The effect of educational factors based on e-learning environments on comprehension skills of sixth grade elementary students

Hashemi, F.; Qureshi, S.A.

doi:10.22061/tej.2021.7691.2562

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

F. Hashemi ¹
S.A. Qureshi ²

¹ Educational Sciences, Education Department of Qom Province, Iran

² Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2021.7691.2562

Abstract

Background and Objectives: One of the problems of students in elementary school is lack of comprehension skill which has led to poor performance in all areas of learning. E-learning, as a strategy based on searching and constructing concepts, forces learners to think at high levels so that they can analyze and apply complex information; thereby, they can create an engaging online teaching and learning strategy. E-learning environments are unlimited in designing activities and engaging learners to satisfy their intuition and curiosity. Learning in this way improves thinking skills at high orders, which include content thinking, critical thinking, creative thinking and comprehension. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of educational factors that are based on e-learning environments on the comprehension skill of sixth grade elementary students in the academic year 2019-2020.
Methods: The research has been done in two parts: qualitative and quantitative. In the qualitative section, by using the qualitative content analysis method, internal and external characteristics of educational factors that are based on e-learning environments were extracted from relevant sources and studies and approved by experts in the form of a model. The statistical population of the study consisted of 22854 students of the sixth grade of elementary school of Qom Province, among which 90 students from 3 schools were selected using available sampling method and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Then, in order to investigate the effect of these characteristics on students' learning, a quasi-experimental method was used with three groups (experimental group: 30 students, control group one: 30 students and control group two: 30 students). Research instruments and materials included educational multimedia with the same content but with a different pattern of educational factors as well as learning test questions. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance.
Findings: The results indicate higher average scores of the experimental group (educational factor with internal and external characteristics) as compared to those of the control groups and also higher comprehension of the control group one (educational factor without internal and external characteristics) than that of the control group two (multimedia without educational factor). According to the results of dynamic speech research (pausing and raising and lowering the voice of the agent), personalized speech (informal speech instead of formal) and human voice as compared to computer voice are more acceptable and lead to better comprehension. The proximity of the competence of the agent and the learner, the skill that is proportionate with that of the learner and the variable role of the educational factor (motivator, expert and coach) lead to more learning.
Conclusion: Educational factors can create rich learning environments to engage and motivate the learners. Based on the findings, it is concluded that in designing educatrional factors in multimedia, design instructions that are based on the internal and external characteristics of educational factors should be considered. Moreover, designers and manufacturers of multimedia educational software are recommended to use the standards and scientific principles in this field when designing and producing multimedia.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1400.16.1.2.0

Main Subjects

e-learning

COPYRIGHTS
©2022 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Horton W. E-learning by design. USA: Pfeiffer Publishing; 2006.

[2] Cross J. An informal history of e-learning. On the Horizon. 2004; (12)3: 103-110.

[3] Khlid MM, Rahman CA, Ashraf M. Exploring the link between Kirkpatrick (KP) and context, input, process and product (CIPP) training evaluaton models, and its eﬀect on training evaluaton in public organizatons of Pakistan. Journal of Business Management. 2019; 6(1): 274-279.

[4] Sun PC, Tsai RJ, Finger G, Chen YY, Yeh D. What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical Investgaton of the critcal factors inﬂuencing learner satsfacton. Computers & Educaton. 2018; 50(4): 1183–1202.

[5] Ebrahimi Kooshk M, Asadi S, Qodousi R, Moghadam S, Daldar K, Movahed M. [The survey of staﬀ at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences regarding online in-service training programs]. Magazine Electronic Media Learning. 2017; 2: 11-16. Persian.

[6] Woods M, shimon JM , Karp GG , Jensen K. Using webquests to create online learning opportunities in physical education. Journal of Physical Educaton. 2013; 75(8): 35-49.

[7] Lahaie M. Is nursing ready for web quests. Journal of Nursing Educaton. 2008; 47(12): 567-70.

[8] Santy J, Smith L. Being an e- learner in health and social care: A student’s guide. London: Routledge; 2007.

[9] Ghorbani Zadeh V, Nangir ST, Roodas H. [Meta-analysis of factors aﬀectng the adopton of information technology in Iran]. Management Research in Iran. 2012; 17)2(: 177-196. Persian.

