transmediation and technology in an urban classroom setting
TRANSCRIPT
The College of Wooster
Transmediation and Technology in an Urban Classroom Setting
by
Alexander J. Dorman
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of Independent Study Thesis Research
Supervised by
John G. Jewell, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
2013-2014
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Transmediation ............................................................................................................................ 8
The Generative Process of Transmediation ............................................................................. 9
Theories of Transmediation ................................................................................................... 12
Drawing as a Sign System ......................................................................................................... 13
The Talking Drawings Method .............................................................................................. 16
The Importance of Technology ................................................................................................. 18
Present Research ....................................................................................................................... 22
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 26
About the School ....................................................................................................................... 26
Research Participants ................................................................................................................ 26
Materials .................................................................................................................................... 27
Measures.................................................................................................................................... 28
Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 29
Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 31
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 32
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 33
Cognitive Load Theory ............................................................................................................. 36
Cognitive Load Theory and the Current Research ................................................................ 38
Cognitive Load Theory and Transmediation ......................................................................... 40
Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 41
Considerations for Future Research with this Population ..................................................... 43
Implications ............................................................................................................................... 44
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 45
References ..................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 56
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 3
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 59
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 4
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank my loving family for their undying support with
everything I do –love you guys! I would also like to thank Ms. Allison Schecter, Ms. Christina
Heffner, and Ms. Lisa Berlin for all their help with working at Baltimore Montessori Public
Charter School, and of course the BMPCS middle school students for their participation in the
project –thanks for being such a joy to work with. I would like to give a special thanks to Ms.
Dorman for making this project possible by acting as a liaison to BMPCS, and for being such a
strong helping hand. Finally, I‟d like to thank Dr. John Jewell for advising the project every step
of the way, offering the hard advice I had to hear and providing the support I always needed.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 5
Abstract
Thirty middle school students from the Baltimore Montessori Public School were recruited to
test the effectiveness of a new teaching method on information acquisition and retention in an
urban middle school classroom. The new method was designed to incorporate relevant
technology to assist in the act of drawing as a means of organizing and further understanding
novel information. Based on the theory of transmediation, it was hypothesized that this new
teaching method would aid in the learning of a science based lesson plan. Improvement scores
from pre-tests to post-tests were analyzed as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the
method. The hypothesis was not supported, and there was no significant difference in average
improvement scores between the experimental drawing group and the control group. Cognitive
load theory was used to provide a possible explanation for a trend in the data that suggests that
the new method was potentially detrimental to the participants‟ information acquisition and
retention. Future directions and implications of this research are discussed.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 6
Introduction
“Oh gross, really, just crack it?” The B-Block sophomore biology class could not believe
that the first step to dissecting a fetal pig was as barbaric as sticking a thumb into its mouth and
separating its jaw from its head. Worksheets were passed out and pig stomachs split wide as Dr.
Hilgartner taught the enthralled high school students mammalian anatomy. It was an experience
not soon forgotten. This is just one example of the ways humans interact, communicate, and
learn through a multitude of different sign systems. A sign system is any piece of information
conveyed via auditory, visual, tactile, or proprioceptive stimuli (Semali, 2002; Short, Kauffman
& Kahn, 2000). For instance, we read the descriptions of food on a menu to decide what to order,
we organize flashing lights and colors to convey designated traffic patterns, and we try our
hardest to gauge the body language of the new girl at work. We even dissect fetal pigs to further
understand our own anatomy. Although seemingly obvious, there are countless ways information
is conveyed. We utilize and interpret all of these sign systems to make sense of the world and the
human experience (Siegel, 1995).
Why is it then that the interactive lessons of Dr. Hilgartner‟s B-block biology class are
seemingly so rare? Classrooms don‟t need fetal pigs to plan lessons that encourage active
learning. In the current research, touch screen technology is used to teach with multiple sign
systems through a style of teaching known as the transmediation model. Students will be more
willing to learn, will remember more information, and enjoy the experience much more than a
typical verbocentric lesson. The transmediation model embraces the notion that we learn through
multiple sign systems and encourages the translating of one sign system to another as a method
of active learning (Hoyt, 1992; Semali, 2002; Siegel, 1995). For the first time this method of
transmediating has been streamlined with the use of innovative new touch screen technology.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 7
Unfortunately, our school systems tend to adhere to a verbocentric transmission model of
teaching that focuses primarily on the language sign system (Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000;
Siegel, 1995). The University of Roehampton‟s Guide to Good Practice in Assessment (2013)
describes the transmission model as: teachers just telling students what to learn. This method
creates a strong dependency in the student on their teacher and relies heavily on the language
sign system. By just being told information, students do not interact with the material and an
interactive learning experience is sacrificed. The method can also teach students to not think
critically or question what they learn. The transmission model, while popular, can be detrimental
because it reinforces the idea that there is no ambiguity in learning and what the teacher says is
final.
This attachment to the transmission model needs to change because it perpetuates passive
learning (Rollag & Billsberry, 2012; Siegel, 1995) and is often unrepresentative of the world
outside of the classroom. Semali (2002) explains that, “only a small percentage of human
communication is verbal; a vast amount takes place on the nonverbal level” (p. 7). Semali
continues to say that only focusing on one form of communication ignores the developing skills
of students such as critical viewing and critical authoring. The transmission model is most
detrimental when it does not fit the learning style of a student (Hoyt, 1992; Short et al., 2000).
Students learn and construct knowledge in different ways, and Vincent (2003) argues that these
differences are based in a type of cognitive learning style. Various learning styles proposed
include students who excel in artistic expression (Hoyt, 1992), students who excel in “living
media” (such as social interactions) (Dauite, 1992), and students who have a strong preference
for learning with visual media (Vincent, 2001). Dauite (1992) reports that access to different
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 8
mediums of learning is at its highest in preschool, but once third and fourth grade hits students
no longer have immediate access to pictures and sounds as sources of information.
Transmediation
The notion that students all learn the same way has partially subsided, and there has been
a growing body of research analyzing the different ways that students learn (Berk, 2009;
Vincent, 2003). In trying to understand the ways that we learn, there has been a strong push to
incorporate multimedia into our school systems. One reason for this shift is the influx of
available innovative technology. Another reason for this shift is the understanding that memory,
comprehension and understanding is enhanced when one processes information through multiple
mediums instead of only one medium (Berk, 2009).
Transmediation is the process of translating an understanding of information from one
sign system to another. As mentioned before, a sign system is any stimuli that can convey
information. The name transmediation literally means to mediate information across (trans)
different sign systems (Hoyt, 1992; Semali, 2002; Siegel, 1995). Transmediation can be a very
complicated process requiring lots of evaluation and analysis (Hoyt, 1992). In Siegel‟s (1995)
review of transmediation as a method for teaching, she describes the process in depth:
Learners must rotate the content and expression planes of two different sign
systems such that the expression plane of the new sign system conveys the
content of the initial sign system. But because the expression plane is that of
another sign system, the connection between the two sign systems must be
invented, as it does not exist prior to the act of transmediation itself (p. 463).
In theory there is no right or wrong way to transmediate, as long as the translating is done with
meaning and purpose. Even when the translation between signs is done in the most literal sense,
it is still up to the student to work with the information through their own interpretations.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 9
Examples of sign systems that have previously been used to transmediate include theatre/drama
(Hoyt, 1992; Short et al., 2000), exact reenactment (Wesson & Salmon, 2001), sculpture (Hoyt,
1992), and music (Short et al., 2000), among others.
The Generative Process of Transmediation
One of the key aspects of the verbocentric transmission model of teaching that stands in
stark contrast to the transmediation model of teaching is the concept that information given is
absolute. There is little room for questioning because there is no personal interpretation of
information. In other words, what the teacher says is final. Transmediation on the other hand can
be a powerful tool for teaching because by encouraging students to personally interpret
information, a generative process of learning begins to take place (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002;
Foreman & Fyfe, 2012; Hoyt, 1992; Napoli, 2002; Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000; Siegel, 1995;
Whitin, 2002). A generative process of learning as a part of transmediation refers to students
forming their own ideas about the information being learned, instead of just memorizing exactly
what has been presented in its original form. This process is believed to occur because the act of
transmediating between sign systems cannot be completed unless a student is thinking
generatively. As described in a case study by Short et al., (2000):
Because each sign system has a different potential for meaning, students do not
transfer the same meaning, but create new ideas, and so their
understandings…become more complex. They are not simply doing an activity or
presentation…but instead use the sign systems as tools for thinking (p. 160).
This generative learning process manifests itself in a number of different ways through
transmediation. In some situations, the process can lead to breakthroughs in understanding
complicated information. For example, in one high school two students were struggling to
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 10
understand an article that focused on the ways in which math affected various social and political
aspects of history. Instead of the teacher attempting to just explain the article, she instead
suggested that the students construct a visual interpretation (an illustration) of the text. The two
students were asked to explain their visual interpretations the next day. Through the act of
transmediating between the sign systems of text and illustration, it had become clear that the
students had transmediated the knowledge in a way that gave meaning to them. They had
effectively shown how math was connected to numerous institutions by drawing a star that
connected “mathematics” to five points that represented various institutions. While seemingly
simple, by manipulating the material in such a way, the two students were able to gather a deeper
understanding of what the article was conveying (Siegel, 1995).
