The effects of generative visual manipulation strategies within computer-based instruction.
Bannan-Ritland, B., & Grabowski, B. L. (2002). Journal of Visual Literacy, 22 (2), 143-160.
-
examining184Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Generative Visual Manipulation)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Researcher-designed knowledge test composite score: visual summary with manipulation intervention |
Generative Visual Manipulation vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
53.26 |
55.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-designed knowledge test composite score: learner-manipulation intervention |
Generative Visual Manipulation vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
51.34 |
55.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Researcher-designed knowledge test composite score: computer-manipulation intervention |
Generative Visual Manipulation vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
50.78 |
55.80 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Study Details
Setting
This study takes place in three undergraduate statistics courses at one large Eastern university.
Study sample
Demographic breakdowns are not reported.
Intervention Group
There are three intervention conditions, all lessons providing instruction about the heart: 1) Visual summary with manipulation (VS-M): Students view graphics that highlight parts of the heart and read related text. Several times during instruction, students are shown ",... graphical representations of four parts of the heart reviewed in that section. Students then constructed their own visual summary of the information by clicking, dragging and organizing the parts into the box based on what they had learned." (p. 146) 2) Learner-manipulation (L-M): Students click and drag visuals of parts of the heart onto a visual frame of the whole heart containing an outline of the primary parts. Since no textual clues are provided students have to figure out the correct location for each of the parts of the heart. 3) Computer-manipulation (C-M): Students follow the same steps as in the L-M intervention but instead of clicking and ragging part of the heart, a click initiates the part the learner was presented with a part of the heart on the left side of the screen and an identical the part to become animated and to move itself to the correct location in the heart.
Comparison Group
The comparison group experienced the same lesson via text and graphics with no opportunity to do any manipulation.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).