Using quantitative research and survey questionnaire as the research methodology, Yadav et al. looked at the effects of cognitive and affective differences in media formats. The researchers “were interested in studying students’ level of engagement and affective impact of the cases with the different media formats (text, video, or video+text)” (p. 5). The researchers’ conceptual framework was comprised of cognitive processing, cognitive development, learning processing and learning strategies. The research questions surrounded the effects and outcomes of cognitive processing strategies and media emotional responses. The researchers measured the following variables: recall, think aloud and verbal protocol analysis.
The researchers added to the long and complicated debate in that “do technologies make us smarter?” Or, can we learn from media as a technology? Putting this affordance into perspective, the researchers posited that “media do not cause learning, methods causes learning” (p. 2). The researchers presented a comprehensive literature review on media in terms of cognitive learning and processes. In the reference section, many of the journals, books, and other materials were similar in content. The study presented an abstract that tied to the body of study. Critically speaking, though the purpose of the study was implied, there was no phrase stating the purpose of the study. In evaluating the data analysis, the 30 participants who took part in the study were not representative of the general population. Thus, the study has external validity and generalizable flaws. In terms of evaluating the data analysis, the data matched the research design. The training video matched the think aloud protocol. The training video and the questionnaire were the instruments used in the study. Think aloud was used to measure recall and cognitive strategies. The questionnaire measured the emotional effects. The researchers coded the overall study into six overarching schemes and used a multivariate analysis of variance to analyze the data and measure the outcomes. In terms of results, the researchers suggested that “video is more powerful than text in engaging students” (p. 17). In addition, the researchers suggested that content matters and video and text share similar cognitive effects.
This study reflects on the long debate of “do technologies make us smarter.” After reading, summarizing and evaluating this study, I, too believe that technologies do not make us smarter, but methods do make us smarter. However, videos, which is a technology, could have significant cognitive effects “as indicated by the cognitive processing, cognitive dissonance, and recall of information” (p. 21). That said, this is an invaluable source of research. My interest of research is coining the phrase “speech aloud” and undertaking research and uncovering facts that there may be deep learning in speech aloud affordances.