In another example, a sixth grade classroom was having trouble understanding the
feelings associated with prejudice while learning about the Holocaust. Instead of attempting to
lecture on the content of the topic, the teacher prompted the students to transmediate from verbal
information, to illustrated information, to acted out information. This was achieved by having
the students individually create dramas that would portray prejudice and then form groups to act
out the student-created plays (Short et al., 2000). Regarding this learning process, Short et
al.(2000) noted, “the dramas allowed students to cross the lines of friendship, ability, and
ethnicity in their relationships and to gain deeper insights about prejudice” (p. 165).
The generative process of transmediation can also help create a more holistic
understanding of information for the student. As the student translates information between sign
systems, attention to details can guide the student to see the information in a new light. This
focused attention to detail occurs naturally from transmediating information meaningfully from
one sign system to another. A great example of creating this holistic understanding through
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 11
transmediation comes from a group of young students from the Reggio Emelia School in Italy, a
school specializing in alternative teaching and learning styles. The students were interested in
sunflowers they had previously planted that had just bloomed. The teacher instructed the students
to create detailed drawings of what they saw. This activity encouraged the students to notice
details they otherwise may have missed. The teacher then instructed the students to draw what
they believed to be the process of a seed turning into a flower. From these drawings, the teacher
was able to then engage the students in their theories of seed growth (Foreman & Fyfe, 2012).
This exercise went from interested observation to meaningfully recreating and manipulating
information. It allowed the students to pay attention to details and actively think about complex
information, while giving the teachers an idea of how to approach new material (Forman & Fyfe,
2012).
In a “low-functioning” classroom populated with “reluctant-readers” in Oregon, one
student decided to create a clay sculpture of an elephant. However he quickly realized that he
was unsure of how to sculpt an accurate depiction of an elephant. Without further prompting the
student preceded to utilize resources such as reference books and the knowledge of his fellow
students in order to create an accurate sculpture. Regarding this instance, Hoyt (1992) observes
“through a variety of expressive arts, these young learners were able to process meaning in ways
that allowed them to deepen and expand their understanding” (p. 581).
In some cases, teachers utilize the generative process of transmediation to breech new
ideas and information entirely. Napoli (2002) found in her kindergarten classroom that she was
able to explore gender stereotypes with her students at a very young age. After talking about the
topic for quite some time, she asked her students to draw a picture of their parents and the roles
their parents played in their family. While working with the students and their drawings, she was
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 12
able to talk with them about why they drew their mothers doing some activities, and why they
drew their fathers doing different activities. Through this process of having the children express
their perceptions of gender in this manner, a dialogue that was previously less assessable became
more available to the students. This classroom experiment was done in the context of teaching
young readers to be critical of texts. Napoli believed that transmediating between the texts her
students were listening to and images the students created would help them generate new ideas
and think critically.
Theories of Transmediation
There are multiple theories as to why the process of transmediation can be so effective
and such a generative process. Chang (2011) argues that transmediation works because it is
important to put abstract concepts into a medium that can be more accessible for students. Doing
so functions as an enabling tool to make sense of the information received. Chang further
explains that learning can only occur through assimilation and accommodation of previous
knowledge.
Short et al., (2000) expands off of this idea stating that new meanings to information are
created as the learner‟s understanding is enhanced, and Hoyt (1992) asserts that “learning occurs
when one creates a personal interpretation…The important point is that the individual
personalizes the information and internalizes a connection between what is new and what is
already known” (p. 584). Siegel (1995) incorporates all of these ideas by stating that learning
cannot be reduced to the transmission of knowledge from an “expert” to a “novice” (the
transmission model), but instead learning must be a social process in which students are actively
constructing their own interpretations of understanding of new information. Siegel (1995)
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 13
continues to explain that because transmediating is not a straight forward process, an “enquiry-
oriented classroom” is a natural byproduct of encouraging students to work with information in
their own way (p.456) . It is important to note that the generative process of transmediation
works at all ages in the school system: kindergarten, elementary school, high school, and even
undergraduate students (McConnell, 1993).
Drawing as a Sign System
Drawing is a very accessible sign system. “[Drawing] engages children‟s natural
inclination to take pencil to paper, thereby using art as a vehicle to express content knowledge.”
(Paquette, Fello & Jalongo, 2007, p. 73). Furthermore, drawing is a comfortable medium that in
general is embraced by almost all students, from younger learners in elementary school (Chang,
2012; Chang, 2011; Paquette et al., 2007) to university students (McConnell, 1993; Scott &
Weishaar, 2008). McConnell (1993) explains that drawing can be so comfortable because rarely
do people criticize each other on artistic ability, while the same cannot be said for the criticizing
of one‟s literary capabilities.
Drawing has also been observed as a way to excite students and relieve them of boredom
(Chang, 2002), especially when compared to a task that involves writing as a sole method of
response (Paquette et al., 2007). Therefore, incorporating drawing into the learning process can
be a strong motivator for children to learn (Chang, 2012; McConnell, 1993; Scott & Weishaar,
2008). Chang (2012) hypothesizes that this motivation is a result of the association between the
positive emotions of the learner and how effectively he or she will learn. This hypothesis implies
that the more positive a student feels about learning, the more effectively they will learn, thus
motivating them to do so. Drawing is also known to be a confidence booster in the classroom
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 14
(Chang, 2011). At the very least, the act of drawing has been found to more successfully hold the
attention of younger students in a learning/testing environment when compared to students
performing identical tasks without a drawing component (Gross, Hayne & Drury, 2009).
Drawings can also be used as a powerful tool for students to express their thoughts and
understanding of information (Chang, 2012; Chang, 2011; Hall, 2009; Paquette et al., 2007).
Hall (2009) theorizes that this ease in expression comes from the flexibility offered in the open-
ended task of drawing, which stands in contrast with other sign systems that follow stricter rules,
such as speech which is governed by the rules of phonetics. Students can feel more comfortable
exploring their thoughts through drawing, therefore their visual representations become
important for teachers because the drawings provide a strong insight into what the student
understands and how new information is being processed. Chang (2011) demonstrated this idea
with a student who was having trouble drawing an accurate representation of a bug, “a child‟s
inability to visualize a concept in his or her head reveals a lack of an understanding of an object
or a living thing conceptually” (p. 626). In noticing that this student could not draw an accurate
representation of a bug, Chang was able to assess what was going on in his or her head. In a
study conducted by Bebel & Kay (2009), the researchers were interested to see the student‟s
perceptions of technology in their classrooms and in their learning experiences. They collected
data by having students draw themselves working in their classrooms. By analyzing the
drawings, the researchers were able to gauge how students saw the role technology played in
their education. This study gave the researchers an insight into the children‟s thinking in a way
that could potentially have been more difficult for the children to verbalize.
Apart from giving the teachers insight into the student‟s thinking, drawing also allows the
student to become very self-aware of his or her own knowledge by empowering the student to
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 15
participate in his or her own learning experience (Paquette et al., 2007; Scott & Weishaar, 2008).
Drawing is also a versatile tool because unlike other sign systems such as reading or writing,
drawing requires no previous training or practice (Butler, Gross & Hayne, 1995). This makes it
particularly helpful when working with students who struggle with reading and writing (Hibbing
& Rankin-Erikson, 2003; Paquette et al., 2007) and students with special learning needs (Chang,
2011).
Aside from drawing being a fun, accessible, and motivating tool, evidence shows that
drawing can be utilized to help the memory in recalling information (Butler et al., 1995;
Patterson & Hayne, 2009; Wesson & Salmon, 2001). It is also important to note that in situations
where drawing was not found to play a significant role in aiding memory it was also found to not
impede memory either (Butler et al., 1995; Gross et al., 2009). The research in this field tends to
focus on the use of drawings during memory recall for applied settings such as legal contexts,
therapy for sexual abuse, and clinical assessments and treatments (Butler et al., 1995; Patterson
& Hayne, 2009). However the same principles could apply to a classroom setting. Drawing is
hypothesized to help organize knowledge, thoughts, and experiences as well (Chang, 2011;
Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993). The Reggio Emelia School located in Italy has
built its curriculum around this concept. As Chang (2002) explains it, “one of the purposes for
children to engage in art…is to organize their experiences.” (p. 51) Chang (2011) echoes this
idea, stating that “the principal purpose of drawing integration is to encourage children‟s
collaborative efforts and/or to organize their thoughts for next-step actions in reference to a
project.” (p. 624). In many ways drawing can be likened to taking notes for organizational
purposes.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 16
The act of drawing as a positive influence on memory recall and mental organization can
be explained through the lens of transmediation. Through the generative processes of
transmediation, new ways of understanding and manipulating information can help organize the
student‟s knowledge, thoughts, and experiences. This organization of information can then help
with memory recall by making the information a personal interpretation. In addition, it is
important to note that for the purposes of transmediating, artistic talent plays no role in the
process. What matters is the intent of the representation of the information; not how well it was
drawn (Chang, 2011). Conclusively, because drawing is such an accessible and motivating sign
system of expression, it makes sense to utilize drawing as the sign with which the participants in
the present study will transmediate.
