Aneka Ragam Makalah
Jasa Review

Interactive Multimedia Learning | GSTM

This study aims to investigate the effect of pedagogical agents in interactive multimedia courseware for learning Lines and Planes in Three Dimensions (GSTM). Two modes of courseware bernariasi mode of pedagogical agents (TGDAN) and modes of pedagogy without bernariasi agent (TGTAN) designed and developed systematically. A total of 142 Form Four students from a secondary school randomly assigned to one of two modes of presentation mode and mode TGDAN TGTAN and underwent treatment for 80 minutes. Results showed that students exposed to TGDAN modes perform significantly higher than the students who received TGTAN mode.


Malaysia's education system is undergoing a very rapid change in the practice of teaching, training and performance as well as the construction of knowledge. Now, mathematics teachers were given laptop computers and software also output the Ministry of Education Malaysia as a teaching aid. This allows the instruction of a teacher to become more effective and more meaningful learning. This is in line with the view Heinich et al., (1996) which states that the computer can enrich teaching techniques. The computer is a complement to the delivery of effective teaching. Involves students learning mathematics with pictures, tables, graphs and presentations as well as various types of images. One of the problems are two-dimensional representation of three dimensional objects. Assumptions shooting on three-dimensional object is not an easy task, unless the object is displayed (Anthony, 1987). Understanding of geometry concepts through pictures is not something that is difficult or impossible, but with the help of computers we can easily (Andrew, 1996). GSTM is a difficult topic for students shooting observing. Researchers to use computer teaching shooting to say that we can help students build a computer visualization (Andrew, 1996).

Statement of Problem 
GSTM is a challenging topic to form four students and in the SPM. Based on the SPM performance report 2002 and 2003 (Malaysian Ministry of Education Examination Board, 2003 & 2004), the candidates showed poor performance for GSTM title. Therefore, the researcher has made ​​a survey of 30 teachers of mathematics. A total of 29 mathematics teachers said GSTM topic is a topic that is difficult to be taught or learned. A brief survey of 40 students from five secondary schools dijalanakn Syed Abu Bakar. 38 students stated that this topic is hard to understand. They are difficult to describe the two-dimensional representation of three dimensional objects, ie they can not change the question in verse form to sketch a diagram to solve it. Subsequently a survey view of 20 teachers who teach in schools around the District Baling, Kedah conducted. These teachers say they only teach this topic to students only outstanding class. The reason, in the opinion and experience shows that poor students do not master these topics and they are difficult to determine the line normal to the plane and orthogonal projection on the plane. Some of them say that does not get adequate teaching aids and appropriate. They agreed if held an educational software to help in teaching and learning of this title.

Based on research experience, teaching and learning in secondary schools GSTM is teacher-centered. Student is only as passive recipients of information from the teachers. GSTM learning, cognitive effort was required to perform technical forecasting. Students should find a line normal to the plane and described the orthogonal projection on the plane before it can resolve questions involving finding the angle between the line and plane. Therefore, students must construct their knowledge through active cognitive process of selecting relevant information, organizing selected information into a form of mental models and mental models integrate with existing knowledge. Active cognitive process through multimedia learning mentors can support meaningful learning (Mayer, 2003). Pedagogical agents began to focus on the study the researchers recently (Baylor & Ryu, 2003; Atkinson, 2002; Craig, Gholson & Driscoll, 2002; Moreno et al., 2001). Studies have shown pedagogical agents play a role in improving student achievement in learning. These studies have been conducted on various attributes of pedagogical agents and combinations of certain elements of multimedia. But researchers want to study the effect of pedagogical agents on learning among students GSTM in four.

Framework Theory Study
Theoretical framework of this study is based on the Theory of Information Processing Gagne (1985) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and Mayer (2001). Hence, based on the theoretical framework of the study, interactive multimedia courseware designed and developed using the Model Design and Development of Multimedia Learning Alessi & Trollip (2001). Information processing theory (Gagne, 1985) describes the learning process in terms of perception, understanding, memory and decision making. Based Information Processing Model (Gagne, 1985), there is a structural component of the internal and external structural components. Component of the internal structure is the receiver, registrar of the senses, short-term memory, long-term memory, reaction and action generator. While the external structural components that influence the process in the internal structural components and expectations of the executive control. This model describes learning as a series of knowledge transfer, which began receiving information from the environment through the sense organs in short-term memory, long-term memory and ending with the response following the action of the students.

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Mayer (2001) produced by the integration of Dual Coding Theory of Paivio (Clark & Paivio, 1991; Paivio, 1986), Sweller Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1999; Chandler & Sweller, 1991) and Baddeley Working Memory Model (Baddeley, , 1992). There are three assumptions in Mayer Multimedia Learning Cognitive Theory (2001) namely (1) experience or visual and auditory information is processed through two separate channels of visual information processing channels and channel or auditory verbal information processing, (2) each processing channel has limited capacity information processing experience or information, (3) processing experience or information in the channel is active cognitive process designed shape to form a clear mental representation. Personalization principle involves two sub-principles (Clark & Mayer, 2003) is consistent with the Computer-Based Cognitive Theory (Mayer, 2001). Personalization first principle states that students learn better when exposed to the presentation style of the text in the text of a conversation than a formal style. Personalization Principle two states while the students learn better when exposed to performances with on-screen agent who provide guidance in the form of tips, examples of road work, demonstrations and explanations.

Pedagogical agents and learning
There are several studies, pedagogical agents can have a positive impact in learning. (Baylor & Ryu, 2003; Atkinson, 2002; Craig, Gholson & Dirscoll, 2002; Craig & Gholson, 2002; Moundridou & Virvou, 2002; Moreno et al., 2001). In the study of Moreno et al., (2001) to the two students who were exposed to two modes of presentation mode with an agent named Herman-the-Bug and mode without an agent. Presentation mode without an agent is the presentation of words and graphics. Found students who were exposed to a performance mode agent show performance improvement of 24 to 48 percent compared with students who were exposed to a performance mode without an agent. This finding is supported by studies Atkinson (2002) who found that students from the agent to achieve 30 percent higher than the group without an agent. This agent has acted as an instructor and students communicate through nariasi to produce meaningful learning (Moreno et al., 2001). The findings Moreno et al., (2001) showed that students who learn with the help of the pedagogical agent that bernariasi get better performance compared to students from a study group in the text and graphics. According to Moreno et al., (2001), these pedagogical agents have turned the task of learning and help students to initiate contact with an agent, then attract students to understand the teaching materials. Teaching is a communication in which the role of a teacher is to foster the mental representation of meaning in the minds of students while the students' role is mengkonstruk mental representation to be meaningful (Mayer, 1992).

Atkinson (2002) has carried out research on mathematics for problem-solving skills through a simple step. In his research report, the group exposed to the mode of presentation has a pedagogical agent that bernariasi pascaujian mean score significantly higher than the group exposed to the mode of presentation does not have the pedagogical agent. Atkinson (2002) explained that students learn mathematics through the example of the calculations in the presence of pedagogical agents will benefit in terms of cognitive development. Pedagogical agents convey information verbally and non-verbal communication (eg, signals, blink of the eye) can optimism learning by example computation steps. Students who feel good about interacting with a pedagogical agent will spend more time in interactive multimedia learning (Nunes et al., 2002). Moreno & Mayer findings (2000, 1999) showed that the effectiveness of the modality principle in which the students pursuing the presentation mode nariasi higher achievement than students who attend classes with the presentation mode without nariasi. This is because the voice is a strong indicator that allows communication between students with learning materials. In addition, a student working memory capacity can be added through the integration of information presented through two sensory modes of audio and visual. (Mousavi et al., 1995). The combination of text nariasi and can reduce the cognitive load and improve learning (Moreno & Valdez, 2005; Moreno & Mayer, 2000; Mousavi et al., 1995).

Pedagogical agents have posed challenges to the theory of cognitive Mayer Multimedia Learning (Mayer et al., 2001; Mayer, 1997; Moreno & Mayer, 1999). If the on-screen pedagogical agent in the form of graphics or animation, and presented with tables, images or animations, this will lead to split attention effect (Sweller & Chandler, 1994) and the effect of excess (Mayer, 2001). Students may be paying attention to the agent and ignore information that must be integrated with the speech (Moreno et al., 2001). However, the study of pedagogical agents used in the study of Moreno et al., (2001) and Atkinson (2002) is a pedagogical agent that contains a combination of image bernariasi and agent, agent voice, text and graphics show that this combination does not affect or impact the performance of students negative. This is contrary to the findings Harp & Mayer (1998) and Moreno & Mayer (2000) who reported audio, text or graphics that will affect the performance of over-learning. Pedagogical agent image is considered as additional graphics and would interfere with student learning. Craig findings and Gholson (2002) and Craig, Gholson, and Driscoll (2002) also showed no effect of individual attention when integrating images with graphic or animated agents.

The study hypothesis 

Students are exposed to the mode will TGDAN pascaujian mean score significantly higher than those who were exposed to TGTAN mode. TGDAN and TGTAN

The independent variables in this study are two modes of presentation mode of pedagogical agents (TGDAN) and mode without pedagogical agent (TGTAN). The dependent variables involved in this study mean pascaujian. A sample of 142 students of age between 16 to 17 who are studying in SMK Syed Abu Bakar, Kupang, Kedah. They were randomly assigned to one of two modes of presentation mode and the mode TGTAN TGDAN. The sample from the two moles are homogenous in terms of performance of existing knowledge, as measured using the pre (Value F (1, 140) = 0785, p = 0377). In this study, the mode TGTAN TGDAN and mode are the same in terms of content, display moving text and graphics display. The difference between the modes and mode TGTAN TGDAN are in the presence of a bernariasi pedagogical agent. TGDAN mode bernariasi provide pedagogical agents. Instead TGTAN mode does not provide a bernariasi pedagogical agents. Reliability coefficients obtained for the pre GSTM is 0834. This value is obtained by using the program ITEMAN (tm) version 3.50. Pre mean score had significant correlation with the mean score pascaujian [0473 (142), p <0.05]. Pre mean score used as kovariat to ensure that samples are placed at the beginning of the same.

All data was collected in February of 2006. Three weeks before treatment is given, all the samples pre occupied. On the first day of treatment, the samples are free to choose the computer that will be used to follow the teaching presentation. They are not informed about the different modes of presentation contained in the computers. Samples were instructed to interact with the first sub-topic to follow a predetermined sequence. Next, they were allowed to revise any part of the lesson. Samples were undergoing treatment through the software provided for 40 minutes. The next day, learning to use interactive multimedia courseware for topics GSTM (sub topic of the second) to continue. Once treatment is completed, pascaujian given.

Pascaujian mean score for students who are exposed to TGDAN mode ( = 11.11) significantly higher than the mean score of students who were exposed to pascaujian TGTAN mode ( = 9.61).

ANCOVA procedures used to test the hypothesis. Initial analysis of survey data is done to determine the normal distribution assumption in case-dependent variables, equal variance of the dependent variables, random sampling, and the linear relationship between variables kovariat independent of each presentation mode (linearity), and the relationship of the dependent variables for each mode of presentation kovariat (Homogeneity of Regression Slopes) is complied with. Results of ANCOVA showed significant differences between presentation mode at the value of F (1, 137) = 8531, Mean Square = 59,314, p = 0.004 and n ² = 0059. This shows that there is a significant pascaujian mean scores between students who were exposed to TGDAN mode with students who were exposed to TGTAN mode. Therefore, this hypothesis is supported.

The findings showed that the hypothesis is supported. Students who use TGDAN mode pascaujian the mean score is significantly higher than those who use TGTAN mode. The study also showed that bernariasi pedagogical agent is an important source of support for learning than pedagogical agent without bernariasi (Mayer, 2003). This finding is consistent with the findings of previous studies showing the pedagogical agent can have a positive impact in learning (Baylor & Ryu, 2003; Atkinson, 2002; Craig, Gholson & Dirscoll, 2002; Craig & Gholson, 2002; Moundridou & Virvou, 2002; Moreno et al., 2001). Based on the study Moreno et al., (2001), the data showed that students from a study group with the help of pedagogical agents have better performance compared to students from a study group in the text and graphics.

