The final proposal has been handed in and I'm still thinking of new ones....it seems like everything I come up with is just not that novel or the answer to the question would be way too obvious...interactivity it seems has been uber tested...
Since my last post, we presented our project ideas to the students and faculty at BMC. Based on feedback we received, we went back to the drawing boards and came up with our final proposal papers (however, I feel mine will not be that final).
Here's what I wrote:
Title:
Arthropod Evolution: Summative Evaluation to Determine the Effectiveness of Exploratory Learning on Knowledge Retention in Grade 6 Students Using a Computer-Based, Interactive, Museum Display
Abstract:
While an important topic, not many resources exist to teach a younger audience about arthropod evolution. Generating interest in scientific topics can be successful when done in an informal learning environment, such as a museum. Increasing demands for fun and engaging exhibits has lead to an increase in interactive exhibits in museums. Using animations and interactivity in a computer-based museum display, this study will attempt to determine if highly interactive exploratory learning is more effective at promoting knowledge retention than being walked through the program. Testing and summative evaluation will be conducted on grade 6 students.
Introduction:
Arthropods are a phylum in the animal kingdom consisting of insects, crustaceans, myriapods (millipedes, centipedes) and chelicerates (arachnids, scorpions). They make up approximately 80% of earth’s animals and exhibit great diversity, found living in every ecological niche on earth (Fortey and Thomas, 1998). The fossils of many invertebrates, including arthropods (because of their hard exoskeletons), have provided invaluable information into the history of their evolution on earth. As all of today’s arthropods have evolved from a common ancestor, they all share common characteristics such as jointed legs, bilateral symmetry, body segmentation and hard exoskeletons (Budd and Telford, 2009). On the other hand, their genetic diversity has also produced unique features which allows them to occupy many niches and is a testament to their longevity on earth (Budd and Telford, 2009).
The oldest common ancestor of living arthropods likely consisted of a series of undifferentiated segments (see Figure 1), each with a pair of appendages that functioned as limbs (Fortey and Thomas, 1998). The original structure of arthropod appendages was probably biramous (two branches), with the upper branch acting as a gill and the lower branch used for walking (not shown in figure). Today all known living (and fossil arthropods) have grouped segments, called tagmata. These tagmata, with their appendages, are specialized in various ways across sub-phyla and species. The appendages, for example, have been modified over time to become mouth-parts, antennae, or claws. In many arthropods, appendages have vanished from some regions of the body, and it is common for abdominal appendages to have disappeared completely (Jockusch et al., 2004).
Figure 1: Diagram showing increasing tagmosis in increasingly evolved arthropods.As the process of arthropod evolution is linear (i.e. change of body and appendage segmentation over time), the use of animation to depict this process should be effective (Mayer, 2005). However, it has been shown that animation alone may not be as effective for knowledge retention as it burdens the user’s cognitive load. Interactivity, even in minimal amounts, decreases cognitive load and engages the user which also increases knowledge retention (Mayer and Moreno, 2003). Research done at the Australian Museum Research Centre has found that for museum exhibits to be successful, the user prefers to have control, choice, and the ability to direct their learning experience (Kelly, 2002). This study will therefore attempt to determine if exploratory learning, allowing the user to direct their experience through interactivity, is more effective at promoting knowledge retention than directing the user through the program. In both programs, the users will create an arthropod family tree using interactivity and animations as a means of learning. The approach to learning will differ between the two programs as will the level of interactivity. Summative evaluation will be conducted on grade 6 students to assess the amount of learning that took place from using the programs and the amount of enjoyment that was had. As the use of interactive exhibits in museums increases, this program will hopefully provide some insight into the levels of interactivity that encourage meaningful learning, but leave the user satisfied.
Literature Review:
Existing Resources on Arthropod Evolution
In the Ontario elementary school curriculum, biodiversity is a topic that is covered, starting with Grade 6 students. Students must demonstrate knowledge regarding animal relationships. They also learn general classification schemes, based on animal characteristics, including invertebrates such as arthropods (Ontario School Curriculum, 2007).