The Talking Drawings Method
There is currently a method of teaching that embraces drawing as a valuable tool in
education called “talking drawings” (McConnell, 1993). Multiple case studies and reviews have
implemented the talking drawings method (or slight variations of it) in a variety of different
classrooms settings with success (Hibbing & Rankin-Erikson, 2003; McConnell, 1993; Paquette
et al., 2007; Scott & Weishaar, 2008; Whitin, 2002). The method was stumbled upon
accidentally as a way to liven up a discouraged class. On a whim professor Suzanne McConnell
asked the students in her adult literacy class to draw what they knew about rainforests instead of
writing down everything they knew. Her students immediately embraced the new task. Soon
enough, her class was active and interested in the material at hand, going out of their way to
learn more about rainforests in order to create more accurate drawings. The talking drawings
method had begun. (McConnell, 1993).
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 17
While McConnell (1993) ironed out and first implemented the method, Paquette at al.
(2007) give a very concise step by step summary which breaks down the method into a six step
process:
1. The first step is to pick an area of content, a topic, or a concept to focus on.
2. The second step is to have the students mentally visualize what they think they
know regarding the chosen area of content. The students then pictorially
represent that mental visualization by drawing their first picture.
3. The third step involves the students sharing and discussing their drawings
with a partner. During this stage it is important that the students focus on
explaining their drawings instead of having their partner interpret them.
4. In the fourth step the teacher instructs on the concept or topic.
5. In the following fifth step, the teacher has the students revisit their original
drawings. The students are encouraged to either create another drawing, or
modify their original one based off of their newly acquired knowledge.
6. The sixth and final step entails the students discussing with their partners and
amongst the rest of the class the differences in their previous lecture drawings
and post lecture drawings. This dialogue is important because it allows for the
students to reflect on and compare their personal learning experience with
their peer‟s experience. This also allows students to become very aware of
how their knowledge grew as they can see their drawings represent more
accurate information (p. 66).
The method was originally developed in an adult literacy program, and therefore its main
focus was working with struggling older readers. There are many suggested applications of the
talking drawings method. The method can be used with numerous content areas and subjects,
such as the solar system, living creatures, and greenhouse gases, as well as to teach aspects of
literature like fictitious characters and settings. The method has also been utilized to cover
complex information within fields such as science and social studies (Chang, 2011; McConnell,
1993; Paquette et al., 2007).
The talking drawings method introduces complex information in a fun and novel way
while helping the student to organize their thoughts. The method also serves as a way for
students to assess their knowledge of a new topic as they take their ideas and put them into a
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 18
drawn visual form (McConnell, 1993; Paquette et al., 2007). The success of this method makes
sense in the context of the organizational power of drawing and the generative processes of
transmediation.
The talking drawings method is also very versatile. As Paquette et al. (2007) explain,
“Talking drawings is sufficiently flexible to meet diverse student needs when teaching and
learning about expository texts” (p. 73). Meeting the diverse needs of students in the classroom
is obviously important for overall success of the classroom and its students. As mentioned
previously, it is hypothesized that there are multiple types of learners. Cognitive Psychologist
Howard Gardner goes so far as to say there are eight types of intelligences that comprise a single
person‟s “cognitive sphere”, and no two humans share the same intelligence makeup (Gardner,
2011). By diversifying teaching methods, one can hope to cater to many different types of
learners. In making other means of expression such as drawing available, and not solely relying
on the language sign system, this method gives children who struggle with language an outlet in
which they can share their thoughts (Short et al., 2000). Short et al., (2000) summarize this
concept by insisting that everyone has a right to his or her own experience in the learning
process.
The Importance of Technology
It is crucial for teachers to stay relevant in the classroom, and one of the most significant
developments in education over the last generation is the computer. The computer has been
described as the most widely acclaimed technological accomplishment, and because of this
invention there has been an increased need for information to be delivered via multiple mediums
that a computer could support (Mayer, 2005; Reich & Daccord, 2008). In the book Integrating
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 19
Technology: A Practical Guide, authors Lengel & Lengel (2006) explain that there has been a
revolution in the last twenty years with regards to how we collect, store, work with, and access
all types of information. If teachers are not able to stay afloat with the influx of new technology
by finding ways to bring new technological innovations into the classroom, students may
experience a strong disconnect between the classroom and the world in which they live in (Lee &
Winzenried, 2009; Lengel & Lengel, 2006).
A disconnect from the world and school can have many negative implications. In a
survey conducted by Raine & Lenhart (2002) for the Pew Foundation titled The Digital
Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-savvy Students and their Schools, the authors
discovered that students reported school as less useful and less relevant compared to students
who had completed the same survey five and ten years before them. They also found that the
students saw their school work as less meaningful, more uninteresting, and more unhelpful now
than students had been in the past (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Raine & Lenhart, 2002). However
closing the digital disconnect gap is not as simple as it may seem. Integrating new technology
into the learning experience has often been avoided or underutilized (Rollag & Billsberry, 2012;
Vincent, 2003). As explained by Price (2007), integrating computers into the classroom is not a
straightforward automatic process that one can do intuitively.
Berk (2009) acknowledges this struggle to stay relevant with technology in the
classroom, stating that by the time the reader sees his publication it will already be out of date,
“that is the nature of the technology beast” (p. 5). Regardless, it is the teacher‟s responsibility to
create an atmosphere for learning with the right mix and proper use of technology (Price, 2007).
Unfortunately the majority of schools have yet to utilize technology to its fullest potential, which
perpetuates the digital disconnect gap between the classroom and the rest of the world.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 20
Consequently, to the student surrounded by technology in most other aspects of their lives, it
would make sense that school would seem obsolete (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). However some
argue that integrating technology into the classroom has become a more stable process and
teachers are generally becoming increasingly more knowledgeable of new technologies (Price,
2007; Rollag & Billsberry, 2012).
When implemented correctly, computers can be excellent tools for teaching and learning.
In many ways computers are the perfect tool for integrating the theory of transmediation into
teaching. Computers are inherently conducive to multimodal presentation, meaning that
information can easily be presented and learned through a wide array of sign systems (Foreman,
2012; Reich & Daccord, 2008; Vincent, 2003). This is crucial because the ability to transmediate
is developed, honed and utilized best when the student is immersed in a multimedia environment
(Semali, 2002). Daiute (1992) illustrates the multimedia capabilities of working with a computer
to learn and create:
Several characteristics of the computer make it an appropriate work space for
multimedia composing by older children. First, several media can be integrated in
the computer-the young writer‟s composing screen can include moving or still
images, a button that can be pushed for sound, and several sections for text. In
addition, electronic drawing, cutting, and pasting tools allow the child to
transform images, sounds, and texts (pp. 253-254).
As seen in Daiute‟s example, the generative process of transmediation still occurs while
students are working with computers. In the book The Hundred Languages of Children, Foreman
(2012) provides an example of the generative process occurring in a lesson where his students
used computer software to instruct insects onscreen to move in certain flight paths based off of
the student‟s directions. He explains that by having the students interact with the material
through multiple signs the students saw the information in different ways. The text gave
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 21
background and substance to the animating activity, but the animating activity filled in the
informational gaps where the text left off.
Due to the computer‟s capability to work with countless modes of sign systems in its
presentation of information, computers are invaluable tools for teaching and learning because
they can cater to many different learning styles (Vincent, 2003). Many students who found the
transmission model of teaching difficult had an enhanced learning experience through the use of
computers and multimodal software. It is hypothesized that this is because multimodal computer
software provides structure to working between sign systems which helps with knowledge
construction (Vincent, 2003; Vincent, 2001).
An important aspect of utilizing computers in the classroom that must be understood is
how dynamic of a medium they are. For instance, once a book is written, it does not change and
the information is there virtually forever. There is no way to interactively work with the writing.
Yet the computer is an experience that is always changing. There is new software, automatic
updates, access to the ever changing internet, and many more constantly changing components,
making using a computer never an inherently dynamic cexperience (Lengel & Lengel, 2006).
This dynamism is beneficial to teaching and learning because it is crucial that one‟s teaching
methods stay relevant, and a medium that can easily adapt can be very helpful. However one
complaint Lee & Winzenried (2009) make about the implementation of new technology is the
lack of understanding regarding the technical and the human variables involved. It doesn‟t matter
how dynamic the learning tool is if it is being implemented poorly. Richard Mayer (2005) argues
in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning that computers have fallen down the same
path as radio and television, two other mediums that were supposed to revolutionize education:
we took a technology centered approach instead of a human centered approach. This means that
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 22
instead of adapting these potential tools for learning to humans needs, teachers and students were
asked to adapt themselves to the computers. “The focus was on giving people access to the latest
technology rather than helping people to learn through the aid of technology” (Mayer, 2005, p.
9). Technology should be developed in a way that is consistent with how the human mind works
in order to encourage and assist learning instead of forcing humans to try and make technology
work for them.
