STRATEGIES FOR DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY

INTEGRATION TERMS 

Ahmed Fagehi 10/28/2013

The Background of the Study

Teachers encounter difficulties finding meaningful ways to integrate technology effectively in their daily teaching (Harris, 1998; Klopfer et al., 2009).

Terms describe possible ways of teaching and learning with technology have emerged as a result of the development of technology (Anohina, 2005). Those terms could give teachers insight into how various technology can be integrated in education.

A need to identify and define those terms.

Technology Integration Terms

The Background of the Study

Students might encounter difficulties learning specialized terms of their field, specially non-native students who don't have the same language background (Lessard-Clouston, 2005).

The Background of the Study

Technology, specifically multimedia technology, can facilitate learning in general, and vocabulary acquisition in particular (Al-Seghayer, 2001; Chun & Plass, 1996).

Previous research has focused on: Visualizing concrete words. Passive multimedia learning.

A dearth for studies to: Investigate the effectiveness of learning abstract words

with multimedia (Mohsen, 2011). Examine the effect adding an engagement question to

the multimedia instruction on the learning outcome.

Definition of Important Terms

Abstract word: words that have no physical referents. Multimedia: the presentation of words and pictures (Mayer,

2001, 2005b) NNES refers to those who are currently learning or have

learned English as a second or foreign language. NES refers to people for whom English is the first language

learned in childhood (Davis, 2003). Technology Integration Terms: Terms imply new ways of

teaching and learning with technology (e.g., WebQuest, digital storytelling, and ePortfolio).

Visuals: A non-textual element (picture, video, illustration, and animation).

The Purpose of Study

Identifying and defining critical technology integration terms that imply new ways of teaching and learning with digital technologies.

Investigating the most effective instructional strategy to define the terms:

Text alone. Text + Video. Text + Video + A Practice Question.http://edtechvocab.com/edtechvocab/vocab/v.shtml

Research Questions

Phase 1: RQ 1: What are the key technology integration terms that education

students should understand? RQ 1: What are the best definitions for the key technology integration

terms? Phase 2:

RQ 1:What instructional strategy (Text alone, Text + Video, Text + Video + Question) is the most effective for learning technology integration terms by native English speakers and non-native English speakers?

RQ 2: Is there a relationship between participants’ English language proficiency and their comprehension of technology integration terms?

RQ 3: Is there a relationship between participants’ technology expertise and their comprehension of technology integration terms?

The Hypotheses of the Study

H1: Participants will score differently on a comprehension test of technology integration terms based on the instructional intervention types they experience.

H2: There is a relationship between participants’ English language proficiency and their performance on a comprehension test on technology integration terms.

H3: There is a relationship between participants’ technology expertise and their comprehension of technology integration terms.

The Importance of the Study

The findings of this study could be useful for teachers’ preparation programs.

This study targets abstract terms that describe critical technology skills and effective ways to integrate technology in their teaching.

A new approach in designing multimedia instruction for concept acquisition was investigated and implemented.

Literature Review

Literature Review

The Theoretical Framework of the Study (the cognitive theory of multimedia learning).

The Value of Using Visuals as an Educational Tool.

Principles for Designing Multimedia Instruction. Multimedia Instruction and Language Learning. Practice with Feedback. Previous Knowledge.

Theoretical Framework

The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia (Mayer, 2001, 2005a)

Dual Channels

Limited Capacity

Active processing

Theoretical Framework (1)

The Dual-Coding Theory (Paivio, 1990)

People learn better when materials are presented in verbal and visual modes.

People gain complimentary meaning from the arbitrary symbol system of language and the tangible symbol system of the real world that evokes imagery .

Theoretical Framework (2)

The Cognitive Load Theory Short-term memory has limitation in processing received

information (Miller, 1956). Learning happens best when considering the limitation of human

cognition (Sweller et al., 1998). Three sources for cognitive load (Sweller et al., 1998):

Intrinsic cognitive: level of difficulty of the learning material. Extraneous cognitive load. Germane cognitive load

• Inappropriate (irrelevant, overly complex) design increase the extraneous cognitive load.

* Prior experience decreases part of the cognitive load.

Theoretical Framework (3)

Learning is an active process. Learners are responsible for learning. Instructional designers should tell learners what to pay

attention to in the learning materials, and help them process the information and connect it with previous knowledge.

That supports the idea of having a practice question with the multimedia instruction.

Visuals as Aids to Learning

functions of graphics: decorative, representational, organizational, transformational, and interpretive, Relational.

