Abstracts - Earli

N 1931 August 2007 16:00 - 17:20Room: 1.60Paper SessionLearning environmentsChair:Edit Katalin Molnár, University of Szeged, HungaryCreating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learningRichard E Mayer, University of California, Santa Barbara, USAKrista Deleeuw, University of California, Santa Barbara, USAPaul Ayres, University of New South Wales, AustraliaWhen students learn how a physical system works, does it help if they also learn how similarsystems work? Some college students (concise group) studied a multimedia lesson that explainedhow hydraulic brakes work, consisting of narrated animation or annotated illustrations. Others(expanded group) received the same lesson along with multimedia explanations of caliper brakesand air brakes presented either after (Experiment 1) or before (Experiment 2) the explanation ofhydraulic brakes. Across the combined experiments, students performed worse on retention (d =.37) and transfer tests (d = .30) concerning hydraulic brakes if the lesson also contained lessons oncaliper and air brakes; within each experiment, the effects were statistically significant inExperiment 1 (d = .57 and .53, respectively) but not in Experiment 2 (d = .23 and .17,respectively). Students performed similarly with narrated animations and annotated illustrations.These results suggest that if students are expected to learn about a specific system, using examplesabout related systems can depress learning, particularly in the form of retroactive interference (inExperiment 1). These results extend the coherence principle, i.e. the idea that adding extra materialto an explanation can interfere with learning. There was no evidence to support converting staticgraphics into animation.Teachers’ expectations on the Playful Learning Environment (PLE)Pirkko Hyvonen, University of Lapland, FinlandThis paper reports the expectations of a selection of educators concerning the playful learningenvironment (PLE). The PLE is an outdoor playground designed for learning and growing throughplay. The pilot PLEs were constructed in Finland, but the concept is intended for distributionabroad as well. Therefore, educators’ views are needed. Teachers (N = 14) from pre-primaryeducation to the fourth grade were interviewed to sort out their practices and expectations ofteaching, playing, and learning in the PLE. The grounded theory approach was used in coding andtheory building. The teachers’ expectations concerning playful learning environments are relatedto implementation, play, learning, curriculum, and suspicions. Implementation means that the PLEprovides alternative learning environments for teaching and learning. Play refers to an imaginarycontext, which facilitates and inspirits playing at school. Learning is related to the emotional,social, and cognitive benefits that activities in the PLE can convey. The PLE is expected to afforda more flexible adaptation to the curriculum. Finally, suspicions signify critical views, which haveto be considered as well. There are critical opinions about whether the PLE is really needed orworth further investments. On the whole, the teachers’ expectations relate to teachability,playability, and learnability. I will clarity these concepts in my later studies and test how theexperiences with the PLE correlate with them. Teachers, teacher educators, PLE designers and– 761 –