MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541659199 · doi:10.5539/ies.v8n13p73

Meta-analysis on Element of Cognitive Conflict Strategies with a Focus on Multimedia Learning Material Development

2015· article· en· W1541659199 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsAnimationCurriculumComputer scienceMultimediaCognitionCognitive loadMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multimedia materials are becoming more commonly used in curricula. Multimedia learning tools that integrate text, graphics, audio, video, and animation make learning more interesting and easier for understanding a concept. These tools have been used in different ways over the years to support student learning in all branches of education. Diverse teaching strategies have been adopted in developing multimedia learning materials in many interesting designs. These strategies are designed to achieve a number of objectives. One of them is to overcome misconception among the students. Theoretically, misconception is a point at which students have understood certain concepts in the wrong manner. Usually, those students who are in this situation refuse to switch to the right one. Cognitive conflicts strategy is a part of psychological theories of conceptual change. This strategy is effective in correcting a misconception as well as in improving performance. Once an unreliable event is mismatched with the preconception held by the student, cognitive conflict will take place. The student will engage with the learning material and reconstruct his or her concepts to overcome conflict. There has been a lot of researches related to cognitive conflict strategy in Science and Mathematics education. This strategy has been demonstrated to improve students’ performance and misconception. Still, a lot of strategies have been implemented through face-to-face classroom instruction. With the growth of multimedia resources, a cognitive conflict strategy is believed to be employed when developing multimedia learning material. Even so, which elements of cognitive conflict strategy are usable within multimedia learning materials are still an ongoing inquiry. This research attempts to investigate elements of cognitive conflict strategy that could be embedded within multimedia learning materials that might effectively overcome the students’ misconception based on detailed literature review using meta-analysis technique. After being analysed qualitatively, five elements of cognitive conflict strategy have been identified: (1) meaningful information; (2) challenging students’ existing concept; (3) ability to gain attention, (4) motivation, and (5) comfortability in using the multimedia learning materials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it