With this in mind, it is important to remember that we are living in a digitized world, and
our school system should not be lagging behind (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Raine &
Lenhart, 2002). Yet just imposing new technology onto the school system is not the answer
either (Lengel & Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Price, 2007). New technologies should be
developed in accordance with how human cognition works, and the transmediation model has
been shown to be a successful method of teaching and learning. Stewart, Houghton & Rogers
(2012) concisely summarize this idea stating that, “Though greater appreciation to what goes on
in the classroom is important, we must resist the desire to implement course revisions without
rigorous examination of their potential impact” (p. 773).
Present Research
The present research seeks to empirically test a modified version of the talking drawings
method that utilizes the use of modern technology. The method is delivered through an
interactive computer experience consisting of using a swiveling touch screen laptop and a stylus
that allows participants to draw on the screen. Utilizing key components of the talking drawings
method, students will be given the opportunity to draw their mental representations of novel
information before learning the material, and after leaning the material. This will allow students
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 23
to visually watch their knowledge expand as their drawings become more detailed with more
information (McConnell, 1993; Paquette et al., 2007).
As the participants work through their mental representations of the information in
preparation to draw, they will personalize the information, drawing unique understandings and
conclusions for themselves. This is the generative process of transmediation in action. As the
participant transmediates from written sign systems into pictorial sign systems, it is hypothesized
that the participants will be able to organize and store the information more effectively than if
they had not been transmediating. This should naturally lead to increased retention of the
information. Many studies have found similar results when incorporating transmediation into
their lessons (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Foreman & Fyfe, 2012; Hoyt, 1992; Napoli, 2002;
Semali, 2002; Short et al., 2000; Siegel, 1995; Whitin, 2002).
It is important to remember that regardless of the effectiveness of a method a student
cannot be forced to participate and learn. If the participant completely ignores the drawing
instructions and chooses to skip the reading, there is nothing that can be done. It is hypothesized
however that the inherent fun of drawing will override any potential boredom with the
presentation. Ideally, the participant will find the presentation more than just bearable, but
enjoyable and motivating. This would be concurrent with the multitude of other published
research and case studies that found that the inclusion of drawing to an activity made the activity
more enjoyable and motivating (Chang, 2012; Gross et al., 2009; Hall, 2009; McConnell, 1993;
Scott & Weishaar, 2008). So it is hypothesized that the presentation will be interesting enough
for the participants that they will choose to engage in the presentation.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 24
This research also comes at a crucial time in American education. Losen and Skiba
(2010) of UCLA‟s Civil Rights Project analyzed the rates of suspension as a disciplinary
measure in urban setting middle schools. They found a number of alarming trends: in most
school districts analyzed, rates of suspension had doubled proportionately since the 1970s. These
rates are still increasing. The researchers also found that there was no evidence to show that
minority students misbehave more than white students, but the data did show that minority
students, specifically African Americans, were the most likely to be suspended (Skiba, Michael,
Nardo & Peterson, 2002, as cited in Losen & Skiba, 2010). The researchers concluded that
minority populations were being robbed of the opportunity to learn at much higher rates than the
rest of the population (Losen & Skiba, 2010). It is clear that while suspension rates are rising,
urban middle schools in America need to be improved. In light of Losen and Skiba‟s (2010)
findings, it is imperative when conducting educational research that a racially diverse participant
population is strived for, because it is evident that the middle school experience is potentially
different amongst different races. Therefore data will only be relevant if truly representative of
the population.
Of equal importance to conducting research with racially diverse populations, is
conducting research with socioeconomically diverse populations. Trisha Bishop (2013), a
reporter for The Baltimore Sun, published an article in the summer of 2013 calling attention to
the lack of socioeconomic diversity in research with children. In the article, researchers from
Johns Hopkins University and University of Maryland weighed in on why it can be a challenge
to include subjects from lower socioeconomic classes in their research. These researchers cited
reasons such as complications with transportation and a general lack of trust in the researchers.
Due to these reasons, the overwhelming majority of participant populations come from the
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 25
middle and upper socioeconomic classes. This is problematic, especially in areas of research
such as child development. Without representative populations, it is likely that phenomena and
trends will be missed. In the article, a researcher named Dr. Lillard cited a pertinent example
showcasing the need for representative populations: “[There is] research that shows children in
poorer households are spoken to less, which impedes their cognitive development. „We wouldn't
know that if people hadn't gone into the homes and recorded how much language there was‟” (p.
1). The participant population of the current population is a diverse and relatively representative
sample of the families of Baltimore because its participant population is coming from a public
charter school where everyone has the same chance of admittance.
With a strong theoretical background and a truly diverse population, it is hypothesized
that this new method of conveying information will prove to be successful. In an effort to shrink
the digital disconnect gap by incorporating touch screen technology, it is hypothesized that the
participants will find the method appealing and relevant because much of the technology they
encounter everyday utilizes similar features. By integrating drawing into the presentation, it is
hypothesized that students will be inherently interested in the presentation. Through the
generative process of transmediation, it is hypothesized that the participants will formulate their
own thoughts and connections with the information being presented, which will aid them in the
organization and memorization of the information. It is ultimately hypothesized that all of these
factors combined will result in improved performance amongst the participants in the
experimental condition.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 26
Method
About the School
Research was conducted at the Baltimore Montessori Public Charter School, located in
the Station North neighborhood of Baltimore Maryland. The school is unique in providing the
traditionally private Montessori educational experience in a public school setting. Admission is
available to everyone who is a resident of Baltimore city. Enrollment to the program is based off
of a lottery system, creating an equal opportunity for all who apply. The school services grades
kindergarten through eighth grade, and allows students to enroll at any grade.
Research Participants
The sample consisted of 30 middle school students in seventh grade and eight grade (57%
female). One student (n=1) had to be removed as a research participant due to absences on data
collection days. The participants came from two homeroom classrooms, Ms. Dorman (n=19) and
Ms. Heffner (n=11). The participant sample was both racially and socioeconomically diverse.
Racial and ethnic background was not directly asked, but according to the 2012 school profile
collected by Baltimore City Public Schools, 53% of the middle school students identified as
“black” while 42% identified as “white” (BCPS, 2012). Socioeconomic information was not
directly asked, but again according to the 2012 public profile, 41% of the middle school students
come from low-income families, as determined by eligibility for the Free and Reduced Meals
(FARM) program (BCPS, 2012). This is a method used by Baltimore City Public Schools to
identify low-income families (BCPS, 2013). Participation was entirely voluntary, and every
middle school student was given the opportunity to participate. Participation had no effect on
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 27
class standing. Participants received direct benefit for participating in the study by helping raise
money for the BMPCS middle school Adventure Trip. For every student who participated, ten
dollars was donated by the principle researcher. This money lowered the individual cost of
attendance for the trip. Each student was randomly assigned into either the experimental
drawing group (n=15) or the control group (n=15).
Materials
The learning presentation medium was created in Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007. The
presentation was presented on the Toshiba Portégé M700, a touch screen computer with a
swiveling screen that can be used as a laptop or a tablet. A stylus designed to work with the
touch screen was also utilized for the drawing portions of the presentation. The lesson that was
given in the presentation is an adaptation of the lesson plan What Parts of the Plant do We Eat?
by Dr. Doherty and Dr. Spindler (2009) of the biology department at the University of
Pennsylvania. Information about plant parts was taken from the teacher preparation notes and put
into a PowerPoint format. Ms. Dorman, a licensed teacher with special accreditation by the
American Montessori Society to teach a Montessori middle school classroom, reviewed and
edited the presentation in regards to accessibility to the participants and quality of the lesson.
There are two versions of the presentation: the experimental version and the control
version. The experimental version of the presentation includes 24 slides in total. There are three
types of slides in the presentation. The first of these is the pre-drawing slide; on this slide the
participant is prompted to draw something related to the lesson (e.g. “Draw a picture of a plant
stem”). The second type of slide is the information slide, which presents information pertaining
to what the participants are being prompted to draw. The final type of slide the participant will
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 28
encounter will be the post-drawing slide. On this slide the participant will be prompted to draw
something related to the lesson after having just learned about it (e.g. draw a picture of a plant
stem with your new knowledge). To ensure that participants have enough time with the
information, there is no time limit with how a participant can spend on any of the slides. To try
and curb participants from skipping slides and not reading the information, there is a minimum
amount of time that must be spent on each slide. For pre-drawing slides the participant must
spend at least 15 seconds drawing. For information slides the participant must spend at least 20
seconds with the material. For post-drawing the participant must spend at least 30 seconds
drawing. The time minimum is indicated by an arrow that appears automatically in the bottom
right corner after the prescribed amount of time.
The drawing will take place on the touch screen, and the PowerPoint can be navigated
using the directional keys on the keyboard or with the touch screen (see Appendix A for the full
experimental presentation). The control presentation is comprised of information slides identical
to the experimental presentation in content and time length. However the control presentation has
no drawing portion to it. The touch screen function will not be needed for this version of the
presentation, and the PowerPoint will be navigated using the direction keys on the keyboard.
Measures
A pre-test and post-test consisting of 15 multiple choice questions was used to assess how
learning and memory was affected by the different presentation types. The test focused solely on
material covered in the presentation. Ms. Dorman reviewed and gave suggestions in regards to
accessibility of the test to the participants, and quality of the test. There was no difference
between the pre-test and the post-test. The tests were administered to collect the participant‟s
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 29
improvement in scores between the pre-test and post-test after interacting with the presentation.