While this introductory instruction on arthropods is given in school, resources outside of the classroom are limited. Many textbooks on the topic of arthropod evolution exist, but are directed to a post-secondary or research audience. Online resources are also slim. While there are many arthropod classification websites, not many delve into the topic of arthropod evolution or evolutionary characteristics. They also tend to have static images and limited interactivity. One website called The Arthropod Story (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/%20arthropodstory) tackles the topic of arthropod evolution, and while being complete, is not easily found and would most likely not be sought out by a child using the internet. In addition, some after school programs were found on this topic at http://serc.carleton.edu/resources/22453.html and http://arthropods.nhm.org/arthropods.html, but are isolated at individual schools.
Arthropods throughout history have had a profound effect on the lives of humans. They affect us culturally, provide us with nourishment, are important disease vectors, are used in pharmacology and can affect us ecologically (such as pollination) (Hogue, 1987). Almost no aspect of our culture is untouched. It is therefore important to encourage learning in this area and generate interest in these students, not only on the topic of arthropod evolution, but science in general.
Museums
Museums are important venues for providing an educational setting outside of the classroom. They have the potential to engage people, to teach them, and to stimulate their understanding (Esach, 2007). Museums can also have a profound impact on a child’s motivation and interest in learning, which they will carry with them the rest of their lives (Esach, 2007). It is found that people visit museums to learn and that they play a key role in children’s education (Hall and Bannon, 2006). However, for children, the idea of a museum may be perceived as boring (Hall and Bannon, 2006), and in fact, studies done at the Australian Museum Audience Research Centre have found that people generally want a hands-on experience and that interactive exhibits with minimal amounts of reading are preferred to traditional static exhibits (Kelly, 2002). Parents have also indicated that exhibitions should complement school-based learning and that they want to take something away with them from their visit (Kelly, 2002). It seems then, that a fine line exists between education and entertainment. It is important that besides being educational, these venues be fun and stimulating for learning to take place, however, the learning must not suffer at the hands of entertainment.
Some studies suggest that a good way to generate interest, especially for younger ages, is by using animations and interactivity as part of the museum display (Kelly, 2002). Not only do these components generate interest on the subject they are displaying, but they have been shown to increase the chance that the student will retain some of the information that they have learned at the museum (Mayer, 2005). As this is becoming apparent, the use of interactive displays in museums has increased (Heath et al., 2005). It is beneficial then, if these interactive displays and animations were used to the best of their ability to generate excitement about a topic while producing the most knowledge retention possible.
Animation and Interactivity
It is assumed that graphics can facilitate comprehension, however, it has been found that only carefully designed and appropriate graphics prove to be beneficial for conveying complex systems (Tversky and Morrison, 2002). Similarly, the consensus among media researchers is that animation may or may not promote learning, depending on how it is used (Mayer and Moreno, 2002). The content and format of the graphic should correspond to the content and format of the concepts to be conveyed, suggesting that animated graphics should be effective in portraying change over time (Mayer and Moreno, 2002). However, animations are often too complex or too fast to be accurately perceived. They attract the learner’s attention and increase their motivation to learn, but whether or not instructions using animation can facilitate student’s learning achievement still remains a question (Rahmat).
The cognitive theory of multimedia learning presented by Mayer and Moreno (2002) suggests that students learn more deeply from animation when it is paired with narration. This is the multimedia principal and the theoretical rationale explains that students are better able to build mental connections between corresponding words and pictures when both are presented, than when only one is presented and the learner must mentally create the other (Mayer and Moreno, 2002).