Visual and memory Recalling visual information is better than recalling

verbal information. It is easier for people to label a picture than to form a

pictorial representation of a text (Carpenter & Olson, 2012).

Designing Multimedia Instruction

Multimedia Principles Multimedia Principle. Spatial Contiguity Principle Temporal Contiguity Principle . Coherence Principle . Modality Principle . Redundancy Principle . Individual Differences Principle (Mayer,

2001, p.184).

Multimedia and Language Learning

Authors Strategies ResultsAust, Ronald (1993)

eGlosses VS paper dictionaries

eGlosses > paper dictionaries

Chun & Plass (1996)

T; T+P; T+V T+P > T+V; T+P > T

Kost, Foss, & Jr (1999

T; P; T+P T+P > T; T+P > P

Al Seghayer (2001)

T; T+P; V T+V >T ; T+V > T+P; T+P> T

Youshii and Flaitz (2002)

T; P; T+P T+P>T; T+P>P

O'Bryan (2005) P, T not significant AbstractT = Text, P = Picture, V = Video A = Animation I = Illustration

Multimedia Instruction

abstractAkbult (2006) T; T+P; T+V T+P >T; T+V

> T Yanguas (2009) T; P: T+P T+P> T, T+P> PT = Text, P = Picture, V = Video A = Animation I = Illustration

Instructional Strategies for Novice Learners

Multimedia instruction helps novice learnersAuthors Strategies Results Users

Mayer & Gallini (1990)

T; T+I T+I Novice

Chanlin (2001) T; T+P, T+A T+P>T, T+P> T+A Novice

T = Text, P = Picture, V = Video, A = Animation, I = Illustration

Benefits of Practice Test on Learning

Two types of evidence that illustrate the effect of practice tests on the learning outcomes: evidence of comparing materials with a practice

test verses materials without, and evidence of comparing materials with a

practice test versus restudying the materials. Practice test with instructional video improve the

learning outcomes (Phillips et al., 1988;Vural, 2013).

Phase 1: Selecting, Defining & Designing Technology Integration Terms

Research Questions (Phase 1)

RQ1: What are the key technology integration terms that imply new ways of teaching and learning with technology that teacher education students should understand?

RQ1: What are the key technology integration terms that imply new ways of teaching and learning with technology that teacher education students should understand?

Terms Selections (Phase 1)

The terms that are more valuable in this study are the ones that can help educators understand new strategies for integrating technology in  teaching and learning (e.g. WebQuest, Digital Storytelling, ePortfolio). 

Step 1: Technology integration terms were collected from several resources in educational technology.

Step 2: The list of the terms was reviewed by students in an educational technology seminar and more terms were added to the list.

Terms Selection Survey Learners (Phase 1)

Step 3: a survey that contains all these terms was created and sent to experts for adding or deleting terms.

Terms Selections Survey Experts A (Phase 1)

Step 4: Items reviewed by 2 Educational Technology experts at KU.

Terms Selections Survey Experts B (Phase 1)

Step 5: Rate from 1 Unimportant to 10 Very important. N=11experts

Data Analysis (Phase 1 Selection of Terms)

Q1: A descriptive statistic (mean) was used to determine the terms that are most critical. The items with a mean score of 5 or greater on the 10 point scale* were used in the study.

* 1 Unimportant to 10 Very important.

Survey Results (Phase 1 Selection of Terms)

• All the 38 technology integration terms gathered in this study were rated as important.

Pictures Selection (Phase 1 Design)

Van Mondfrans and Houser’s paradigm for selecting images for abstract concepts (Don, 1971).

ACE: Analyze, Create, and Evaluate (Lohr, 2003).

Steps to visualize the technology integration terms: Analyzing. Selecting visuals. Feedback. Modification.

Video Creation (Phase 1 Design)

Each video consists of a series of pictures representing the defining attributes of the term along with a caption and narration.

Engagement Question (Phase 1 Design)

A multiple-choice question followed by a correct answer and 2 to 3 distractors.

Example: Which medium supports asynchronous learning?email | Live videoconferencing | Real-time chat

Outcomes (Phase 1)

Question 1 A list of terms identified as important by users and experts were

selected for the study.

Question 2 The selected terms were reviewed by experts defined and

modified to increase their their readability and at the preciseness of meaning.

A professional female native-English narrator recorded the terms. Womens’ voices are engaging (Wetzel et al., 1994).

Phase 2: A Comparison of the Effectiveness of eLearning Strategies for Conveying Critical Terms

Research Questions (Phase 2)

RQ1: What instructional strategy (Text alone, Text + Video, Text + Video + Question) is most effective for learning specialized terms related to technology integration by native and non-native English speakers?

