Examining the Effects of Gender and Presentation Mode on Learning from a Multimedia Presentation
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
Visual presentation modes in multimedia learning include pictures, video, and animations. Research also reveals cognitive differences between males and females (Halpern, 2004). Which one of the presentation modes is more effective? Can one of these presentation modes be more effective for a specific gender? This study aimed to investigate the role of gender and presentation mode in multimedia learning. Participants were 72 university students randomly assigned to one of the two different versions of a computer-based multimedia program (narration with animation vs. narration with static images). A 2 × 2 factorial design is created by crossing gender and presentation mode (animation vs. static image). Dependent measures consisted of a transfer and a comprehension test. The results showed a significant modality by gender interaction on the comprehension test. Females performed better studying animations, whereas males performed better studying static pictures. The results are interpreted in light of multimedia learning principles and studies in the area of gender differences in learning. The important contribution of this study is the suggestion that individual differences such as gender should be considered in multimedia learning.
Downloads
References
Ayers, P. L., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135-146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefBaddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Google Scholar CrossrefBaddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
Google Scholar CrossrefBaenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989). The role of experience in spatial test performance: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 20, 327-344
Google Scholar CrossrefBerk, L. E. (2005) Infants, children, and adolescents (5th ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Google Scholar CrossrefBerk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–21.
Google Scholar CrossrefBosco, A., Longoni, A., & Vecchi, T. (2004). Gender effect in spatial orientation: Cognitive profiles and mental strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 519-532.
Google Scholar CrossrefCollins, D. W., & Kimura, D. (1997). A large sex difference on a two-dimensional rotation task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 111(4), 845-849.
Google Scholar CrossrefClark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
Google Scholar CrossrefDong, Y., & Li, R. (2011). The reflection for multimedia teaching. Asian Social Science, 7(2), 165-167.
Google Scholar CrossrefDraper, S., & Anderson, A. (1991). The significant of dialogue in learning and observing learning. Computers & Education, 17, 93-107.
Google Scholar CrossrefFlores, R., Coward, F.L., & Crooks. S. (2011). Examining the influence of gender on
Google Scholar Crossrefthe modality effect. Journal of Educational Technology System, 39(1), 87-103.
Google Scholar CrossrefGrimley, M. (2007). Learning from multimedia materials: The relative impact of individual differences. Educational Psychology, 27, 465-485.
Google Scholar CrossrefGinns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 113-331.
Google Scholar CrossrefHalpern, D.F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlnaum.
Google Scholar CrossrefHalpern, D.F. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 135-139.
Google Scholar CrossrefHarper, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: One the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
Google Scholar CrossrefHarper, S. F. & Mayer, R. E. (1997). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
Google Scholar CrossrefHerlitz, A, Nelsson, L.G. , & Backman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory. Memory and Cognition, 25, 801-811.
Google Scholar CrossrefHildyard, A. and Olson, D. R. (1982). On the comprehension of oral vs written discourse. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and Literacy (pp.19-24). Norwood, N.J: Ablex
Google Scholar CrossrefHoeffler, T., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722 -738.
Google Scholar CrossrefJonassen, D.H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instructions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar CrossrefKalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40 (1), 1-17.
Google Scholar CrossrefKim, S. S., Yoon, M. M., Whang, S. M., Tversky, B. B., & Morrison, J. B. (2007). The effect of animation on comprehension and interest. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(3), 260-270. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00219.x
Google Scholar CrossrefKimura, D. (1999) Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefLai, Y., Tsai, H., & Yu, P. (2009). A multimedia English learning system using HMMs to Improve phonemic awareness for English learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 266-281.
Google Scholar CrossrefLanza, A., & Roselli, T. (1991). Effects of hypertextual approach versus structured approach on students’ achievement. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction,18(2), 48-50.
Google Scholar CrossrefLezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological Assessments(3rd ed.).New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefLin, H. (2011). Facilitating Learning from Animated Instruction: Effectiveness of Questions and Feedback as Attention-directing Strategies. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 31-42.
