Student Reflection Response to Multimedia An Exploration of Student Reflection as Facilitated by Physics Educational Videos

Abstract

This dissertation considers reflective learning strategies in physics education, specifically addressing student responses to ``linear multimedia" --- in our case, educational videos. It is an analysis of the manners in which students responded to these strategies, and the impact of prompts or questions on their responses. Three exploratory studies on reflective thinking in the context of linear multimedia for physics education were conducted and synthesized within the dissertation. Both multimedia learning and reflective thinking constitute important parts of physics education research (PER), yet there is a gap in the literature at their intersection. Similarly, reflection is ever-present in educational literature, but is rarely explicitly addressed or studied.

Of the three studies conducted as part of this thesis, the first occurred in an informal learning context and the latter two occurred in the context of first year university physics study. All three studies were structured similarly; two videos were each followed by a phase of reflection as outlined by John Dewey. The first video presented physics questions to the students, while the second video provided the solutions. Participants were instructed to write down their answers after watching the first video and to note any modifications to their answers after viewing the second video. The students were asked to provide a reason as to why they did or did not modify their answers.

Three main findings emerged from the research. First, using Dewey's phases to design videos (one with questions and another with solutions) and then asking the students to reflect on their answers, was a simple and effective way of introducing interactivity into a typically non-interactive medium. Second, the vast majority of students modified their answers when their initial answer did not match the solution and did not modify their answers when it did. When prompted, students reported the reasons for opting to modify or not, and these reasons were coded into seven distinct categories. These categories were consistent with those found in the existing literature. Students gave similar reasons for both modifying and not modifying their answers. Third, the types of questions and the incorporation of ``clues" into questions elicited different types of reflection.