The participants were never informed of their scores on either test (see Appendix B for the pre-
test/post-test).
A survey was administered to collect information regarding the experience of using the
presentation. The survey consisted of twelve questions on a 5-point Likert Scale. Eight of the
twelve questions were taken from a survey created by Rockwell & Singleton (2007). Rockwell &
Singleton (2007) used the survey to assess the effects of audio and video in the information
acquisition process in the classroom. The survey is fitting for the current research because it was
designed to gather information on the participants‟ opinions of various teaching methods.
Examples of questions asked include: “I learned a lot from this presentation” and “The
presentation was boring”. The last four questions of the survey were created specifically for the
purpose of this research to assess the participants‟ access to technology and the participants‟
comfort with technology (see Appendix C for the full survey). Participants received a debriefing
form upon completion of the research.
Procedure
Participants were initially contacted about this research by the BMPCS middle school
teachers Ms. Dorman and Ms. Heffner. Consent forms were sent home with students to be
reviewed and signed by parents or legal guardians if the student was interested in participating.
The consent forms were collected and stored by Ms Heffner and Ms. Dorman in a locked filing
cabinet. Once consent forms were collected from all interested students the primary researcher
administered the pre-test to every participant on January 7th
2014 and January 9th
2014.
Participants wrote their names on the top tear-off section of the pre-test. Pre-tests were stored in
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 30
a locked brief case. The pre-test took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Once all pre-tests
were collected, students were randomized into the experimental condition or the control
condition. On January 23rd
2014 and January 24th
2014, the primary researcher set up at BMPCS
in a room adjacent to the middle school classrooms and began with data collection. A teaching
assistant helped with the process at all times and worked as an aid when working with the
students. Participants were seen individually at the convenience of both teachers‟ schedules.
Participants were all greeted and made to feel welcome. Verbal assent was requested and
participants were reminded that they could stop at anytime if they wanted and that their
participation with the research had no influence on their school career. All participants assented
and no participants chose to stop until they were finished.
If the participant was in the experimental condition the primary researcher took time to
familiarize the student with the touch screen drawing technology and using the stylus. As
expected, almost all participants in the experimental group expressed some familiarity with the
touch screen technology, and the familiarizing process was usually very brief. The basic
structure of the presentation was explained to them, with a focus on following the time
minimums conveyed on each slide. The primary researcher made it clear that he would not
interfere in any way with the participant or the presentation while it was happening.
With few exceptions the experimental presentation took about 20 minutes to complete.
The participant took the post-test immediately after completing the presentation. After the post-
test the participant filled out the short survey regarding the experience. The post-test and the
survey took about 10 minutes to complete. The process in total took approximately 30 minutes to
40 minutes. After the post-test and survey were completed the student was debriefed and the
thanked. The participants were asked to refrain from speaking with their peers about the
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 31
presentation in order to create an equal experience for everyone who participated. The pre-test,
post-test, and survey were then stapled together. The name of the participant was changed into a
number and the name on the pre-test was torn off, effectively making the data anonymous. Raw
physical data was stored in a locked briefcase.
If the participant was in the control condition, the process mirrored the experimental
condition with the exception that there was no need to familiarize the participant with the touch
screen and stylus. Because there is no drawing portion to the control presentation, the
presentation only took about 10 minutes. The process in total took about 20 minutes to 25
minutes. The participant was debriefed and thanked upon finishing, and their data was made
anonymous and stored in the locked briefcase.
Only once all the data had been collected were pre-tests and post-tests scored. At this
point the students were told they were allowed to talk to their peers about the experience.
Students were also reminded to speak with either Ms. Dorman or Ms. Heffner in person or email
the primary researcher if they had any questions.
Research Design
The sample of 30 middle school students from BMPCS was utilized based on
convenience of access to these students. This is similar in sample size to previous research
utilizing comparable methods to test the benefits of new technology in the classroom (Chang,
Wu & Hsu, 2013). Data was analyzed using an independent samples t-test to compare score
improvement (from pre-test to post-test) for the experimental drawing condition versus the
control condition. Using the improvement of scores from a pre-test to a post-test to analyze a
new teaching or learning tool has been successfully utilized before as a way to judge that tool‟s
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 32
effectiveness (Chang et al., 2013; Lara-Alecio et al., 2012; Plass et al., 2013; Rockwell &
Singleton, 2007). All data was collected and organized in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using
SPSS version 21.
Results
Before analyzing improvement scores between the experimental drawing group (n=15)
and the control group n=15), prior knowledge of the subject matter was assessed. An
independent samples t-test was conducted to compare pre-test scores between the experimental
drawing group (M = 9.2, SD = 2.48) and the control group (M = 8.93, SD = 2.09); t(28) = .32, p =
.75. Prior knowledge of the subject matter was not different for either group.
The effectiveness of the learning presentation was determined by examining the
improvement between pre-test scores to post-test scores. A one-tail independent samples t-test
was conducted to compare the average improvement in scores between the experimental drawing
group (M = 2.80, SD = 1.70) and the control group (M = 3.80, SD = 1.74); t(28) = -1.59, p =
.061. There was no significant difference in scores between the experimental drawing group and
the control group. However the data suggests that the difference in scores was approaching
significance in the opposite direction, i.e. the experimental drawing condition was having a
negative impact on performance.
While not the primary intent of the study, a survey that gauged the participants‟ opinions
of the experience was administered after completing the post-test. The survey also gathered
information on the participant‟s technology use. Surveys from two participants had to be omitted
because they were not complete (n=28). Responses to questions #1 - #11 were answered on a 5-
point Likert scale: 1 meaning “I strongly disagree and 5 meaning “I strongly agree”. The last
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 33
question was answered either yes or no. Multiple independent samples t-tests were conducted to
analyze the mean responses of each group. There were no significant differences found between
the experimental drawing group and the control group for any question on the survey.
The survey data did provide insight to the participants‟ relationship with technology. All
participants who completed the survey (n=28) reported having access to the internet at home.
The majority of participants (n=27) reported that they felt comfortable using the internet (M =
4.96, SD = .19), with the exception of one participant who explained on the survey s/he was
uncomfortable with the internet “because of the NSA”. Participants (n=28) also overwhelmingly
replied that they strongly agreed that they felt comfortable using computers (M = 4.96, SD =
.19).
Discussion
Based on the data collected, the primary hypothesis that the inclusion of a drawing
activity into a digital learning presentation would aid in the learning process was not supported.
The theorized positive effects of transmediation, and its generative process as an organizational
tool for learning did not aid the experimental drawing group with their acquisition of
information. The potentially positive effects of including drawing into an activity to aid in the
information acquisition process were also unsupported. The data collected was inconclusive as to
whether or not enjoyment of the presentation had any effect on test score improvement.
There was no significant difference in average improvement scores between the
experimental drawing group and the control group. This means there was no evidence that the
inclusion of the drawing activity had the desired effect to facilitate the participant‟s ability to
organize and retain the novel information. However, the data did reveal a pattern in which the
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 34
inclusion of the drawing activity had a potentially detrimental effect. The average improvement
score for the experimental drawing group was lower than the average improvement score for the
control group. Although there was not a significant difference, the effect was in a different
direction than predicted. These results stand in contrast with previous research that shows even
when the inclusion of drawing was not found to be helpful to memory, it was not found to be a
hindrance either (Butler et al., 1995; Gross et al., 2009).
As predicted, the participants did indicate enjoying the activity of drawing. Numerous
participants inquired about an eraser function, and a few asked if they were able to use different
colors. On the survey, when the participants were asked if they thought the presentation was
enjoyable, the characteristic response of the drawing group was “neutral” and “mildly agree”,
and when they were asked if they thought that the presentation was boring they typically
responded “strongly disagree” and “mildly disagree”. This is consistent with previous research
on the inclusion of drawing with learning activities (Chang, 2012; Chang, 2011; McConnell,
1993; Paquette et al., 2007, Scott & Weishaar, 2008; Van Meter and Garner, 2005). Yet the lack
of significant improvement in post test scores when compared to a control group stands in
contrast to previous research that found drawing to be a way for students to help organize and
express their thoughts (Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993).
A potential explanation for the lack of significant test score improvement is that the
participants were not engaged enough in the drawing activity. However, during the testing
process two observations were made that indicated that the participants were engaged in the task.
First, no participant finished early. Every participant stayed longer than the minimum required
time for completing the presentation. This implies that the participants took extra time to
complete their drawings and this shows a level of engagement beyond completing the activity
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 35
just to finish it as quickly as possible. Second, four participants were randomly asked if their
drawings could be anonymously saved and reviewed. Upon review of the drawings, it is evident
that these participants were constructing their drawings with a level of effort that would indicate
that they took the activity seriously (See Appendix D for the before and after drawings). Factors
that helped determine this assumption were the attention to detail, the constant use of arrows, and
the labeling of what the participants deemed to be important information. This is consistent with
McConnell‟s (1993) findings that her students naturally took to labeling their drawings.