The results Atkinson (2002) found that students who study mathematics in terms of cognitive benefit in a learning environment with pedagogical agents. Atkinson (2002) has carried out research on mathematics for problem-solving skills, study reports the results prove that the group exposed to the mode of presentation has a pedagogical agent pascaujian mean score significantly compared with groups exposed to the mode of presentation does not have an agent pedagogy.

Advantages compared TGDAN mode TGTAN mode can be explained based on the manner in which the human mind works. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Based Learning (Mayer, 2001), meaningful learning occurs through active cognitive process of selecting relevant information, organizing selected information to the representation of mental models and mental models integrate with existing relevant knowledge from long-term memory. Active cognitive process that happens in a working memory with limited capacity. While the initial stage of active cognitive process is the selection of relevant information. However, the selection of relevant information depends on selective attention. Consequently, when moving text and graphics aligned with the pedagogical agent bernariasi, the students receive information through two channels sense (ear and eye) compared with only one sensory channel (eye). In this way students can maintain both text and graphics move and nariasi in working memory at the same time, thus integrating with existing knowledge from long-term memory. Therefore, the optimum learning occurs. In contrast, for presentation of text and graphics mode to move without bernariasi pedagogical agent, students to use cognitive resources to search for text and graphics related. This means that students less opportunity to maintain both the working memory at the same time. This will affect student achievement (Clark & Mayer, 2003; Mayer, 2001).

These findings are also consistent with the finding Craig and Gholson (2002) and Craig, Gholson, and Driscoll (2002) which shows no separate attention when integrating images with graphic or animated agents. Pedagogical agent image does not interfere with student learning, According to Mayer and his colleagues (2003), when students learn through multimedia presentations, students consider the computer and tried to explain a student trying to understand. In the presence of pedagogical agents that bernariasi, two-way communication occurs indirectly. Pedagogical agents reveal something personal to the learning and help students feel like he was in relation to the pedagogical agent (Moreno et al., 2001). In this way students can enjoy learning and want to understand the contents of learning materials. Students who establish social relations with the pedagogical agent is key to stimulate interaction and promote learning in computer-based learning system (Baylor, 2001).

This study shows that pedagogical agents have a positive impact on the achievement of GSTM topic. Results showed that pedagogical agents can reduce the cognitive burden and promote active cognitive process. When students hear a text description, looking at the related graphics are displayed, they are not just trying to add information into memory storage but also try to understand the delivery of materials by selecting the relevant text and graphics that actively organize into a mental model of verbal and visual mental models simultaneously and integrate these models. These findings imply that students who use the mode pascaujian TGDAN mean score significantly higher than those who use TGTAN mode. This finding indicates that pedagogical agents can assist learning bernariasi significantly to learning than pedagogical bernariasi free agent. Accordingly, when developing a multimedia presentation, the impact of pedagogical agent bernariasi to consider very seriously so that the content is acceptable to be served effectively.