RQ 2: Is there a relationship between participants’ English language proficiency and their comprehension of technology integration terms?

RQ 3: Is there a relationship between participants’ technology expertise and their comprehension of technology integration terms?

Research Design (Phase 2)

Website

Three webpages representing the three presentation modes A, B, and C

Within Subject Design

Participants

Non-Native English Speakers (NNES)

Native English Speakers (NES)

Text only Text + VideoText + Video +

Question

Comprehension Test

Variables

Independent Variable Multimedia instructional strategies:

Text alone Text plus Video Text plus Video plus a Question

English proficiency level Technology experience

Dependent Variable Scores on a multiple-choice comprehension test

(Three kinds of scores for each participants).

Participants

Participants Native English Speakers (NES) Non-native English Speakers (NNES)

Procedures to Recruit Participants Email, Facebook (NNES). Word of mouth (NNES). Students from Educational technology classes

(NES).

Procedures

Participants were seated in three rows: Row 1= The presentation mode A Row 2= The presentation mode B Row 3= The presentation mode C

Seat1

Seat6

Seat5

Seat4

Seat3

Seat2

Seat10

Seat9

Seat8

Seat7

Seat11

Seat16

Seat15

Seat14

Seat13

Seat12

Seat20

Seat19

Seat18

Seat17

Seat21

Seat26

Seat25

Seat24

Seat23

Seat22

Seat30

Seat29

Seat28

Seat27Row

CRow BRow A

Participants studied a list of terms online for 20 minutes.

Data Collection: Instruments

Comprehension quiz Questionnaire

Demographic Information. Technology integration attitudes. Technology experience survey.

Comprehension Test

Secondary students in Washington, DC were studying about the risks and accomplishments of space flights. Their teacher asked them to search this topic and prepare questions to ask NASA's launch director, Omar Baez. The teacher then set up a videoconference with director Baez using a web camera, and students asked the director questions and listened to his responses about the precautions taken during the launch process. After completing the interview with director Baez, the students did some additional research and produced a PowerPoint presentation about NASA's safety procedures.  

This can best be described as ____. ☐ asynchronous learning an eAppearance telementoring keypals☐ ☐ ☐

Technology Expertise Survey

Translation from English to Arabic

Translation

Revision.

Back translation. Citation

Revision

Validity

Comprehension test Items were reviewed by a focus group of

graduate students.

2 Educational Technology faculty.

Technology experience survey Based on Martin & Winsler’s Survey 2008

Reliability

Two pilot studies were conducted The first pilot study indicated that the survey instruments

were valid. Cronbach's alpha for the technology experience

survey was .92. Cronbach's alpha for the comprehension test (with

one item deleted) was .90.

The second pilot study aimed to gain insight into how to apply the study.

Data Analyses

RQ 1: What instructional strategy (Text alone, Text + Video, Text + Video + Question) is most effective for learning technology integration terms by native-English speakers and non-native English speakers? (one-way repeated measure, ANOVA )

RQ 2: Is there a relationship between participants’ English language proficiency and their comprehension of technology integration terms? (correlation analysis )

RQ 3: Is there a relationship between participants’ technology expertise and their comprehension of technology integration terms? (correlation analysis)

Results (Phase 2)

Variables

Variables: Independent Variable

Multimedia annotations types: Text only Text plus Video Text plus Video plus Question

English proficiency level Technology experience

Dependent Variable Scores on a multiple-choice comprehension test (Three

kinds of scores for each participants

Participants

Non-Native and Native English Speakers

 Frequency Percent

Non-Native 53 44.2Native 42 55.8Total 95 100

Participants’ Nationalities

Nationality # of ParticipantsEgypt 1Iraq 3Kuwait 1Libya 3Saudi Arabia 44United Arab Emirates 1USA 42Total 95

Gender

Gender (Non-Native and Native English Speakers)

Frequency PercentNon-Native

Male 40 75.5Female

13 24.5

53 100Native

Male 13 31Female

29 69

42 100

Participants’ Class Year

Degree Level

Frequency

Percent

Non-Native

AEC 25 47.2

Bach 5 9.4MA 6 11.3Ph.D. 17 32.1Total 53 100

Native Bach 37 88.1MA 5 11.9Total 42 100

Language Proficiency (Self Rating)

Technology Experience

Q1 Mean Comprehension Scores for the 3 Instructional Strategies (Non Native)

Mean Comp. Scores forNon-Native English Speakers Mean Std. Dev

Text 4.04 1.93

Text + Video 4.70 1.55

Text + Video + Quiz 4.72 1.63

*Maximum score for each multimedia strategy was 7.

