Simulating user experiences in computer-based multimedia instruction

This research compared the effectiveness of three methods of instruction for two domains of learning. A text-based instructional system (control condition) was compared to a standard computer-based multimedia system (experimental treatment 2) and to a computer-based multimedia system that simulated a mock industrial setting (experimental treatment 3). Each condition was measured for its effectiveness in teaching verbal information skills (memorization) and intellectual (problem-solving) skills. The research design used was a three-by-two, mixed factors design with Method of Instruction as the between-subjects variable and Domain of Learning as the within-subjects variable. It was hypothesized that the multimedia treatment conditions would result in greater original learning among subjects than the control condition. It was further hypothesized that there would be an interaction between Method of Instruction and Domain of Learning, and also that the multimedia simulation condition would result in greater original learning among subjects than the standard multimedia condition. Thirty subjects of similar knowledge, skills, and abilities were selected to participate in the study. An experimental post-test was administered to subjects to measure their degree of original learning. The scores were recorded and an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed. This analysis showed a significant difference in the effectiveness of Method of Instruction on subjects’ original learning, but no significant effects were found with the main effect of Domain of Learning or the interaction of Method of Instruction with Domain of Learning. A Newman-Keuls post-hoc test was performed to determine the locus of the main effect of Method of Instruction. This test showed that only the standard multimedia system (experimental treatment 2) resulted in significantly better original learning than the control condition. The effect of the multimedia simulation system (experimental treatment 3) was not shown to be statistically significant.