houghton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Ric) (11/16/89)
The previous posting brought to mind a question. What sort of research has been done in the area of interactive learning vs. convential? I've heard of only one group that has compared the two. They developed a sign language package designed around a professors undergraduate course. They tested the students rate of learning and their level of retension. Results: students did not have better retension, but they picked up the material 30% faster. Ric Houghton
wheeler@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (11/18/89)
A Patricia Baggett at the University of Michigan, School of Education, conducted a study titled: "The Role of Practice in Videodisc-based Procedural Instructions" (dated April 22, 1988). An interesting study in cognitive recognition and memory retention, comparing "conventional" vs. "interactive" teaching techniques. The address I have is 610 East University, UofM, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259. The is also a note on my DTIC report that says a "version of this article will appear in _IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics_, Vol. 18 (4), July 1988. I have not checked to confirm that does indeed exist. A word of caution, the report is an advanced educational psychology study, a good bit of which was above my knowledge gained in a few undergraduate psych courses.
kishan_s@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Sandeep Kishan) (11/21/89)
In article <29767@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> houghton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Ric) writes: > > What sort of research has been done in the area of interactive learning > vs. convential? > > I've heard of only one group that has compared the two. They developed > a sign language package designed around a professors undergraduate > course. They tested the students rate of learning and their level of > retension. Results: students did not have better retension, but they > picked up the material 30% faster. > In a high school foreign language environment, (I spent the past two summers developing software using IAV technology), we noticed the same results: 1. Learning is more interesting because it is different and stimulates the senses more. Thus, students payed more attention and learned material faster. 2. On the other hand, we found that IAV cannot replace conventional learning techniques entirely. The students require the same amount of drill as before to mainatin retention. They learn the material fine, but IAV does not work on memory skills: the technology is only as good as the educational system already in place behind it. Best wishes, Sandeep Kishan KISHAN_S@JHUNIX.HCF.JHU.EDU