Differences in Comprehension Scores by Instructional Strategies (Non-Native)

One-way Repeated Measure for Comprehension Test for Non-Native English Speakers

*P < .05

Q1 Mean Comprehension Scores for the 3 Instructional Strategies (Native Speakers)

Mean Comp. Scores forNative English Speakers Mean Std. Dev

Text 6.10 1.10

Text + Video 6.21 1.14

Text + Video + Quiz 6.26 1.40

*Maximum score for each multimedia strategy was 7.

Differences in Comprehension Scores by Instructional Strategies (Native)

 Multimedia Instruction Sig Std. Error

Text .44 1.10

Text + Video .29 1.14

Text + Video + Quiz .75 1.40

Q2: Correlation between Language Proficiency and Comprehension by Inst. Strategy (Non Native)

Language proficiency and multimedia strategies (NNES)

T V Q

Lang proficiency

Pearson Correlation .322* .215 -.005

Sig. (2-tailed) .02* .12 .97

N 53 53 53

*P< .05T= Text, V= Text + Video, Q= Text + V + Question

Q2: Correlation between Language Proficiency and Comprehension by Inst. Strategy (Native)

Language proficiency and multimedia strategies (NES)

T V Q

Lang proficiency

Pearson Correlation .10 .06 .06

Sig. (2-tailed) .53 .72 .73

N 42 42 42

T= Text, V= Text + Video, Q= Text + V + Question

Q2: Mean Comprehension Scores by Inst. Strategy: for Native & Non-Native Speakers

Instructional Stratagy Group N Mean

Text NES 42 6.10

NNES 53 4.02

Total 95 4.94Text + Video NES 42 6.21

NNES 53 4.70

Total 95 5.37Text + Video + Quiz NES 42 6.23

NNES 53 4.72

Total 95 5.4

Difference on Comprehension Scores by Inst. Stratagies for Native & Non-Native Speakers

Group df sigT Between Groups 1 .000*

Within Groups 93Total 94

T+V Between Groups 1 .000*Within Groups 93Total 94

T+V+Q Between Groups 1 .000*Within Groups 93Total 94

* P < .05

Difference between Comprehension Scores by Inst. Strategies for AEC and Academic Students

Comparison between Two Groups of NNES (AEC and Academic) Students

Research Q3 (NNES)

Technology experience and multimedia strategies (NNES)

T V Q

Tech_exp

Pearson Correlation -.008 -.203 .-087

Sig. (2-tailed) .955 .149 .538

N 52 52 52

T= Text, V= Text + Video, Q= Text + V + Question

Research Q3 (NES) Technology experience and multimedia

strategies (NES)T V Q

Tech_exp

Pearson Correlation .30 .24 .27

Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .127 .29

N 42 42 42

T= Text, V= Text + Video, Q= Text + V + Question

Summary: Overall effectiveness of the three instructional strategies.

Non-Native Speakers Text+Video is more effective than text only. Text+Video+Quiz is more effective than text only. No sig. difference between Text+Video+Quiz and

Text+Video Sig. correlation between English proficiency and

text only.

Native Speakers No sig. difference between 3 instructional strategies.

(ceiling effect)

Summary (Phase 2) NES outperformed NNES under the three instructional

formats T, V and Q. AL outperformed AEC under the instructional strategies T

and V, but no significant difference was found between the two groups under the instructional format Q.

No significant correlation was found between the level of technology experience the performance on the comprehension test.

Discussion and Conclusion

Research Q1 NNES

Video-enhanced instruction was effective for NNES The result is consistent with the dual coding theory proposed by

Paivio (1990, 1991). Information delivery theory (Mayer, 2001) This finding is also consistent with the study conducted by Al-

Seghayer (2001), who found that combining text and video was the most effective strategy for learning vocabulary by second language learners.

NES The finding is supported by previous research that found multimedia

instruction work best for novice learners ( Mayer & Gallani, 1991, ChanLin, 2001).

Factors Might Influence the Effectiveness of the Practice Question

Previous research has shown a positive effect of using a practice test (Hannafin, 1987; Martin & Klein, 2008; Vural, 2013).

The practice question supported simple recognition of fact. This type of questions is not effective (Clark & Mayer, 2011).

They are not aligned with with the comprehension questions.

