ACTIVE VS. PASSIVE: WHICH IS THE BEST COMMAND INSTRUCTIONS FOR MACHINE’S VIDEO TUTORIAL?

 

Hanif Aqil AZHAR1, Ahmad Firdaus ABDULLAH1, Mohd Raziff MAT HASSAN2, Ammar ADNAN3, Radin Zaid RADIN UMAR4, Siby SAMUEL5, Mohd Hanafi ANI1, Malek HAMID1, *

 

1Department of Manufacturing and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2 Faculty of Science & Technology Open University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

3SimplyErgo Consultancy, Kedah, Malaysia

4Faculty of Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia

5Department of System Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada

 

* Corresponding Author: abdmalek@iium.edu.my

 

ABSTRACT

 

The application of video tutorial as educational pedagogy is a great learning method, especially for engineering students. Currently, in engineering field, there is no specific instruction on types of command used for machinery video tutorial. Hence, for this study the aim is to obtain the preferable type of command of instruction for learning engineering machinery. In order to achieve the aim, the following objectives need to be met: (i) To evaluate the effect of active and passive voice as the command of instruction of machine’s video tutorial on overall hands-on learning performance and; (ii) To evaluate the effect of active and passive voice as the command of instruction of machine’s video tutorial on hands-on learning performance on specific criteria – safety, equipment, procedure, and housekeeping. Thirty-two undergraduate students were recruited and randomly assigned into two groups – Active and Passive. Eight video tutorials embedded with active and passive voice were developed for the participants to watch and then four set of assessment test were designed to assess participant hands-on learning performance based on the tutorials. Overall, there was a significant different in the scores for Active group (M = 10.938, SD = 0.704) and Passive group (M = 9.281, SD = 1.110) conditions; t (16) = 5.040, p < 0.0001. Based on criteria – in housekeeping, there is a significant different between Active group (M = 2.875, SD = 0.289) and Passive group (M = 1.781, SD = 0.856) conditions; t (16) = 4.844, p < 0.0001. In safety, there is marginally significant different between Active group (M = 2.938, SD = 0.250) and Passive group (M = 2.688, SD = 0.479) conditions; t (16) = 1.852, p = 0.077. In equipment, there is no significant different between Active group (M = 2.875, SD = 0.342) and Passive group (M = 2.781, SD = 0.407) conditions; t (16) = 0.706, p = 0.486. In procedure, there is no significant different between Active group (M= 2.250, SD = 0.577) and Passive group (M = 2.031, SD = 0.427) conditions; t (16) = 1.219. p = 0.233. These findings show that, using active voice in video tutorial do improve the hands-on learning performance, especially in the housekeeping and safety aspect.

 

Keywords: Machine’s tutorial, Active voice, Passive voice, Video tutorial, Hands-on, Learning performance

 

FULL TEXT PDF