As expected, the drawings also served as a way to see how the participant‟s knowledge of
the topic grew. Chang (2012) explains that drawings convey the level of conceptual
understanding a student possesses. Chang further explains that student‟s drawings can be used
as a way to see the student‟s understanding of a topic grow. Even though a statistically
significant difference in average improvement scores between the groups was not found, this
growth in understanding seemed evident based on the four series drawings reviewed from the
experimental condition. This provides value for the inclusion of drawing in the learning process
because this insight into the student‟s knowledge growth could be invaluable for the evaluation
of the effectiveness of a lesson or alternative testing.
If the participants enjoyed the presentation, exhibited engagement, and showed
knowledge growth through their drawings, why didn‟t their improvement scores for the
experimental drawing group differ from the control group? Rockwell and Singleton (2007) found
similar results in their research that analyzed various forms of streaming multimedia and the
modality it was presented in, on the effects of information acquisition. They found that
participants in experimental groups that contained more forms of information delivery (e.g. video
or audio) struggled to perform as well as the participants in a group that received the same
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 36
information delivered through text alone. Rockwell and Singleton concluded that, “the addition
of streaming media to a text-based presentation had detrimental effects on information
acquisition.” (p. 186). One potential explanation for their results could be because the
participants in the text-only group found their presentation to be significantly more interesting
and educational than the text-audio-video group, they were more motivated to learn the material.
However, Rockwell and Singleton posit another possible explanation of their results. Because the
extra channels of multimedia (audio and visual) were presenting the same information as the text
of the presentations, the extra streams of information could have acted as nothing but “noise” to
the participant, hindering the information acquisition process (p.187).
Cognitive Load Theory
Noise in the information acquisition process is what researchers in the field of cognitive
load theory call extraneous cognitive load. This is a type of cognitive load that is not necessary
for learning but still places demands on cognitive processing (Van Merriënboer & Sweller,
2005). According to cognitive load theory, information acquisition is dependent on three kinds of
cognitive demand: Essential processing; Incidental/Extraneous processing; and Representational
holding (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). These three processes all place a demand on cognitive load.
Mayer and Moreno (2003) explain that, “in multimedia learning […] A potential problem is that
the processing demands evoked by the learning task may exceed the processing capacity of the
cognitive system – a situation we call cognitive overload” (p.45). An overload of a learner‟s
cognitive processing hinders their ability to understand the material, attend to important aspects
of the material, organize the material into a coherent cognitive structure and integrate it with
relevant existing knowledge (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 37
Cognitive overload can be an important consideration for multimedia approaches to
learning (a multimedia approach to learning is any form of learning that includes verbal and/or
pictorial representation). There is evidence to support that multimedia materials foster deep
learning through verbal and pictorial representations, however these materials have also shown
to be a challenge to effectively implement due to their high cognitive processing demands
(Leutner, Leopold & Sumfleth, 2009; Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Van Merriënboer & Sweller,
2005; Schwamborn, Thillmann, Opfermann & Leutner, 2011). An example of a multimedia
presentation resulting in potential cognitive overload and therefore poor information acquisition
would be the previously mentioned Rockwell and Singleton (2007) study. Mayer and Moreno
(2003) describe the problem of cognitive overload as a “central challenge facing designers of
multimedia instruction” (p.43). This is the same Mayer (2003) who is previously cited from
Mayer (2005) emphasizing the importance of developing software to work with human needs,
not visa versa.
A common aspect of multimedia materials that have been shown to increase cognitive
processing and potentially cause cognitive overload is the level of interactivity the materials
require. Kirschner, Kester, and Corbalan (2011), editors of the journal Computers in Human
Behavior, explain this specific type of cognitive load as, “intrinsic load [which is] imposed by
the number of interactive information elements in a task. The more elements there are within a
learning task and the more interaction there is between them, the higher the experienced intrinsic
cognitive load will be” (p.2). Therefore multimedia learning materials that incorporate a high
level of interactivity require higher levels of cognitive processing than materials that do not
incorporate interactivity (Kirschener et al., 2011; Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005).
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 38
This effect of high interactivity potentially resulting in cognitive overload was reported in
research analyzing the effectiveness of image creation software for science based texts.
Researchers Shwamborn et al. (2011) found that: image creation did not aid in information
retention; higher mental effort was needed for the image creation activities; image creation was
unnecessarily time consuming. Shwamborn et al. (2011) hypothesized that the reason the image
creation activity was detrimental to the learning process was due to the unfamiliar nature of the
activity. The participants had to expend increased mental effort in order to compensate for the
extraneous cognitive load the image creation task placed on them. This detracted from the
participant‟s available cognitive load which typically could have been utilized in acquiring the
information.
Cognitive Load Theory and the Current Research
In the current research, participants in the experimental drawing condition could have
suffered from increased extraneous load due to the high level of interactivity the presentation
required. This would explain the negative effect the drawing activity had on improvement scores
in the experimental drawing condition. Extraneous cognitive load could have been further placed
on the participant‟s processing capacity by the use of open ended prompting for the sketches.
Previous research found that open ended drawing prompts significantly impaired reading
comprehension by increasing extraneous cognitive load (Leutner et al., 2009). This stands in
contrast to research which found drawing to help organize a student‟s thoughts and knowledge
(Chang, 2011; Chang, 2002; Hoyt, 1992; McConnell, 1993). A potential explanation for the
drawing task in the current research having a negative effect on improvement scores could lie in
the design of the presentation and not in the act of drawing. By having participants draw their
representations of the information twice, there was the potential effect of the information
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 39
becoming redundant. Redundancy of information has been shown to increase extraneous
cognitive load and detract from learning (Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005).
Another possible explanation of the design of the presentation being detrimental to
information acquisition could be the effects of representational holding. Representational holding
refers to the cognitive processes that attempt to hold mental representations of information in the
working memory for a period of time. Mayer and Moreno (2003) give an example of
representational holding processes at work in the context of using a computer based multimedia
presentation:
[S]uppose that an illustration is presented in one window and a verbal description
is presented of it in another window, but only one window can appear on the
screen at one time. In this case, the learner must hold a representation of the
illustration in working memory while reading the verbal description or must hold
a representation of the verbal information in working memory while viewing the
illustration (p.45).
In the current research, participants in the experimental drawing group had to hold information in
their working memory in order to create visual representations. Participants were able to go back
to previous slides to refresh their working memory, but the activity of searching for information
in order to complete a learning task is described by Van Merriënboer and Sweller (2005) as one
of many “weak problem solving methods” (p.150). These types of presentation designs are
known to increase extraneous load because the act of searching for information uses up extra
cognitive processes.
Extraneous cognitive load is additive. For the current research this means that the more
factors of poor design there were, the more likely the experimental drawing group would have
suffered from extraneous cognitive processing demands. With higher processing demands than
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 40
the control group, the experimental drawing group may have had a harder time acquiring the
information.
Cognitive Load Theory and Transmediation
While not hypothesized, cognitive load theory provides a potential explanation for why
transmediating may have been detrimental. Transmediating is not an easy task. It is a
complicated process of actively analyzing and evaluating information so a bridge between two
sign systems of expression can be created (Hoyt, 1992; Siegel, 1995). There is no literal way to
transmediate between signs, and therefore cognitive processes will always be needed to
transmediate. Based on the results, it is hypothesized that the act of transmediating for the
experimental drawing group imposed extraneous cognitive load on the participant‟s cognitive
processes. This would have hindered the participants‟ ability to acquire information.
It is also possible that transmediation would not have been helpful to the information
acquisition process due to the type of information being learned. Transmediation promotes a
generative process that fosters new ideas and encourages different interpretations of information.
This means that by transmediating information from one sign system to another sign system,
learners begin to make their own interpretations about the information (Hoyt, 1992; Semali,
2002; Siegel, 1995). It is only speculation, but the generative process of transmediation may not
be the most effective means of teaching relatively static scientific concepts to middle school
students. By only testing the participants on how well they retained information via a pre-test
post-test format, personal interpretation of the information was not assessed. The current
research was only interested in the amount of accurate information memorized.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 41
Future Research
Future research should examine new ways that the theory of transmediation can be
incorporated into computer based learning programs within the context of cognitive load theory.
As evidenced by the current research, the benefits of transmediating do not compensate for
questionable presentation design. Therefore, all computer based teaching materials that
incorporate transmediation should be designed with strong consideration for the potential
cognitive load transmediating can place on the cognitive processes. Examples of smarter
presentation design could include keeping all information needed to work between sign systems
in the same window. This would cut down on the extraneous load caused by searching for
relevant information between windows, a solution recommended by Mayer & Moreno (2003) in
their paper Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. For the current study,
a potential improvement to the presentation design could be removing the initial drawing prompt
before every information slide. This could have cut down on a redundancy effect, ideally freeing
up more cognitive processing for internalizing the information.
Only by utilizing a smarter design of incorporating transmediation into a learning
presentation can the effects of drawing on learning be assessed. There are compelling arguments
for the activity of drawing being a beneficial aid to the learning process, and future research
should strive to find more effective ways of utilizing the drawing activity. At the very least, the
present research provided evidence to show that the participants enjoyed the inclusion of
drawing to the presentation. In a review of the literature published on the inclusion of drawing in
learning, researchers Van Meter and Garner (2005) found that very few reliable articles
containing empirical evidence to support drawing could be found. What they did find was a
common assertion in that drawing positively influences student‟s affect by stimulating interest in
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 42
target content, increasing involvement in target content, and engaging learners in higher order
thinking (Van Meter & Garner, 2005). This increased motivation is a compelling argument for
the need for future research to look at effective uses of drawing activities. However the current
research exemplifies the need for more research in this field due to the inclusion of drawing
possibly being detrimental to information acquisition.