Furthermore, the introduction of interactivity with animation is also beneficial. Interactivity engages the user and promotes learning. Even minimal interactivity has been shown to decrease cognitive load and increase knowledge retention. Interactivity has also been shown to overcome the drawbacks of animation as well as enhance its advantages (Tversky and Morrison, 2002). If learners are in control of the speed of animation and can view and review, stop and start, zoom in and out, and change orientation of parts and wholes of animation at will, then many problems associated with animations as a learning tool can be alleviated (Tversky and Morrison, 2002). A study by Mayer and Chandler (2001) tested interactivity and animation on a multimedia program. This program used the principles of cognitive theory of multimedia and the interactivity was in the form of a next button. Those using the interactive animation were able to proceed to the next segment of animation at their own pace, decreasing cognitive load, and ultimately performing better than those who had their animations play through continuously.
While animations and complex interactivity are shown to be beneficial to a person’s learning, they are also expensive to produce. More man hours and programming are necessary as the complexity of these elements increase. It is therefore prudent to consider the level of interactivity required to obtain learning objectives, but while still holding the user’s interest.
Research Question and Objectives
Does complex interactivity, as desired by the audience, promote significantly more knowledge retention than limited interactivity? If not, should the user’s entertainment demands be met?
My objectives are as follows:
1. To create a computer-based interactive museum display using Adobe Flash CS4 that
effectively communicates the similarities and differences among arthropods, as well as the
reasons for these similarities and differences, based on evolutionary information.
2. To illustrate arthropod relationships by having the end goal of the project be to build a
phylogenetic tree.
3. To determine if highly interactive exploratory learning is more effective at promoting
knowledge retention than being walked through the program, by conducting a summative
evaluation on grade 6 students.
Methods:
Design and Overview of the Program
The final project will be a computer-based interactive museum display, for touch-screen or web, made using Adobe Flash CS4. The ultimate goal of the project will be to create a phylogenetic tree showing the relationships between various arthropods. Two versions of the program will be created, each consisting of the same animated sequences and information, but approached by the user in different ways. One will be highly interactive and the user will be allowed to explore freely and learn by experimentation. They will be encouraged to “build their own arthropod”. Based on choices they make while building the arthropod (whether right or wrong), they will receive pertinent information as feedback. Once an arthropod is built successfully, an animation of its evolution will be played and it will be added to the phylogenetic tree.
In the other program, the user will automatically be given the information on a pre-determined arthropod and allowed to watch the corresponding animation. I will also conclude with the arthropods addition to the tree. This version will have moderate interactivity in that they may pause, stop and play-back the information and animations. Users will also be able to control when they move on to the next arthropod.
Animations were chosen to demonstrate the evolutionary changes, as it is a linear process. All animated sequences will be accompanied by narration or text, in keeping with the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Both versions of the game provide interactivity to decrease cognitive load, however, the way in which the interactivity is used differs greatly. The program also provides a goal for the students, encouraging them to continue playing to complete the phylogenetic tree.
During the build your own arthropod version, while wrong choices are not discouraged and aid in the learning process, correct choices will progress the student towards viewing the animation. In this way, getting the correct answer, and learning from previous mistakes, presents a reward.
Evaluation of the Program
Forms for Ethics Board approval from the University of Toronto and the Toronto District School Board will be submitted in order to test the program on children in grade 6. Testing will be done in June 2010 at a school that is part of the Toronto District School Board. This age group was chosen because museums are written at a grade 6 level, this age group is a high frequenter of museums, and the topic compliments the Ontario school curriculum. It has also been shown that children are more likely to use an interactive display at museums than adults (Kelly, 2002).
A few days prior to testing, the students will receive an informed consent form that will be taken home to be signed by a legal guardian. This form will also provide information on the project and the purpose of the study. On the day of testing, students will be given a pre-questionnaire to complete before using the program. This questionnaire will assess their previous knowledge on the subject of arthropod evolution. They will then be divided equally, but randomly, into two groups. Half of the group will be exposed to program one and the other half to program two. Following the use of the program the students will complete a post-questionnaire. The answers on the post-questionnaire will be used to determine if any learning took place. The students will also be asked to rate the entertainment value of the program as well as provide negative and positive comments on any aspect of the program.
