Pedagogical Pros and Cons of Interactive Tutorials
The proliferation of online tutorials for use in academic instruction is on the rise, but what needs to be asked is what is causing the surge of interest in online tutorials? The reasons vary from staffing shortages, a desire to provide point of need assistance, increases of distance learning, and growing awareness, specifically in public and private academic institution. These reasons are considered to be the learning styles of the so-called “Millennial Learner”, who is said to prefer interactive, technology-based learning experiences (Lindsay, Cummings, Johnson, & Scales, 2006). However, one of the main reasons for this trend is that the interactive tutorial software available for tutorial construction has also grown increasingly capable and user-friendly for academic instruction.
Weighing Their Uses
Interactive tutorials provide some key advantages for instruction and their users. Specifically in courses where face-to-face instruction is not always feasible, online interactive tutorials can reach more students or visitors than a typical in-class course. These tutorials can provide 24/7 access to course information as well as instructional material for literacy skills, library resources, or a variety of instructional or research material. Instructional training for large student population, such as for popular general educational courses are well suited for delivery via an online tutorial. Interactive tutorials provide a focused demonstration that can be viewed at the learner’s convenience, repeatedly if necessary; users only need an Internet connection and a Web browser with a media viewer, such as Flash, QuickTime, or Windows Media Viewer (Moss, 2000).
Many will argue that face-to-face instruction cannot and should not be entirely replaced by interactive online tutorials, a research study has found that interactive tutorials generally proved effective instruction within the classroom, that students’ quiz scores and confidence levels were not statistically different depending on the type of instruction, and that the majority of students actually preferred online to classroom instruction (Gonzalez & Birch, 2000).
Despite the upswing in the uses online interactive tutorials should not suggest that academic institutions entirely abandon traditional face-to-face classroom instruction. Educational institutions should understand not only do students and their learning styles differ, but there are some instructional opportunities such as in-depth, course-integrated information literacy and research instruction that may not be replaced by any current form of online instruction (Donnelly & Gorman, 1999). For many skills and topics, a well-designed online interactive tutorial can effectively provide instruction and assistance to a wide range of academic course users.
According to a study entitled, Learning Styles and Student Perceptions of the Use of Interactive Online Tutorials, students performed lower on online tutorials if the design lacked association with their learning style. According to VARK, a perceptual inventory mode developed by Fleming, students learn under one or more of the following four components: visual, aural, read/write, and kinaesthetic. Visual learners prefer the use of charts, graphs, and pictures, while aural learners like to use discussion topics. Students who fancy reading and writing favor essays, reports, and or manuals. And last but not least, those who are kinaesthetic learners prefer field trips, trial and error, and hands on approaches. The study suggests that if these four components are included within the study, the chances of student success is increased. (Bolliger & Supanakorn, 2011).
Assessment and Evaluation for Software Effectiveness
During any time of academic instruction the assessment and evaluation of interactive tutorial programs is essential, especially do to the time and effort invested in the development of online interactive tutorials. Assessment and evaluation are critical elements of online instruction; interactive tutorials need to be evaluated for usability, and depending on the purpose for which they are designed, for their contribution to learning or skill development (Reeves, 2000).
Tutorials can be effectively evaluated by usability testing during development as well as by observation, student achievement, and interviews when the tutorial is completed to measure adherence to the original goals. Usability testing need not be elaborate or involve large numbers of users to be beneficial, small groups of users can provide useful feedback quickly and inexpensively. Usability experts suggest that observing and testing as few as five users will provide useful and constructive information by collecting the users’ success rates, verbal reactions, task performance, check-listed criteria, and subjective satisfaction; methods include pretesting to evaluate prior knowledge and post testing to determine student satisfaction, learning, and reactions to the course content, materials, and methods (Charney & Reder, 1986).
Conclusions
The collections of useful data from users through surveys, questionnaires, and reaction pieces that measure confidence in executing a specific skill, using a resource, or performing an activity, as well as suggestions for improvement, queries regarding what was learned, what was unclear, and what might be changed in the future, can assist a department or educator in increasing of the benefits of using interactive tutorials and hopefully avoid the pitfalls of using online interactive tutorials.