There are multiple variables that should be assessed in future research in regards to
effective transmediation, drawing, and the use of computer technology. Effects of expertise in
regard to familiarity with the subject matter and the type of interactivity the presentation
demands could potentially have an effect on a learner‟s information acquisition (Van
Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005; Salden, Paas & van Merriënboer, 2006; Schwamborn et al., 2011).
Salden et al. (2006) likens the notion of highly interactive learning being too complex for novice
learners to driving a car, “when learning to drive a car, one might perform the part-task of
shifting gear not adequately. The trainer might decide to focus on this part-task before the
student can continue with practicing the whole-task of driving the car” (p.331). This implies that
if the learner is inexperienced with the subject matter or the type of interactive activity, then their
learning may suffer due to the complexity of both factors.
There is also the confounding variable of testing participants directly after the
presentation. This is not necessarily representative of learning and fails to capture potential long
term memory effects. While the current research was bound to a strict data collection period and
therefore unable to gather data on long term retention, this would be an interesting variable to
assess by having follow up testing at later dates.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 43
It is also uncertain to what extent the current research results are applicable to other
subject matters. The current research focused on information acquisition in regards to subject
matter rooted in botany and more generally biology. How this type of learning presentation
would affect information acquisition in other fields such as reading comprehension or
mathematics is to be determined and should be the focus of future research. This was a concern
shared by Shwamborn et al. (2011) who also studied the inclusion of a drawing activity in the
general field of biology.
Considerations for Future Research with this Population
The current research had access to a unique group of participants who were an absolute
pleasure to work with, although working with this young participant population posed certain
unexpected challenges. As is universal of all research with minors, parental consent was needed
in order for a student to participate. However, the students showed little interest in participating
in the study, and very few consent forms were initially received. It was only after the principle
researcher was able to personally meet and interact with the students later in the year that the
majority of consent forms came in. By getting to meet the students, interest in the study was
sparked and consent forms starting coming in at a much faster rate. This was an unforeseen
complication that put strain on the data collection schedule, however this is a helpful insight for
future research.
Another aspect of data collection that should be taken into consideration for future
research is the time of day that a student is asked to participate. Due to a strict data collecting
period, students were asked regardless of their class period. This means that a student could have
been asked to participate during their recess period, or while in the middle of a complicated math
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 44
lesson. A measure of engagement in the task would have been helpful to analyze whether or not
the time of day had any effect on the participants‟ performance. While only speculation, this is a
variable that should be potentially controlled for in future research.
Implications
While the primary hypothesis was not supported, this research provides a strong set of
considerations for future applications of drawing within a learning activity and multimedia
presentation design. This research is also exemplary of the type of research that is critical for the
future use of technology in our classrooms. The survey data confirmed what Raine & Lenhart‟s
(2002) survey The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-savvy Students and
their Schools stated over ten years ago! Technology permeates so many aspects of our lives. To
not work towards fully integrating various forms of relevant educational technology into
classrooms will only make school more and more irrelevant. But it is just as important to make
sure the technology being implemented is actually beneficial to the learning process (Lengel &
Lengel, 2006; Mayer, 2005; Price, 2007; Stewart et al., 2012).
The importance of working with students from this racially and socioeconomically
diverse population is also crucial to developing effective teaching strategies. As previously
mentioned, the experience of attending middle school can change for members of different races
(Losen & Skiba, 2010). However racial diversity is not everything, as highlighted by Dr. Lillard
in Trisha Bishop‟s (2013) article from the Baltimore Sun, socioeconomic status can play an
influential role in behavior and development. This is especially pertinent in urban school
settings. Researchers Balfanz, Spiridakis, Neild and Legters (2003) found a strong link between
poor eighth grade performance and high school dropout rates: less than 10% of students who had
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 45
failed half of their classes or had missed three or more months of school in their eighth grade
year failed to graduate high school. The majority of these students did not even make it past the
tenth grade. Therefore a strong focus should be placed on developing successful teaching
strategies that cater to diverse populations.
Conclusion
It is unrealistic to think that one study could make the slightest dent in the upsetting
dropout rates of urban schools. Regardless of how much evidence was found to support the
research hypothesis, it will take much more than just one learning activity, no matter how
effective, relevant, and engaging it may be, to even come close to changing anything. However
the present research is at the very least a small step in the right direction by laying the
groundwork for future research aimed at developing more relevant and successful teaching
methods.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 46
References
Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., Neild, R. C., & Legters, N. (2003). High-poverty secondary schools
and the juvenile justice system: How neither helps the other and how that could change.
New Directions for Youth Development, 2003(99), 71-89.
Baltimore Montessori Public Charter Middle School # 383 School Profile 2012. (2013, February
20). Baltimore City Public Schools. Retrieved January 3, 2014, from
http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/cms/lib/MD01001351/Centricity/domain/80/school
profiles/383-BaltimoreMontessoriPublicCharterMiddle-Profile2013.pdf
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2009). Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative Final Evaluation Report.
inTASC report, ., ..
Berk, R. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, youtube, and mtvU in the
college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teach ad Learning, 5(1), 1-
21.
Bishop, T. (2013, August 12). Child researchers seek low-income subjects. Baltimore Sun, p. ..
Butler, S., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (1995). The Effect Of Drawing On Memory Performance In
Young Children.. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 597-608.
By the Numbers / Overview. (2013, December 31). Baltimore City Public Schools. Retrieved
January 3, 2014, from http://www.baltimorecityschools.org/domain/5
Chang, H., Wu, H., & Hsu, Y. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to
contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44(3), 95-99.
Chang, N. (2011). What are the roles that children's drawings play in inquiry of science
concepts?. Early Child Development and Care, 182(5), 621-637.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 47
Chang, N. (2012). The Role of Drawing in Young Children's Construction of Science Concepts.
Early Childhood Education, 40, 187-193.
Chang, P. (2002). Transmediating through Play and Art in the World of Children.
Transmediation in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy framework (pp. 45-
62). New York: P. Lang.
Daiute, C. (1992). Multimedia Composing: Extending the Resources of Kindergarten to writers
across the grades. Language Arts, 69(4), 250-260.
Doherty, J., & Spindler, L. (n.d.). What Parts of the plant do we eat?. Teacher Preparation
Notes. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/waldron/pdf/PartsOfPlantTeachPrep.pdf
Foreman, G. (2012). The Use of Digital Media in Reggio Emilia. The Hundred Languages of
Children. ; The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. (p. .). Greenwich, Conn:
Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated.
Forman, G., & Fyfe, A. (2012). Negotiated Learning. The Hundred Languages of Children. ; The
Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation. (p. .). Greenwich: Greenwood Publishing
Group, Incorporated.
Gardner, H. (2011). Theory of Multiple Intelligenes. Psychology and the real world: essays
illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 122-130). New York, NY: Worth
Publishers.
Gross, J., Hayne, H., & Drury, T. (2009). Drawing Facilitates Children's Reports Of Factual And
Narrative Information: Implications For Educational Contexts. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 23(7), 953-971.
Hall, E. (2009). Mixed Messages: The Role And Value Of Drawing In Early Education.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 48
International Journal of Early Years Education, 17(3), 179-190.
Hibbing, A., & Rankin-Erickson, J. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand words: Using visual
images to improve comprehension for middle school struggling readers. The Reading
Teacher, 56(8), 758-770.
Hoyt, L. (1992). Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral interactions, and the visual arts to
enhance reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 580-584.
Kirschner, F., Kester, L., & Corbalan, G. (2011). Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning,
task characteristics and learning engagement: The Current State of the Art. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(1), 1-4.
Lara-Alecio, R., Tong, F., Irby, B., Guerrero, C., Huerta, M., & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an
instructional intervention on middle school english learners' science and english reading
achievement . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987-1011.
Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools: lessons to be
learned. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press.
Lengel, J. G., & Lengel, K. M. (2006). Integrating technology: a practical guide. Boston:
Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension:
Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior,
25(2), 284-289.
Losen, D., & Skiba, R. (2010). Suspended Education: Urban Middle Schools in Crisis. The Civil
Rights Project, ., 1-24.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 49
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways To Reduce Cognitive Load In Multimedia
Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
McConnell, S. (1993). Talking Drawings: A strategy for assisting readers. Journal of Reading,
36(4), 260-269.
Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent
Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.
Napoli, M. (2002). Transmediation in the Classroom: Implementing Critical Literacy in
Elementary Grades. Transmediation in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy
framework (pp. 35-43). New York: P. Lang.
Paquette, K. R., Fello, S. E., & Jalongo, M. R. (2007). The Talking Drawings Strategy: Using
Primary Children‟s Illustrations And Oral Language To Improve Comprehension Of
Expository Text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 65-73.