Anticipated Results:
It is expected that the students who use the program with more interactivity and are free to explore the program will perform better on knowledge retention tests than those who are guided through the program. However, it is hypothesized that some knowledge retention will be seen for both programs. It is likely that the students will prefer the freedom of exploratory learning and this version of the program will be rated as more entertaining.
References:
Akam, M. 2000. Arthropods: Developmental diversity within a (super) phylum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97(9): 4438-4441.
Bergstrom, J. and H. Xian-Guang. 2003. Arthropod origins. Bulletin of Geosciences. 78(4): 323-334.
Budd, G.E. and M.J. Telford. 2009. The origin and evolution of arthropods. Nature. 457: 812-817.
Chou C. 2003. Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology. 34(3): 265-279.
Esach, H. 2007. Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal and informal education. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 16(2): 171-190.
Fortey, R.A. (edi) and R.H. Thomas (edi). 1998. Arthropod Relationships. London: Chapman and Hall.
Hall, T. and L. Bannon. 2006. Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children’s learning in museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 22: 231-243.
Heath, C., D. vom Lehn and J. Osborne. 2005. Interaction and interactives: collaboration and participation with computer-based exhibits. Public Understanding of Science. 14: 91-101.
Hogue, C.L. 1987. Cultural entomology. Annual Review of Entomology. 32: 181-199.
Jockusch, E.L., T. A. Williams and L.M. Nagy. 2004. The evolution of patterning of serially homologous appendages in insects. Development Genes and Evolution. 214: 324-338.
Kelly, L. 1999. Finding Evidence of Visitor Learning. Paper presented at “Musing on Learning” seminar. Australian Museum.
Kelly, L. 2002. What do people do when they visit a museum? Australian Museum Audience Research Centre. Found online at http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/faq/index.htm
Kelly, L. 2002. What do people want from their museum experiences? Australian Museum Audience Research Centre. Available online at http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/faq/index.htm.
Kelly, L. 2002. Who visits museums? Australian Museum Audience Research Centre. Link from http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc/faq/index.htm
Lowe, R.K. 2003. Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction. 13: 157-176.
Mayer, R. E. 2002. Rote versus meaningful learning. Reference Publications. BNET. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_4_41/ai_94872709/?tag=content;col1
Mayer, R.E. (edi). 2005. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. Various chapters.
Mayer, R.E. and P. Chandler. 2001. When Learning is Just a Click Away: Does Simple User Interaction Foster Deeper Understanding of Multimedia Messages? Journal of Educational Psychology. 93(2): 390-397.
Mayer, R.E. and R. Moreno. 1999. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology. 91(2): 358-368.
Mayer, R.E. and R. Moreno. 2002. Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review. 14(1): 87-99.
Mayer, R.E. and R. Moreno. 2003. Nine Ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist. 38(1): 43-52.
Muller, D.A., J. Bewes, M.D. Sharma and P. Reimann. 2007. Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 24: 144-155.
Muller, D.A., Lee K.J. and M.D. Sharma. 2008. Coherence or interest: Which is most important in online multimedia learning? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 24(2): 211-221.
Narayanan, N.H. and M. Hegarty. 2002. Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 57: 279-315.
Ontario School Curriculum. 2007. Science and Technology. Grade 6.
Rahmat, M.K. The impact of computer animation learning toward students academic performance. Art and Design Education Program. Universiti Teknologi MARA. 1-15.
Scarlatos, L.L. 2002. TICLE: using multimedia multimodal guidance to enhance learning. Information Sciences. 140: 85-103.
Schraw, G. and S. Lehman. 2001. Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review. 13(1): 23-52.
Tversky, B. and J. B. Morrison. 2002. Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 57: 247-262.
Understanding Evolution. 2009. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Available online at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.
Whitty, H. 1999. Making a school excursion a learning experience 1: A Work in Progress. Paper presented at “Musing on Learning” seminar. Australian Museum
