Table 5.
Summary of Evaluation methods of multimedia technology Tools in education.
| Publication | Focus area | Evaluation method | Target group | Sample size | Outcome | Limitations | General-izable outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akinoso (2018) | Mathematics | Experimental investigation | Secondary school students | 60 | Multimedia aids the teaching of mathematics | Duration of the experiment was not stated. Two schools were chosen randomly, no definite number of sample size per group. |
No |
| Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami (2017) | Physiology | Survey (online) | 2nd year University Students | 231 | Technology affects students achievements | Study focused on students' interaction with curricular content, administrators, instructors, and other related personnel not considered. | Yes |
| Aloraini (2012) | Education | Experimental - comparison with traditional method | University female students | 40 (20 students for each group) | Significant difference observed between the average marks of the two methods | 40 out of 400 female students were used for the study, representing only 10%. | No |
| Barzegar et al. (2012) | General course | Survey | University students | 234 | The amount of students learning significantly increased compared to traditional method. | Multimedia has no effect on participation and responsibility, team work, self- esteem and democracy skills of the students. | No |
| Chen and Xia (2012) | Physical education studies | Survey | Professor interview | Undisclosed | Multimedia has positive influence on college physical education. | The paper did not provide the methodology, sample space or size. | No |
| Dalacosta et al. (2009) | Science | Experimental (using animated cartoons) | 10–11 years | 179 | Motivations to learning aid to young people. | The scope of the multimedia solution is narrow. | Yes |
| Ilhan and Oruc (2016) | Social science | Experimental:-Teaching with multimedia -Teaching without multimedia |
4th grade students | 67 | Multimedia technique increased the academic success. | Single lesson within social studies curriculum was considered Both groups were chosen randomly, no definite number of sample size per group. |
No |
| Kaptan and İzgi (2014) | Science | Experimental (using animated cartoons) | Elementary school | 76 | Significant difference was determined in favour of post-test scores | Quasi experimental design was adopted and no control group used for the testing. | No |
| Maaruf and Siraj (2013) | Visual Art Education | Survey: in-depth interview | Secondary school teachers | 2 | Multimedia usage resulted in accelerated teaching and learning processes. | Very small sample size. | No |
| Manca and Ranieri (2016) | General Education | Survey | Academic staff | 6,139 | Restriction and limit on the use of social media among the academics | Low level of response rate, i.e. 10.5%. | No |
| Milovanovi et al. (2013) | Mathematics classes | Experimental: -Teaching with multimedia -Teaching without multimedia |
University students | 50 (25 each for experimental and control groups) | Experimental group had significantly higher scores | Only two lessons considered: Isometric transformations and regular polyhedral. | No |
| Shah and Khan (2015) | Science | Experimental: multimedia-aided teaching (MAT) | Elementary students | 60 (30 students for each group) | Learners become active participants | No significant difference observed in academic performance. | No |
| Ocepek et al. (2013) | General studies | Survey | Students | 272 | Students prefer structured texts with colour discrimi-nation. | No experiment undertaken to validate the outcome. | Yes |