Patterson, T., & Hayne, H. (2011). Does Drawing Facilitate Older Children's Reports Of
Emotionally Laden Events?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 119-26.
Plass, J., O'Keefe, P., Homer, B., Case, J., Hayword, E., Stein, M., et al. (2013). The impact of
individual, competitive. Journal of Educational Psychology, ., 1-17.
Price, B. (2007). Managing technology in our schools: establishing goals and creating a plan.
Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Raine, L., & Lenhart, A. (2002). The Digital Disconnect: The widening gap between internet-
savvy students and their schools. Pew Internet & American Life Project, ., 1-36.
Reich, J., & Daccord, T. (2008). Best ideas for teaching with technology: a practical guide for
teachers, by teachers. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Rockwell, S., & Singleton, R. (2007). The effect of the modality of presentation of streaming
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 50
multimedia on information acquisition. Media Psychology, 9, 179-191.
Rollag, K., & Billsberry, J. (2012). Technology as the Enabler of a New Wave of Active
Learning. Journal of Management Education, 36, 743-752.
Salden, R. J., Paas, F., & Merrienboer, J. J. (2006). A comparison of approaches to learning task
selection in the training of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior,
22(3), 321-333.
Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and
instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations.
Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 89-93.
Scott, V., & Weishaar, M. (2008). Talking Drawings as a University Classroom Assessment
Technique. Journal of Effective Teaching, 8(1), 42-51.
Semali, L. (2002). Transmediation: Why Study the Semiotics of Representation. Transmediation
in the classroom: a semiotics-based media literacy framework (pp. 2-20). New York: P.
Lang.
Short, K., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. (2000). "I just need to draw" Responding to literature
across multiple sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160-171.
Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning.
Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455-475.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., & Nardo, A. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender
disproportionately in school punishment. Policy Research Report, ., 1-23.
Stewart, A., Houghton, S., & Rogers, P. (2012). Instructional Design, Active Learning, and
Student Performance: Using a Trading Room to Teach Strategy . Journal of
Management Education, 36(6), 753-776.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 51
University of Roehampton. Models of Learning, Teaching & Assessment. Guide to Good
Practice in Assessment . Retrieved December 6, 2013, from
http://ws1.roehampton.ac.uk/guidetogoodpracticeinassessment/teachinglearningandasses
sment/learningteaching/index.html
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The Promise and Practice of Learner-Generated Drawing:
Literature Review and Synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285-325.
Vincent, J. (2001). The role of visually rich technology in facilitating children's writing. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 242-250.
Vincent, J. (2003). Individual differences, technology and the teacher of the future. Australia
Computer Society, Inc. 1-4.
Wesson, M., & Salmon, K. (2001). Drawing And Showing: Helping Children To Report
Emotionally Laden Events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(3), 301-319.
Whitin, P. (2002). Leading into Literature Circles through the Sketch-to-Stretch Strategy. The
Reading Teacher, 55(5), 444-450.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 52
Appendix A
Introduction
• This presentation is on the different parts of plants.
• Please read everything on each slide.
• Don’t skip to the next slide until you see the “next button” pop up, which looks like this.
• Follow the instructions on the slides.
• You may look back at skipped slides if you want.
• You will be quizzed on this information so take your time!
• Enjoy!
Slide A1
Plant Parts!(Hit the next button when you’re ready!)
A quick lesson written by Alex Dorman based on Dr. Doherty and Dr. Spindler’s
lesson “What Parts of the Plant do we Eat?”
Slide A3
Stems•Stems can be found either underground or above ground.
•Stems have segments called Nodes.
• The part in between the nodes is the Internode.
•Some nodes are Lateral Buds, which can grow into branches and leaves.
Slide A5
Drawing Instructions
• Some slides will ask you to draw a picture based on what you’re learning.
• Draw whatever comes to mind!
• You must draw something (be creative)!
• You may LABEL your drawings!
• Don’t go to the next slide until the Next Button pops up.
• Have fun with the drawing!
Slide A2
Draw a picture of a plant stem!
Slide A4
Draw a picture of a plant stem with your new knowledge!
Slide A6
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 53
What do Stems do?
• Stems connect the leaves to the roots.
• Stems support the leaves of the plant so the leaves can capture sunlight.
• Some stems are used for storage of nutrients.
Slide A7
Draw a picture of leaves!
Slide A9
Draw a picture of leaves with your new knowledge!
Slide A11
Roots• Roots have two main
functions:
– Holding the plant in place like an anchor.
– Absorbing water and nutrients.
• Some roots serve as a place to store sugars made above ground.
– An examples of a root that does this is carrots.
Slide A13
Draw a picture showing what stems do with your new knowledge!
Slide A8
Leaves
• If a leaf is located above ground, its main goal is to take in sunlight.
• If a leaf is underground, its main goal is to store nutrients.
• The one thing all leaves have in common is the presence of veins.
Slide A10
Draw a picture of Plant Roots!
Slide A12
Draw picture of what roots do with your new knowledge!
Slide A14
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 54
Draw a picture of a flower!
Slide A15
Draw a flower with your new knowledge!
Slide A17
Fruits
• A fruit is defined by having seeds.
• This means that if a plant part has seeds, it is a fruit.
• This means things like pumpkins, cucumbers, and tomatoes are fruits because they have seeds.
Slide A19
Draw a picture of how plant seeds spread!
Slide A21
Flowers• Flowers are the reproductive structures of the
plant, designed to attract pollinators like bees.
• Parts of a flower include:
– The Stamens
– The Pistil
– The Petals
Slide A16
Draw a picture of fruit!
Slide A18
Draw a picture of fruit with your new knowledge!
Slide A20
How Seeds Spread• Fruit is one way for plants to spread their
seeds.
• Fruit is sweet and colorful so animals want to eat it.
• Animals then spread the fruit seeds through their droppings (poop).
Slide A22
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 55
Now draw a picture of seeds spreading with your new knowledge!
Slide A23
Good job you’re done!
Slide A24
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 56
Appendix B
Test on Plant Parts.
Circle the best possible answer
1. On the stem, branches and leaves can grow out of the ________?
a. The Internodes
b. The Nodes
c. The Vertical Bud
d. The Lateral Bud
2. What part of the stem is in between the Nodes?
a. The greater node
b. The internode
c. The lesser node
d. The outernode
3. Name one of the three things stems do for a plant.
a. Connect leaves to the roots
b. Support leaves so they can soak up sunlight
c. Storage for nutrients
d. All of the above
4. A leaf can…
a. Soak up sunlight if aboveground
b. Store nutrients if belowground
c. Neither a nor b
d. Both a and b
5. One feature all leaves have in common is?
a. Veins
b. Being green
c. A stalk
d. Phosphorus
6. Roots work like _________________
a. A float to keep the plants from drowning
b. A repellant to keep bugs away
c. An anchor to hold the plant in place
d. A wire to keep the roots connected to other roots
7. Roots are cable of_____________
a. Testing the soil‟s health
b. Absorbing water and nutrients
c. Defending the plant against toxins
d. Telling the tree when to drop its leaves.
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 57
8. Some roots store sugars that were made above ground. What types of roots do this?
a. Yams
b. Carrots
c. Apples
d. Celery
9. What is the purpose of a flower?
a. To shade the stem from the sun
b. To be more appealing to humans and animals
c. To stop photosynthesis
d. To attract pollinators like bees
10. Which of these answers is not a part of a flower?
a. Stamen
b. Pistil
c. Rhondus
d. Petal
11. Why does fruit tend to be sweet and colorful?
a. To stop predators
b. To encourage animals to eat it
c. Because the sun makes the colors brighter
d. Because the fruit has seeds
12. How are fruit seeds commonly spread naturally?
a. Through animal feces
b. The wind
c. Humans growing fruit trees
d. Through photosynthesis
13. What defines a fruit?
a. Sweet flavor
b. It grows on trees
c. It has seeds
d. It can only grow in a warm climate
14. Which of these is a fruit?
a. A pumpkin
b. Broccoli
c. Cauliflower
d. Celery
15. Which of these is not a fruit?
a. Tomatoes
b. Pumpkins
c. Cucumbers
d. Radish
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 58
Appendix C
Circle the number that shows how you feel about the following statements.
1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Mildly Disagree, 3 Neutral/I don‟t know, 4 Mildly agree, 5 Strongly agree
1. I liked the presentation
1 2 3 4 5
2. The presentation was educational
1 2 3 4 5
3. The presentation was boring
1 2 3 4 5
4. The presentation was enjoyable
1 2 3 4 5
5. The presentation was understandable
1 2 3 4 5
6. The presentation was interesting
1 2 3 4 5
7. I learned a lot from the presentation
1 2 3 4 5
8. I did not learn anything from the presentation
1 2 3 4 5
9. I am comfortable using Microsoft Powerpoint
1 2 3 4 5
10. I am comfortable using the internet
1 2 3 4 5
11. I am comfortable using computers
1 2 3 4 5
12. I have access to the internet at home?
Yes No
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 59
Appendix D
Drawing with Only Prior Knowledge versus Drawing with New Knowledge
Figure D1
Figure D2
TRANSMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY 60
Figure D3
Figure D4