[10] Leising J. The new script for teaching handwriting is no script at all. The Wall Street Journal. 2013.

[11] Gholami M, Falahati N. [A scenario for the future of higher education in Iran and the functioning of information technology in it]. Journal of Science and Technology Policy. 2015; 7 (1): 47-82. Persian.

[12] Abbaspour O, Marzooqi R. [Assessing the impact of globalization on the teaching-learning process in higher education]. Journal of Higher Education Curriculum Studies. 2013; 5(10): 7-40. Persian.

[13] Zamani B E, Nasr Esfahani AR. [Physical and cultural characteristics of educational spaces in the primary school of four developed countries of the world from the perspective of Iranian students and their parents]. Quarterly Journal of Educational Innovations. 2008; 23(6): 55-84. Persian.

[14] Babaei M. Introduction to e-learning. Tehran: Chapar Publication; 2010. Persian.

[15] Moreno R, Mayer RE. Personalized messages that promote learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2004; 96(1): 165–173.

[16] Ali Mohammadi GA, Jabbari N, Niaz Azari K. [Professional empowerment of teachers in the future perspective and model presentation]. Educational Innovations. 2009; 18 (69): 7-32. Persian.

[17] Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. London: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

[18] Pam A. Mueller, Daniel M. Oppenheimer. The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking. Psychological Science. 2014; 25(6):1159-1168.

[19] Veletsianos G. The impact and implications of virtual character expressiveness on learning and agent–learner interactions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2009; 25: 345– 357.

[20] Jonassen D, Reeves T. Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. Handbook of research in educational communications and technology. 1996; 693-719.

[21] Plomp T, Anderson RE, Kontogianno poulou – polydorides G. Cross National Policies and Practices on Computers in Education. London: Kluwer Academic publishers; 2015.

[22] Abbasi Asl M, Zahed Babalan A, Namvar Y. [Investigating the factors related to the extent to which middle school teachers use information and communication technology in the teaching and learning process]. Education and Evaluation (Educational Sciences). 2011; 4(13): 95-105. Persian.

[23] Nilsson M, Bolinder G, Held C, Johansson B, Fors U, Ostergren J. Evaluation of a web-based ECG-interpretation programme for undergraduate medical students. BMC Med Educ 2008 Apr 23;8:25 [CrossRef] [Medline]doi: 10.2196/12791

[24] Salehi V, Moradimokhles H, Ghasemtabar SA, Qarabaghi H. Effect of pretraining on nursing students’ intrinsic cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency. Research in Medical Education. 2017; 9(3), 46-38.

[25] Mohanty A. Affective pedagogical agent in E-Learning environment: A reflective analysis. Creative Education. 2016; 7(4), 586.

[26] Woo HL. Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical agents: factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2009; 25(3): 203-218.

[27] Dunsworth Q, Atkinson RK. Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education. 2007; 49(3): 677-690.

[28] Kim Y, Baylor A. Pedagogical agents as social models to influence learner attitudes. Educational Technology Journal. 2007; 47(1): 23-28.

[29] Krämer NC, Bente G. Personalizing e-learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Journal. 2010; 22(1): 71-87.

[30] Moundridou M, Virvou M. Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2002; 18(3): 253-261.

[31] Van der Meij, H., van der Meij, J., & Harmsen, R. [Animated pedagogical agents’ effects on enhancing student motivation and learning in a science inquiry learning environment]. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2015; 63(3), 381-403.

[32] Omidvar A, Saremi A. Internet Addiction. Mashhad: Practice Publishing; 2017. Persian.

[33] Kim Y, Wei Q. The impact of learner attributes and learner choice in an agentbased environment. Computers & Education.2011; 56: 505 -514.

[34] Zhang J, Patel VL. Distributed cognition, representation, and affordance. Journal of Pragmatics & Cognition. 2006; 14(2): 333-341.

[35] Schroeder NL, Adesope O. How does a contextually-relevant peer pedagogical agent in a learner-attenuated system-paced learning environment affect cognitive and affective outcomes. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology. 2013; 2: 114-133.