Multimodal representations in collaborative history learning

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on the question: How does making and connecting different types of multimodal representations affect the collaborative learning process and the acquisition of a chronological frame of reference in 12 to 14-year olds in pre vocational education? A chronological frame of reference is the knowledge base used when reasoning about history, and consists of phenomena, temporal and causal relations, and concepts. The learning materials used in all three studies reported on dealt with the Early Middle Ages (500 to 1000 AD). Study 1 answers the question: What are the effects of the general type of co-constructed representation – textual, multimodal, or integrated multimodal – on the acquisition of a chronological-conceptual frame of reference? Eighty-five pupils worked in pairs in one of three conditions (Text, Visual (multimodal), or Timeline (multimodal timeline)) on four tasks on the decline of the Roman Empire (process diagram), the effects of the fall of the Roman Empire (network chart), manorialism (structure diagram), and the spread of Christianity and Islam (cartograms). Results show that working on multimodal representations integrated in a timeline leads to higher short-term results than co-constructing textual representations. Study 2 answers two questions. What are the effects of the collaborative completion and construction of integrated multimodal representations versus textual representations on the content of the student dialogue? And: Are there any differences in domain-specific content of the student dialogue between collaborative completion and construction of different types of multimodal representations – structure diagram, network chart, process diagram, or cartogram? The dialogues for Task 2 were analysed for 20 Text and Timeline dyads. The Timeline condition showed more discussion about content and procedures. Analyses of 10 Timeline dyads showed a higher proportion of content, more historical concepts, and a higher proportion of content referring to visual elements for the storyboard/process diagram task. Discussing content referring to schemas and/or pictures and using concepts correlate positively with learning outcomes. Study 3 answers the question: What are the effects of combining text and different types of visualisations – abstract and concrete – in collaborative history tasks on learning historical phenomena and concepts? After reading a text, 52 student pairs performed a learning task in one of four conditions: Textual, Concrete visualised, Abstract visualised, or Combined. Test results showed no significant differences. Motivation and perceived competence were higher in the Concrete condition. Several conclusions can be drawn from this. Learning with multimodal representations without integration in a timeline does not result in higher learning outcomes than learning with textual representations. Learning with multimodal representations integrated in a timeline resulted in higher short-term learning outcomes than learning with textual representations. Compared to learning with textual representations, learning with multimodal tasks integrated in a timeline elicits more interaction in general and more auxiliary content utterances in particular. Discussing content by referring to visual elements and using more historical concepts are positively related to short-term learning outcomes. Learning with either concrete or abstract multimodal representations, or a combination of concrete and abstract multimodal representations does not result in higher learning outcomes than learning with textual representations.