The position of the question in the window did not give learners the opportunity to rely on their memory.

The effectiveness of practice questions appears after a period of time.

Research Q2 There was a significant correlation between the

English proficiency NNES and the scores that represent the text alone (T) strategy.

Text is sufficient for learners who have high reading ability (Kozma, 1991; Ozuru, Dempsey, & McNamara, 2009).

The scores under the intervention V and Q were not dependent on the language proficiency.

Research question 3 No significant correlation was found between the

technology experience and the performance on the test.

The effect of language seems to be the best predictor of the performance.

Implication

The list of terms identified in this study could be a part of the course content of any educational technology class.

The terms gathered in this study show the function of many technologies in a broad way, and teachers and practitioners might need to reinterpret the applications of these concepts in their own field.

This study implies that different levels of prior experience might interact with different instructional strategies and influence learning outcomes.

Multimedia instruction could be beneficial in teaching any concepts especially when visuals are relevant to the instructional materials.

Conclusions

Superior benefits of the combination of text and video over text.

Language is an arbitrary symbol system. Imagery is a universal language system.

Limitation

Technology integration terms were chosen on their importance and practical use, not on their difficulty.

Language proficiency was obtained through self-evaluation “intuitive” survey.

Did not track how many times each term was viewed.

Future Research

Future research needs to examine the effectiveness of multimedia annotations in incidental vocabulary-learning.

Effectiveness of multimedia instruction on long-term retention. Replicated with a more homogenous sample.

Replicated with high level engagement. Engagement question tested with other multimedia formats,

annotation conditions, and kinds of terms e.g.concrete terms.

Investigate other user populations e.g. classroom teachers.

ReferencesAkbulut, Y. (2007). Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension of Advanced Learners of English as a Foreign Language. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 35(6), 499-517.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The Effect of Multimedia Annotation Modes on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: A Comparative Study. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 202-232.

Anohina, A. (2005). Analysis of the terminology used in the field of virtual learning. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 91-102.

Aust, R., Kelley, M. J., & Roby, W. (1993). The Use of Hyper-Reference and Conventional Dictionaries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(4), 63-73.

Carpenter, S. K., & Olson, K. M. (2012). Are pictures good for learning new vocabulary in a foreign language? Only if you think they are not. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 92-101.

ChanLin, L. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. [Article]. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409-419. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00197.x

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. [Article]. Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183.

Davies, A. (2003). The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality: Multilingual Matters Limited.

Don, H. C. (1971). Research Abstracts. AV Communication Review, 19(1), 122-128. doi: 10.2307/30217644

Harris, J. (1998). Virtual Architecture Designing and Directing Curriculum-Based Telecomputing. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2009). The Instructional Power of Digital Games, Social Networking, Simulations and How Teachers Can Leverage Them. The Education Arcade, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Boston, MA.

Kost, C. R., Foss, P., & Lenzini, J. J. (1999). Textual and Pictorial Glosses: Effectiveness on Incidental Vocabulary Growth When Reading in a Foreign Language. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 89-113.

Lessard-Clouston, M. (2005). Learning and use of specialized vocabulary among native and non-native English-speaking graduate students of theology. (Ph.D. NR07629), University of Toronto (Canada), Canada. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.

Lohr, L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance : lessons in visual literacy. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.

Martin, F., & Winzeler, B. (2008, March). Multimedia Competencies for Instructional Technologies. Paper presented at the UNC TLT, Raleigh, NC.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2005a). The cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-70). New York: University of Cambridge.

Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Introduction to Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1-16). New York: University of Cambridge.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. sychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.

Mohsen, M. A. (2011). A review of multimedia glosses and their effects on L2 vocabulary acquisition in CALL literature. ReCALL, 23(02). doi: 10.1017/S095834401100005X.

O'Bryan, A. (2005). Effects of Images on the Incidental Acquisition of Abstract Words: Iowa State University.

Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228-242. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations : a dual coding approach. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press ; Clarendon Press.

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 45(3), 255-287.

Phillips, T. L., Hannafin, M. J., & Tripp, S. D. (1988). The Effects of Practice and Orienting Activities on Learning from Interactive Video. Educational Communication and Technology, 36(2), 93-102. doi: 10.2307/30218244

Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. v., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. [Article]. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Vural, Ö. F. (2013). The Impact of a Question-Embedded Video-based Learning Tool on E-learning. KURAM VE UYGULAMADA EGITIM BILIMLERI, 13(2), 1315-1323.

Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48-67.

Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. (2002). Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Retention: The Effect of Picture and Annotation Types. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 33-58.