Document Type



Doctor of Education (EdD)


Higher Education

First Advisor's Name

Janice R. Sandiford

First Advisor's Committee Title

Committee Chair

Second Advisor's Name

Paul A. Rendulic

Third Advisor's Name

Joyce Peterson

Date of Defense



The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of multimedia instruction on achievement of college students in AMH 2010 from exploration and discovery to1865. A non-equivalent control group design was used. The dependent variable was achievement. The independent variables were learning styles method of instruction, and visual clarifiers (notes). The study was conducted using two history sections from Palm Beach Community College, in Boca Raton, Florida, between August and December, 1998. Data were obtained by means of placement scores, posttests, the Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS), and a researcher-developed student survey. Statistical analysis of the data was done using SPSS statistical software. Demographic variables were compared using Chi square. T tests were run on the posttests to determine the equality of variances. The posttest scores of the groups were compared using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) at the .05 level of significance. The first hypothesis there is a significant difference in students' learning of U.S. History when students receive multimedia instruction was supported, F = (1, 52)= 688, p < .0005, and F = (1, 53) = 8.52, p < .005for Tests 2 and 3, respectively. The second hypothesis there is a significant difference on the effectiveness of multimedia instruction based on students' various learning preferences was not supported. The last hypotheses there is a significant difference on students' learning of U.S. History when students whose first language is other than English and students who need remediation receive visual clarifiers were not supported. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated no difference between the groups on Test 1, Test 2, or Test 3: F (1, 4 5)= .01, p < .940, F (l, 52) = .77, p < .385, and F (1,53) =.17, p > .678, respectively, for language. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated no significant difference on Test 1, Test 2, or Test 3, between the groups on the variable remediation: F (1, 45) = .31, p < .580, F (1, 52) = 1.44, p < .236, and F (1, 53) = .21, p < .645, respectively.




If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.



Rights Statement

Rights Statement

In Copyright. URI:
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).