Metadata
Title:: Digital vs. Analog Learning—Two Content-Similar Interventions and Learning Outcomes
Author:: Juliane Fleissner-Martin, Franz X. Bogner, Jürgen Paul; Year:: 2023 Item Type:: journalArticle
Citekey:: fleissner-martin_digital_2023 Tags::
#Note-making, #👨🎓-PhD-Note-taking, #🔬LitReviewzotero Keywords:: Note-making, 👨🎓 PhD Note taking, 🔬LitReview Related::Journal:: Forests Issue:: 9 Volume:: 14
Read start:: Read end::
URL:: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/9/1807 DOI:: 10.3390/f14091807
Zotero Link
Abstract
The digitization of classrooms has enormously changed teaching during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The rapid introduction of tablet classes subsequently raised questions about potential learning outputs, as only a few studies had produced quite contradicting outcomes. Consequently, our study was set up to monitor cognitive learning outcomes of conventional and digital teaching interventions by explicitly paying attention to short- and long-term knowledge retention rates. Both modules covered the very same classroom content in focusing on the curricular content of the forest ecosystem. Subjects were eighth-graders from seven Bavarian secondary schools (analog: n = 74; digital: n = 225). We analyzed the knowledge gained by applying a multiple-choice questionnaire (online, 25 items) in a pre–post-retention design. For the statistical analyses SPSS was used, and a Rasch analysis was based on the ACERQuest software (Version 2.1). The Rasch calibration of the ad hoc knowledge items assured solid scores (Rel = 0.72). Both interventions significantly increased knowledge (analog and digital: p < 0.001; Cohen’s d: danalog = 0.59, ddigital = 0.42) compared to the pre-test scores. Even after 6–9 weeks, there was no significant drop in the acquired knowledge scores (analog: p = 0.619; digital: p = 0.092) compared to the immediate post-test observed. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between the knowledge levels reached after both interventions. The knowledge scores showed typical learning profiles of earlier studies including its consistency even after several weeks. Since no significant differences appeared for the knowledge gain of both groups, the kind of teaching seemingly does not originate any influence independent of participation in the digital or analog module. The same seems to be valid for notebook entry options.
Key Concepts & Evergreens
- This a highly unlikely paper.
- I assume that they checked not the comprehension ability, but a retention ability.
- The loaded material and checked how well student can retrieve previously encoded info with the help of paper and screen.
- Both proved sufficient and almost equal, with not significant difference in exit tests.
Highlights
Annotation
« Some studies highlight web-assisted teaching as superior to conventional classroominstruction. According to Benbunan-Fich and Hiltz [31], students when utilizing asyn-chronous web-based teaching tools (such as discussion boards) produced better final reports than face-to-face groups managed to achieve. Twigg [32] reported that online teachingtools have better test results compared to conventional teaching techniques. Similarly, Makiand colleagues’ study [33] online versions originated better test results than identical face-to-face lectures. Furthermore, Connolly and colleagues [34] showed that online studentsconsistently performed better than face-to-face students in a three-year quasi-experimental study of computer science students. One of the reasons for the better performance of thedigital group in the studies might be that the students could repeatedly work through » (Page 2)
Or maybe students were cheating. But I think that it could be from a different angle. Student consulted and organized materials in such manner that they become fluent with it and managed to faster than those with paper to do tasks correctly.
Annotation
« the materials independently at their own pace » (Page 3)
Annotation
« With such conflicting findings from studies concerned with digital teaching versustraditional face-to-face learning environments, our study followed three objectives: First, toclarify whether our syllabus-conform interventions lead to increased knowledge; second, to what extent this differs after an exclusively digital intervention from an analog intervention of the same content; and third, to analyze potential differences in retention performancebetween the two types of interventions. » (Page 3)
Annotation
« Table 1. Subtopics and learning content of the learning modulesTable 1. Subtopics and learning content of the learning modules » (Page 4)
This is all declarative knowledge. But do they understand the problem of, say deforestation? And which collusion they could draw. If any?
Annotation
« By actively participating in the learning process,students are supposed to enhance a deeper comprehension of the topic and retain knowl-edge for longer durations. Methodologies of active learning usually engage students inhands-on activities, collaborative working, group discussions, problem-solving exercises,inquiry-based learning, or interactive simulations. » (Page 7)
Annotation
« Our learning stations involved authentic content, which has been shown to increasestudents’ interest, motivation, and critical thinking skills about local environmental is-sues [13]. This connection could have contributed to students’ retention of newly acquired knowledge even several weeks later, as indicated by other studies. For instance, whencomparing hands-on versus demonstrational teaching methods, Hartman et al. [52] described student engagement in hands-on activities as more successful in recalling abilities of newly acquired knowledge. These authors suggested that this may be due to the learningadvantages of hands-on activities related to the multi-sensorial stimuli and the sense ofaccomplishment » (Page 7)
What does it mean critical thinking skill? Do they consider of similar significance mere memorising and understanding?
Annotation
« In the end, a multitude of elements, such as subject matters, individuallearning styles, teaching styles, and available resources, may contribute to effective learningtechniques. The best strategy to encourage learning in a range of circumstances may betherefore a combination of student-centered and teacher-centered techniques. » (Page 9)
Teachers of a new way. Whatever it.
Annotation
« After comparing recall abilities and recognition of common words, Mangenand colleagues [77] concluded that when a person writes down words, it improves theirmemory compared to typing them. Mueller and Oppenheimer [78] described “laptop”students as less successful in lectures regarding comprehension, retention abilities, andconceptual understanding of the taught matter. However, in our case, such concerns were shown to be not relevant as our digital group gained similar learning scores compared tothe analog control group. This similarity may be because the efficiency of handwriting depends on several variables, including the learner’s preferences, the type of content being studied, and the learning environment. » (Page 10)
Or they, the students in the online group were cheating. How could they check if I they weren’t? Exactly, they couldn’t.
Annotation
« Therefore, teacherscan go for digital-only lessons without worrying about lower learning outcomes comparedto conventional analog ones. This might be a welcome alternative while the studentsneed training in media skills which they will desperately need for future professions. Nevertheless, as the literature body shows that a variety of methods and media is superiorto conventional ones, no single method and medium are better per se: The variety and the reflected use are decisive. » (Page 10)
Highly dubious conclusion. Much bigger body of research say otherwise.
Онтология
ID: 202411211911 Source:: Child:: Opposes:: The Use of Digital Technologies at School and Cognitive Learning Outcomes - A Population-Based Study in Finland Next::