The exception was kinesthetic learner #13. Her media choices and time online were the second highest for the population. Yet, her score dropped. A closer look at the individual tracker data offers some clues into this anomaly. Consider learner #2. who tallied over 20 minutes online, selected the most media and had the widest margin of score from pre-test to treatment, 0 to 4 correct answers. This supports the premise that more media, and specifically visual media, along with the increased time, had a positive impact on results. However, his time-span was closely matched by kinesthetic learner #13, another remediated student. She recorded more than 19 minutes online, her media selection was second highest but her score dropped from 5 to 4 correct vocabulary answers.

In a 1993 study (Aust, Kelley, and Roby, cited in Roby 1999), the term "consultation trigger point" was coined to describe how subjects using online glosses look up significantly more words than subjects not online. Najjar (1996) in a study on distracted learners in a multimedia experience stated "they must be able to avoid getting distracted by the nonverbal media" (p136).  Even though Roby (1999) suggested that glosses "online" appeared to lessen the disruption of the reading process, he cautioned that "click happy" behavior needed to be discouraged. This type of activity could explain the lowered treatment score of kinesthetic learner #13.

Though she selected 42 media cues, 8 graphic, 6 video, 19 definition, 7 pronunciation and 2 ìPlay this pageî, the tracker data reveals a possible ìclick-happyî handling of the interaction. For example, her use of the definition option was utilized disproportionately, even in relation to others. It seemed odd that such a highly kinesthetic, movement oriented student (see Table 4.1) would be attracted to text based definitions. It certainly called into question the quality of her interaction.

On one occasion within 17 seconds she had reselected the textual explanation for ìrhumeî 12 times. (see Table 6.1)
The same pattern can also be seen with the word ìmorveî. She referenced the definition 4 times within 6 seconds. (see Table 6.2)

From this pattern of use, it would seem she was more intent on reselecting the cues than actually reading them. Even with movement oriented cues like those offered in the videos and graphics, the tracker data picked up a lack of focus on her part. From the 8 pictures she referenced, 5 were for one word ìse raconterî and two were for the word ìslinkyî. Neither of these items was on the test. For 3 of the 4 words she had correct in the treatment, she did not refer to any glosses. The other correct vocabulary item, ìéternueî had a video option which she used twice.

These findings indicate that her high level of media interaction as well as the large amount of time expended, were of questionable quality. The tracker data highlight her ìclick-happyî behavior, reflect the poor quality of her time spent online and can explain her poor test results. Blake (1992) offered a similar perspective that stressed the importance of prudent searches over compulsive ones. As was suggested by Ross and Shultz (1999), she might have been better focused with a more guided approach. This is discussed in greater detail later.

The pattern of activity shown by the other kinesthetic child, learner #4, was not the same. His test scores and media interaction were more in line with those of the visual learner group who used few media cues, video and graphic media in general and definition options in particular. Pertinent to this observation, his Learning Styles Inventory results show that the kinesthetic and visual scores were separated by a single point (see Table 4.1). This may explain the interaction similarities with visual learners during the treatment. His comparable strength in the visual modality may have had a moderating effect on the kinesthetic channel causing less dramatic results than those evidenced with his kinesthetic counterpart.
 

Return to home page