulation, and Continuing Motivation, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38:1, 1990.
9.
Blum-CohenV., Interactive Features in the Design of Videodisc Materials, Educational Technology, 24:1, pp. 16–20, 1984.
10.
LaurillardD. M., Interactive Video and the Control of Learning, Educational Technology, 24:6, pp. 7–15, 1984.
11.
PawleyR., It's Becoming an Interactive World, Educational and Industrial Television, 15:6, pp. 80–81, 1983.
12.
SteinbergE. R., Review of Student Control in Computer Based Instruction, Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 3:3, pp. 84–90, 1977.
13.
MilheimW. D.MartinB. L., Theoretical Bases for the Use of Learner Control: Three Different Perspectives, Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 18:3, pp. 99–105, 1991.
14.
GoetzfriedL.HannafinM. J., The Effect of Locus of CAI Control Strategies on the Learning of Mathematics Rules, American Educational Research Journal, 22:2, pp. 273–279, 1985.
15.
HooperS.HannafinM. J., Learning the ROPES of Instructional Design: Guidelines for Emerging Interactive Technologies, Educational Technology, 28, pp. 14–18, 1988.
16.
RossS. M., Matching the Lesson to the Student: Adaptive Designs for Individualized Learning Systems, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, pp. 42–48, 1984.
17.
TennysonR. D., Instructional Control Strategies and Content Structure as Design Variables in Concept Acquisition using Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72:4, pp. 525–532, 1980.
18.
TennysonR. D.ChristensenD. L.ParkS. I., The Minnesota Adaptive Instructional System: An Intelligent CBI System, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, pp. 2–13, 1984.
19.
HannafinM. J.HughesC. W., A Framework for Incorporating Orienting Activities in Computer-Based Interactive Video, Instructional Science, 15, pp. 239–255, 1986.
20.
AusubelD., The Use of Advanced Organizers in the Learning and Retention of Meaningful Verbal Material, Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, pp. 267–272, 1960.
21.
HartleyJ.DaviesI., Preinstructional Strategies: The Role of Pretests, Behavioral Objectives, Overviews and Advance Organizers, Review of Educational Research, 46:2, pp. 239–265, 1976.
22.
LuitenJ.AmesW.AckersonG., A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Advance Organizers on Learning and Retention, American Educational Research Journal, 17, pp. 211–218, 1980.
23.
HannafinM. J.ReiberL., Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design for Emerging Computer-Based Instructional Technologies: Part I, Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, pp. 91–101, 1989.
24.
HannafinM. J., The Effects of Orienting Activities, Cueing, and Practice on Learning of Computer-Based Instruction, Journal of Educational Research, 81:1, pp. 48–53, 1987.
25.
HannafinM. J.PhillipsL.RieberL. P.GarhartC., Effects of Orienting Activities and Cognitive Processing Time on Factual and Inferential Learning, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35:2, pp. 75–84, 1988.
26.
HannafinM. J.PhillipsL.TrippS. D., The Effects of Orienting, Processing, and Practicing Activities on Learning from Interactive Video, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13:4, pp. 134–139, 1986.
27.
HoC. P.SavenyeW.HassN., The Effects of Instructional Review and Performance Objectives on Type of Interactive Learning Outcome, Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13, pp. 126–129, 1986.
28.
MayerR. E., The Sequencing of Instruction and the Concept of Assimilation-to-Schema, Instructional Science, 6, pp. 369–388, 1977.
29.
MayerR. E., Can Advance Organizers Influence Meaningful Learning?Review of Educational Research, 49, pp. 371–383, 1979.
30.
PhillipsT. L.HannafinM. J.TrippS. D., The Effects of Practice and Orienting Activities on Learning from Interactive Video, Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36:1, pp. 93–102, 1988.
31.
MilheimW. D., The Effects of Pacing and Sequence Control in an Interactive Video Lesson, Educational and Training Technology International, 27:1, pp. 7–19, 1990.
32.
RomiszowskiA., Designing Instructional Systems: Decision Making in Course Planning and Curriculum Design, Nichols, New York, 1981.
33.
CampbellD.StanleyJ., Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Houghton and Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1963.
34.
LaneD. S.NewmanD. L.BullK. S., The Relationship of Student Interest and Advance Organizer Effectiveness, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, pp. 15–25, 1988.
35.
HirumiA.BowersD. R., Enhancing Motivation and Acquisition of Coordinate Concepts by Using Concept Trees, Journal of Educational Research, 84:5, pp. 273–279, 1991.