Google Scholar CrossrefLin, H. & Dwyer, F. M. (2010). The effect of static and animated visualization: a perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(2), 155-174.
Google Scholar CrossrefMaccoby, E. & Jacklin, C. (1974). The Psychology of Sex differences. Standford, Calif: Standford University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMann, B. L. (1997). Evaluation of presentation modalities in a hypermedia system. Computers Education, 28(2), 133-143.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1978). Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 880-886.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 371-383.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of learning strategies hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 770-784.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. . Computing Surveys, 13, 121-141.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1983). Can you read that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advanced organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40-49.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 611-624.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). UK: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning & Instruction, 13, 125-139.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93 (1), 187-198.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E., & Massa, L.J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learner: Cognitive ability, cognitive style and learning preferences. Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 833-846.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43-52.
Google Scholar CrossrefMayer, R.E., & Sim, V.K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extension of a dual coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.
Google Scholar CrossrefMcGee, M.G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychomentrix studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bullentin, 86, 899-918.
Google Scholar CrossrefMerritt, P., Hirshamn, E., Wharton, W., Stangl, B., Devlin, J., & Lenz, A. (2007). Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Personality and Individual Difference, 43, 597-609.
Google Scholar CrossrefMoreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
Google Scholar CrossrefMullis, I.V. S., Martin, M.O., Gonzalez, E., & Kennedy, A.M. (2003). PIRLS 2001 International Report: IEA’s study of reading literacy achievement in primary schools. Available online at http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2001i/PIRL2001_Pubs_IR.html
Google Scholar CrossrefNeo, M. & Neo,T. (2009). Engaging students in multimedia-mediated constructivist learning - Students' perceptions. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254-266.
Google Scholar CrossrefPaivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Google Scholar CrossrefPaivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefPaivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
Google Scholar CrossrefParette Jr., H. P., Hourcade, J., & Blum, C. (2011). Using Animation in Microsoft PowerPoint to Enhance Engagement and Learning in Young Learners With Developmental Delay. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 58-67.
Google Scholar CrossrefPenny, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398-422.
Google Scholar CrossrefQuaiser-Pohl, C., & Lehmann, W. (2002). Girls’ spatial abilities: Charting the contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 245-260.
Google Scholar CrossrefRichardson, J.T.E. (1994). Gender differences in mental rotation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78,435-448.
Google Scholar CrossrefRiding, R.J., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender, and learning from multimedia materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 43-56.
Google Scholar CrossrefRobinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455-467.
Google Scholar CrossrefRobinson, D. H., & Molina (2002). The relative involvement of visual and auditory working memory when studying adjunct displays. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 118-131.
Google Scholar CrossrefRuggiero, G., Sergi, I., & Iachini, T. (2008). Gender differences in remembering and inferring spatial distances. Memory, 16, 821-835.
Google Scholar CrossrefRummer, R., Schweppe, J., Furstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brunken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 164-176.
Google Scholar CrossrefSadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001) Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100-110.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchüeler, A., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Rummer, R. (2008a). Does a lack of contiguity with visual text cause the modality effect in multimedia learning? In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2353-2358). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Google Scholar CrossrefSweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
Google Scholar CrossrefSweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
Google Scholar Crossrefinstructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
Google Scholar CrossrefTabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
Google Scholar CrossrefTan, U., Okuyan, M, Bayraktar, T, & Akgun, A. (2002). Sex difference in perceptual-verbal ability in relation to body size. International Journal of Neroscience, 112, 953-957.
Google Scholar CrossrefTaylor, M. M., Pountney, D. D., & Malabar, I. I. (2007). Animation as an aid for the teaching of mathematical concepts. Journal of Further & Higher Education, 31(3), 249-261.
Google Scholar CrossrefVogel-Walcutt, J.J. Gebrim, J. B., & Nicholson, D. (2010). Animated versus static images of team processes to affect knowledge acquisition and learning efficiency. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 1-11.
Google Scholar CrossrefWouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 1-8.
Google Scholar CrossrefYeu, H.K., & Goetz, E.T. (1994). Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and good readers: A test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(2), 178-188.
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
