You are here:

Is the Movie Better than the Book? Differences in Engagement and Delayed Recall of Video and Text Cases in Science
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , , MSU, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Montreal, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-56-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

Abstract: In this investigation we assessed whether different formats of media influenced participants' engagement and recall of narrative cases of people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. For each of the personal case-narratives used in the study, we designed three informationally-equivalent versions: one video, one text, and one video + text. Thirty participants experienced one version in each format, completed a short interview about their reactions to the stories, and completed a survey designed to measure affective and engagement responses to the stories. Participants were again interviewed six weeks later, to gage their memory for the narratives and to gauge potential changes in their perceptions and understandings of the cases. Results indicate that the video and video + text versions of the stories led to higher levels of both engagement and sympathy with the characters, and better recall of information. Implications for the design of instructional materials are discussed.

Citation

Dirkin, K., Yadav, A., Phillips, M., Koehler, M., Hilden, K. & Lundeberg, M. (2005). Is the Movie Better than the Book? Differences in Engagement and Delayed Recall of Video and Text Cases in Science. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 4196-4201). Montreal, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

© 2005 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Baggett, P. (1979). Structurally equivalent stories in movie and text and the effect of the medium on recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(3), 333-356.
  2. Bruce, B.C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289309.
  3. Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445459.
  4. Genovese, J.E. (2004). The ten percent solution: Anatomy of an education myth. Skeptic, 10 (4), 55-57.
  5. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.
  6. Kardash, C.M., & Wallace, M.L. (2001). The perceptions of science classes survey: What undergraduate science reform efforts really need to address. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 199-120.
  7. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. (1975). Recalling and summarizing stories. Language, 40, 98-116.
  8. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research& Development, 42 (2), 7-19.
  9. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
  10. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
  11. Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
  12. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
  13. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.). (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  15. Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23-52.
  16. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Also Read

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts