Untitled Document
Untitled Document
User Name
You are from : ( )  
Untitled Document
Untitled Document

International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science ( IJITCS )

Abstract :

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the design and development of multimedia presentation mode in the subject of History entitled "Malacca History” using linear mode (L-M) versus segmented mode (S-M) in reducing cognitive load for different cognitive style and gender. This study will try to attempt to answer a few questions whether L-M and S-M can increase student’s achievement based on different cognitive style and gender. The primary research questions for this study are any; i) significant difference between linear mode or segmented mode towards student’s achievement?; ii) significant difference between linear mode or segmented mode towards student’s achievement that is different in cognitive style?; iii) significant difference between linear mode or segmented mode towards student’s achievement that is different in gender?; and iv) significant difference in motivational score between student using different modes (linear and segmented)? Seventy-two form 3 students from a secondary school served as subjects and were randomly assigned to a different group based on GEFT test.The results of this study indicated that FI student’s performance gives no significant difference in achievement than the FD students when using both mode L-M and S-M. Female subjects scored higher than male subjects in term of mean score but statistically, this value gives no significant difference. In addition, students treated with mode L-M shows no better motivational perception level compared to S-M.

Keywords :

:segmented mode, liner mode, cognitive style,

References :

  1. Alessi, M and Trollip, S. (2001) Multimedia for Learning: Methods and Development, eds. 3, Massachusetts, USA: Allyn and Bacon.
  2. Allen, M. W. (2006). Creating successful e-learning system for Getting it Right First Time, Every Time. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA.
  3. Austin, M. B. (1994). A comparison of three interactive media formats in an RTV/DVI computer-mediated lesson. Computers in Education, 22(4), 319-333.
  4. Bourne, L., Dominowski, R., Loftus, E., & Healy, A. (1986). Cognitive Processes (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  5. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design For Research. Chicago: Rand MacNally College Publishing Company.
  6. Dede, C. (1987). Empowering environments, hypermedia and microworlds. The Computing Teacher, 15(3), 20-24.
  7. Hannafin, M. J., & Colamio, M. A. E. (1987). The effects of variations in lesson control and practice on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 35(4), 203-212.
  8. Keller, J. (1983). Motivational design and instruction. In Instructional theories and models: An overview of their current status, ed. C.M. Reigeluth. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions.Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
  10. Melissa N.L.Y.A., Fong, S.F. & Ong, S.L. (2010). An Evaluation of Instructional Videos in EDUWEBTV: Technical Qualities, Pedagogical Aspects, Engagement and Perceived Impact on Learning. Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), pp. 101-113.
  11. Shneiderman, B. & Kearsley, G. (1989) Hypertext Hands On! An Introduction to a New Way of Organizing and Accessing Information, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley

Untitled Document
Untitled Document
Copyright © 2009 - 2013 - IJITCS