Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 805–823 | Cite as

Promoting self-paced learning in the elementary classroom with interactive video, an online course platform and tablets

  • George PalaigeorgiouEmail author
  • Anthea Papadopoulou
Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Studies show that interactive educational video can reduce cognitive overload, guide viewers’ attention, and trigger reflection; moreover, tablets can help students to increase self-directed learning, take ownership of the learning process, and collaborate with one another. In this study, we examine whether interactive video together with tablets and an online course learning environment can become the means for promoting efficient and effective self-paced learning in the classroom. In traditional elementary classes, students most often play a somewhat passive role in pacing and organizing their learning progress. Students in our study were asked to follow a learning path of interactive videos and other learning units in pairs while the teacher played only a supportive role. Two classes of fifth grade (30 students) and two classes of sixth grade (30 students) exploited the proposed environment for two 90 min’ sessions. The interactive videos and learning activities were designed to address students’ misconceptions about heat transfer. Data were collected through pre-post tests, focus groups, attitude questionnaires for students/teachers, and researchers’ observations. Students scored significantly higher in the post-test than they did in the pretest and they were very positive about the prospects of the proposed approach, which they associated with pros such as learning efficiency, learning effectiveness, self-directed learning, enjoyment, and better classroom dynamics. Students demonstrated impressive self-control, self-discipline, and learning autonomy and successfully managed their own progress. The study shows that the proposed learning setting could become a promising means of promoting self-paced interactive learning in the classroom.

Keywords

Self-paced learning Online course platform Interactive video Tablets Classroom Elementary school students 

Notes

References

  1. Baser, M. (2006). Fostering conceptual change by cognitive conflict based instruction on students’ understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, Y. T. (2012). A study of learning effects on e-learning with interactive thematic video. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(3), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cherrett, T., Wills, G., Price, J., Maynard, S., & Dror, I. E. (2009). Making training more cognitively effective: Making videos interactive. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1124–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Churchill, D., Fox, B., & King, M. (2012). Study of affordances of iPads and teachers' private theories. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 2(3), 251–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devine, T., Gormley, C., & Doyle, P. (2015). Lights, camera, action: Using wearable camera and interactive video technologies for the teaching & assessment of lab experiments. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 23(2), 22–33.Google Scholar
  7. Dror, I. E. (2008). Technology enhanced learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Erickson, G., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Heat and temperature. Children’s ideas in science, 52–84.Google Scholar
  9. Ertelt, A., Renkl, A., & Spada, H. (2006, June). Making a difference: Exploiting the full potential of instructionally designed on-screen videos. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 154–160). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fadel, C., & Lemke, C. (2008). Multimodal learning through media: What the research says. San Jose: CISCO Systems.Google Scholar
  12. Fern, A., Givan, R., & Siskind, J. M. (2011). Specific-to-general learning for temporal events with application to learning event definitions from video. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17, 379–449.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. García-Rodicio, H. (2014). Support for learning from multimedia explanations. A comparison of prompting, signaling, and questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(1), 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Exploring the video‐based learning research: A review of the literature. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 191–195.Google Scholar
  15. Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrisochoides, N. (2015). Making sense of video analytics: Lessons learned from clickstream interactions, attitudes, and learning outcome in a video-assisted course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 260–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Grayson, D. J., Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1995). A multidimensional study of changes that occurred during a short course on heat and temperature. In Proceedings of Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics and Science Education 3rd Annual Meeting (vol. 1, pp. 273–283).Google Scholar
  18. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (pp. 41–50). ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  20. Henderson, S., & Yeow, J. (2012). iPad in education: A case study of iPad adoption and use in a primary school. In 45th International Conference on System Science (HICSS), (pp. 78–87). IEEE.Google Scholar
  21. Hourcade, J. P. (2008). Interaction design and children. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 1(4), 277–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kinash, S., Brand, J., & Mathew, T. (2012). Challenging mobile learning discourse through research: Student perceptions of blackboard mobile learn and iPads. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4).Google Scholar
  23. Kumar, D. D. (2010). Approaches to interactive video anchors in problem-based science learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(1), 13–19.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics course. Computers & Education, 100, 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Laws, P. W., Willis, M. C., Jackson, D. P., Koenig, K., & Teese, R. (2015). Using research-based interactive video vignettes to enhance out-of-class learning in introductory physics. The Physics Teacher, 53(2), 114–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, K., Tsai, P. S., Chai, C. S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Students' perceptions of self-directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leichtenstern, K., André, E., & Vogt, T. (2007). Role assignment via physical mobile interaction techniques in mobile multi-user applications for children. In European Conference on Ambient Intelligence (pp. 38−54). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  29. Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKenzie, L., & Ballard, K. (2015). Can using individual online interactive activities enhance exam results. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 262–266.Google Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends, 56(3), 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meixner, B. (2017). Hypervideos and interactive multimedia presentations. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nguyen, L., Barton, S. M., & Nguyen, L. T. (2015). iPads in higher education—Hype and hope. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Palaigeorgiou, G., Chloptsidou, I., & Lemonidis, C. (2017). Computational estimation in the classroom with tablets, interactive selfie video and self-regulated learning. In Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp. 860–871). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar
  36. Papadopoulou, A., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2016). Interactive video, tablets and self-paced learning in the classroom: Preservice teachers perceptions. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA), (pp. 195–202), International Association for Development of the Information Society.Google Scholar
  37. Pendell, K., Withers, E., Castek, J., & Reder, S. (2013). Tutor-facilitated adult digital literacy learning: Insights from a case study. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (2005). Show me! Guidelines for producing recorded demonstrations. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, (pp. 171–178). IEEE.Google Scholar
  39. Rotellar, C., & Cain, J. (2016). Research, perspectives, and recommendations on implementing the flipped classroom. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 80(2), 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sauli, F., Cattaneo, A., & van der Meij, H. (2018). Hypervideo for educational purposes: A literature review on a multifaceted technological tool. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(1), 115–134.Google Scholar
  41. Schoeffmann, K., Hudelist, M. A., & Huber, J. (2015). Video interaction tools: A survey of recent work. ACM Computing Surveys, 48(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syed, M. R. (2001). Diminishing the distance in distance education. IEEE Multimedia, 8(3), 18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van de Grift, W. (2007). Quality of teaching in four European countries: A review of the literature and application of an assessment instrument. Educational Research, 49(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vural, O. F. (2013). The impact of a question-embedded video-based learning tool on E-learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1315–1323.Google Scholar
  45. Wachtler, J., Hubmann, M., Zöhrer, H., & Ebner, M. (2016). An analysis of the use and effect of questions in interactive learning-videos. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4–5), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woll, R., Buschbeck, S., Steffens, T., Berrang, P., & Loviscach, J. (2014). A platform that integrates quizzes into videos. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, 155–159.Google Scholar
  48. Wouters, P., Tabbers, H. K., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information Management, 43(1), 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary EducationUniversity of Western MacedoniaFlorinaGreece

Personalised recommendations