The following chart illustrates advantages and disadvantages for a variety of different interactive and non-interactive training methods (Holzberg, 2003).
Training Method | Type of Training | Advantages | Disadvantages |
Instructor-Led Training | Classroom | Revised easily | Scheduling is difficult |
Developed quickly | Travel costs | ||
Face-to-face contact |
Differences from class to class |
||
On-line Group Training | No travel costs | Requires computer equipment | |
Developed quickly | No face-to-face contact | ||
Videoconferencing and Video/On-line | Supports large groups and multiple sites | High equipment costs | |
No travel costs | Logistically challenging | ||
On-the Job Coaching | Effective knowledge transfer | Differences from instructor to instructor, session to session. | |
Related to trainee's job | Costly in terms of instructor-to-trainee ratio | ||
Face-to-face contact | |||
On-line Self-Directed Training | All On-line Training | Consistent training content | High development costs |
Convenient access to training | Lengthy development time | ||
Trainee sets own pace | Requires computer equipment | ||
Reuse does not require trainer participation | |||
Web-Based Training | Easy to modify | Limited bandwidth causes slow download times. | |
CD-ROM/DVD | Supports complex multimedia | Difficult to modify | |
Off-line Self-Directed Training | Printed Material | Portable | Less Interesting |
Trainee sets own pace | Difficult to modify | ||
Developed quickly | |||
Video DVD or Audio CD |
Consistent training content | Requires playback equipment | |
Can share copies | Can be costly to develop | ||
Trainee sets own pace | Difficult to modify | ||
Just-In-Time Training | Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS) | Available when needed at trainee's convenience | Costly to develop |
Related to trainee's job | Requires computer equipment | ||
Continuous Improvement | Promotes employee involvement | Requires training resources that are readily available on a continuous basis | |
Promotes creative solutions | Differences from instructor to instructor | ||
Computer-Mediated Asynchronous Collaboration | Accessible at the trainee's convenience | Requires computer equipment | |
Promotes creative solutions | Can require computer software | ||
Promotes employee involvement | |||
Link to interactive tutorials:
Medline Plus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorial.html
Jefferson County Schools: http://jc-schools.net/tutorials/interactive.htm
Science Direct: http://help.sciencedirect.com/robo/projects/sdhelp/tutorials/sd_menu.html
Clemson University - Virtual Environments Group: http://wwwtest.cs.clemson.edu/group/vegroup/research.html
VARK Learning Styles: http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp
Following images from Clemson University showing their interactive tutorial:
References
Bolliger, D., & Supanakorn, S. (2011) Learning styles and student perceptions of the use of interactive online tutorials. 42(3).
retrieved fromhttp://0- web.ebscohost.com.opac.library.csupomona.edu/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=125&sid=b777a220-
ebcb-4798-9a27-08d5ad9a1368%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=59813842.
Charney, D. H., & Reder, L. M. (1986). Designing Interactive Tutorials for Computer Users.
Human-Computer Interaction, 2(4), 297.
Donnelly, R. C. A. L., & Gorman, M. P. (1999). Planning and developing an interactive computerized
tutorial for learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(3), 397.
Gonzalez, G. M., & Birch, M. A. (2000). Evaluating the Instructional Efficacy of Computer
Mediated Interactive Multimedia: Comparing Three Elementary Statistics Tutorial Modules. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 411-36.
Lindsay, E. B., Cummings, L., Johnson, C. M., & Scales, B. J. (2006). If You Build It, Will They
Learn? Assessing Online Information Literacy Tutorials. College & Research Libraries, 67
(5), 429-445.
Moss, D. M. (2000). Bringing Together Technology and Students: Examining the use of Technology
in a Project-based Class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(2), 155-69.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative Assessment Approaches for Online Learning Environments in
Higher Education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101-11.
“VARK -- A Guide to Learning Styles”, n.d., http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp.