![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Resumen
El objetivo de esta investigación es analizar la efectividad que tiene el uso de distintos tratamientos instruccionales en un sistema audiovisual. El trabajo consistió en la expositión de un tema sobre Edafología presentado en 6 versiones distintas a 6 grupos de alumnos de bachillerato (159 sujetos) y balanceando los distintos tratamientos instruccionales en las tres secuencias de que se compone el contenido del vídeo. Estos tratamientos son: 1) Información según fuente original, 2) Creación de Pausas, 3) Clarificación, 4) Síntesis, 5) Comprobación y 6) Elaboración. El aprendizaje de los alumnos se evaluóa través de un cuestionario que utiliza tres tipos de tareas: 1) Reconocimiento 2) Evocación o recuerdo y 3) Elaboración.
Los resultados confirman que, en general, la Elaboración es el tratamiento más eficaz. Los tratamientos de Clarificación y Comprobación resultan más eficaces cuando se utilizan en el tramo intermedio de los contenidos, mientras que el de Síntesis es más efectivo al final. Las Pausas y la Versión Original de la información son las más ineficaces. Todo ello tiene importantes consecuencias instruccionales.
Abstract
The aim of this research study is to analyse the effectiveness of using different instructional treatments in an audiovisual system. The work involved presenting 6 different versions of a video on soil science, divided into three 5 min. sequences, to 6 groups of secondary school students (N=159), and counterbalancing the different instructional treatments. The six treatments were: 1) Information presented as in the original source; 2) Creating pauses; 3) Clarification; 4) Synthesis; 5) Checking, and 6) Elaboration. The pupils' learning was evaluated by means of a questionnaire comprising three types of questions: 1) Recognition, 2) Evocation or memory, and 3) Elaboration.
Results confirm that in general, Elaboration is the most efficient treatment. Clarification and Checking are most efficient when they are used in the mid section of the contents, while Synthesis is most effective at the end. Pauses and Original Version of the information are the least effective. These results are important to optimize instruction.
Extended Summary
The aims of this research study were twofold: a) to analyse the efficacy of a teaching program that stimulates constructive, collaborative learning; b) to optimize the instructional properties of audiovisual systems. We believe that the qualities traditionally attributed to computers and audiovisual systems are not enough to guarantee effective learning or to foster the intellectual development of students. From our point of view, we believe that it is most important that students are the authors of their own learning. This can be achieved by “going back”, connecting with previous knowledge and experiences, and “going forward”, elaborating or generating new information.
The present research study is part of a larger project known as AULAICAI (instructional, Computerised, Audiovisual and interactive Classroom; Hernández, 1988, 1990, and 1991). This is a collective and interactive video system based on computer and video technology.
The study sample were 159 14–15 years old (82 girls and 77 boys) students distributed in six experimental groups. To elaborate the instructional material used in the study, the first 15 mins. of a video on soil science, available in the market, were selected and then subdivided into three videographic sequences (beginning, middle and end) lasting 5 minutes each. From this original editing, 6 different versions (one for each group) were elaborated: 1) Direct information according to the Original Source; 2) Pauses inserted between information sequences; 3) Additional information inserted to Clarify confusing concepts; 4) Synthesis of the most important ideas inserted; 5) Students Checking the instructional content individually; and 6) Group Elaboration and debate, which included individual Checking and small group debates (3 or 4 students). The different instructional treatments were balanced with the three videographic sequences. Students' learning was later evaluated by means of a questionnaire assessing 1) Recognition, 2) Recall, and 3) Elaboration.
The results obtained suggest some guidelines for education, both with respect to conventional teaching and in designing new didactic material (particularly video-tapes) or using educational video-tapes already in the market. These may be summed up as follows: a) the best guarantee of good performance is to set Elaboration tasks so that students work on the contents of the programme. b) Clarification, Checking, and Synthesis are, after Elaboration, the most effective. Pause and Original Version treatments were the least effective.
However, we must bear in mind that the effectiveness of an instructional treatment is conditioned as much by the students' intellectual capacity as by the timing of the videographic sequence in which it is used. In this way, Elaboration is more effective when it is used at the beginning of an instructional sequence, even in students who do not possess high intellectual skills. Clarification and Checking are more effective when they are used in the middle of the sequence, while in cases where the pupils have a high intellectual capacity Synthesis is more effective at the end of the informative sequence. Pause and Original Version are the least effective treatments, irrespective of timing in the sequence or of students' intellectual level.
Analysing which variables affect students' performance, it is observed that changing the timing a particular treatment appears in the sequence substantially alters its effectiveness. For example, if the position of some advantageous treatments, such as Synthesis in the two first sequences and Clarification in the last, are altered and placed in other positions, then their effect is more negative than the least effective treatments (Pause and Original Version). The order or position of the instructional treatment therefore determines its effect. These results offer considerable potential to optimize the instruction.