This study also can strengthen and add value to the presence of pedagogical agents. Moreno et al., (2001) showed that pedagogical agents can help students remember more information. This means that the mode of presentation in the presence of bernariasi pedagogical agents can help students focus on relevant information and understand the relationship between the particular concept of difficult mathematical concepts. Next add a permanent store of information in students' long-term memory (Sweller, 1999). In addition, this study imply that the design and development of text and graphics presentation mode to move along the bernariasi pedagogical agent as a multimedia instruction effective in improving student achievement. Students who establish social relations with the pedagogical agent is key to stimulate interaction and promote learning in computer-based learning system (Baylor, 2001).
Welcome in the paper interactive multimedia learning | GSTM
Jika Anda Tertarik untuk mengcopy Makalah ini, maka secara ikhlas saya mengijnkannya, tapi saya berharap sobat menaruh link saya ya..saya yakin Sobat orang yang baik. selain Makalah interactive multimedia learning | GSTM , anda dapat membaca Makalah lainnya di Aneka Ragam Makalah. dan Jika Anda Ingin Berbagi Makalah Anda ke blog saya silahkan anda klik disini
Register Books
Alessi, SM & Trollip, SR (2001). Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Atkinson, Robert K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2).
Anthony, O. (1987). Mathematics Learning Issues, Theory and Classroom Practice. London: Cassell Educational Limited.
Andrew JH (1996). In Mathematical Visulization: Standing At The Crossroads. A panel for IEEE Conference Visualization'96. [Online]. [Accessed on August 9, 2005]
Baddeley, AD (1992). Working Memory, Science Journal, 255, pp. 556-559.
Baylor, AL (2001). Permutations of contril: Cognitive guidelines for agent-based learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12 (4), pp. 403-425.
Baylor, AL & Ryu, J. (2003). The effects of image and animation in ENHANCE persoma pedagogical agent. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28 (4), pp. 373-394.
Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor In the of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, pp. 233-246.
Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, pp. 149-210.
Clark, JM and Paivio, A (1991). Two coding theory and educationa, Educational Psychology Review, 3, pp. 149-210.
Clark, RC & Mayer, RE (2003). E-learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, pp. 11-31.
Craig, SD & Gholson, B. (2002). Does an agent matter?: The effects of animated agents in multimedia environments pedagogigal. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pp. 24-29.
Craig, SD, Gholson, B. & Driscoll, DM (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture festures and Redundancy, Journal of Ecudational Psychology, 92 (2), pp. 428-434.
Gagne, RM (1985). The conditions of learning and of instructional theory. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Harp, SF & Mayer, RE (1998). How do sedutive details THEIR damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educationa Psychology, 90, pp. 414-434.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, JD & Smaldino, SE (1996). Instructional media and technologies ofr learning (5th Ed). Columbus OH: Prentice Hall.
Malaysian Ministry of Education Examination Board (2003). Malaysia Certificate of Education Performance Report 2002. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Malaysian Ministry of Education Examination Board (2004). Malaysia Certificate of Education Performance Report 2003. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mayer, RE (1992). Cognition and instruction: On THEIR historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, pp. 405-412.
Mayer, RE (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we Asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, pp. 1-19.
Mayer, RE (2001). Multimedia Learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, RE (2003). The promise of multimedia learning. Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13 (2003), pp. 125-139.
Mayer, RE, Dow, GT & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based mirceoworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), pp. 806-813.
Mayer, RE, Sobko, K. & Mautone, PD (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2), pp. 129-159.
Mayer, RE, Fennell, S., Farmer, L. & Campbell, J. (2004). A Personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better When words are in conversational style rather than formal style, Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2), pp. 389-395.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, RE (1999). Cognitive optimum principles of multimedia learning: the role of Modality and contiguity. Juornal of Educational Psychology, 91, pp. 358-368.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, RE (2000). A Coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case of minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, pp. 117-125.
Moreno, R., Mayer, RE, Spires, HA & Lester, JC (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do student learn more deeply When hire Interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19 (2).
Moreno, R. & Mayer, RE (2004). That personalized messages promote science learning in virtual encironments. Journal of Educaitonal Psychology, 96 (1), pp. 319-334.
Moreno, R. and Valdez, F. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of students orgaanize Having pictures and words in multimedia environments: The roles of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53 (3), pp. 35-46.
Moundridou, M. and Virvou, M. (2002) Evaluting the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 253-261.
Mousavi, S., Low, R. And Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, pp. 319-334.
Nunes, MASN, Dihl, LL, Fraga, LM, Woszezenki, CR, Oliveira, L., Francisco, J., Machoda, GJC, Nogueira, CRD & Notargiacomo, MDG (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in the intelligent virtual teaching environment. Interative Educational Multimedia, 4, pp. 53-61.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England. Oxford University Press.
Mathematics Syllabus (2000). Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning and instructional design Difficulty. Learning and Instruction, 4, pp. 295-312.
Sweller, J. (1999). Design Instruction In Technical Areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.
Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 4, pp. 295-312.

Mau Makalah Gratis! Silahkan Tulis Email Anda.
Print PDF
« Prev Post
Next Post »
Copyright © 2012. Aneka Ragam Makalah - All Rights Reserved | Template Created by Kompi Ajaib | Modified by Ibrahim Lubis