zmWmQs

Designing Video for Massive Open Online-Education:
Conceptual Challenges from a Learner-Centered Perspective
Carmen Zahn, Karsten Krauskopf, Jonas Kiener, Friedrich W. Hesse
Table 1. Measures grouped into three levels .
Level Variable Measure
1: Cognitive learning
outcome
History content knowledge
acquisition
Factual Knowledge Test
Picture Recognition Test
2: Surface level effects on
collaboration and learning
Performance, collaboration
and learning
Number of panels created in
partnership
Number of comments
Length of comments
Collaboration index
3: Deeper level effects on
collaboration and learning
Performance, collaboration
and learning quality
Number of panels referring to
details
Number of utterances in
comments addressing historical
content
Number of utterances in
comments addressing filmic style
Number of utterances in
comments
integrating aspects of historical
content and filmic style
Results
(M = 1.8, SD = 0.7)
Comparability of the Conditions. To ensure comparability
of the two conditions a number of control variables
were investigated prior to analysis. Participants in both
conditions did not differ with regard to age, expertise in
technological and film/media production, interest in the
historical content, or factual knowledge of the historical
context (all p > .10). Similarly, chi-square tests on gender
and gender composition of dyads (same gender vs. mixed)
did not yield significance (p > .10). Thus, conditions were
considered comparable.
Furthermore, we examined the named control variables,
to investigate whether participants on average exhibited
medium level values as we expected. With respect
to domain-specific knowledge, dyads’ pre-questionnaire
scores were above average with a mean of M = 9.0 (SD
= 1.3) correct answers out of 12. Similarly, participants’
interests in the historical content (M = 3.5, SD = 0.4, theoretical
maximum = 5) and participants’ prior computer
experience (M = 3.5, SD = 0.5, theoretical maximum = 5)
were also higher than average. Their self-reported expertise
in film and media production, however, was very low
Knowledge Acquisition. We compared the conditions with
regard to participants’ performance in the post-experimental
factual-knowledge test on the historical content. Test
performance was in general above average (M = 33.1, SD =
2.4, theoretical maximum = 45). We did not find a significant
difference between conditions, t(34) = -0.80, p = .43. This
indicates that in both conditions, participants were equally
successful in understanding the content of the video and
the historical material. Yet, marginally significant differences
between the conditions were found with regard to
the visual recognition test. A t-test revealed a marginally
significant effect, t(34) = 1.79, p = .08, d = 0.60, showing a
better performance in the picture recognition test for the
dyads in the design condition (M = 25.7, SD = 1.3 compared
to the discussion condition, M = 24.9, SD = 1.4, respectively).
Although just a trend, this might indicate that the students
with a design task instruction, seemed to have paid more
joint attention to visual information than the students discussing
the visual content.
Table 2: Between group comparisons of indicators for cognitive
learning outcome.
Research Track |164