Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!kishan_s
From: kishan_s@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Sandeep Kishan)
Newsgroups: comp.ivideodisc
Subject: Re: research on interactive learning
Message-ID: <3361@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 20 Nov 89 19:35:52 GMT
References: <29767@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: kishan_s@jhunix.UUCP (Sandeep Kishan)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Lines: 28

In article <29767@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> houghton@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Ric) writes:
>
>  What sort of research has been done in the area of interactive learning
>  vs. convential?  
>
>  I've heard of only one group that has compared the two.  They developed
>  a sign language package designed around a professors undergraduate
>  course. They tested the students rate of learning and their level of 
>  retension.  Results: students did not have better retension, but they 
>  picked up the material 30% faster.
>

In a high school foreign language environment, (I spent the past two summers
developing software using IAV technology), we noticed the same results:

    1.  Learning is more interesting because it is different and stimulates
        the senses more.  Thus, students payed more attention and learned 
        material faster.

    2.  On the other hand, we found that IAV cannot replace conventional
        learning techniques entirely.  The students require the same amount
        of drill as before to mainatin retention.  They learn the material
        fine, but IAV does not work on memory skills:  the technology is only
        as good as the educational system already in place behind it.

Best wishes,
Sandeep Kishan
KISHAN_S@JHUNIX.HCF.JHU.EDU