Gender Imbalance in Instructional Dynamic Versus Static Visualizations: a Meta-analysis

Studies comparing the instructional effectiveness of dynamic versus static visualizations have produced mixed results. In this work, we investigated whether gender imbalance in the participant samples of these studies may have contributed to the mixed results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized experiments in which groups of students learning through dynamic visualizations were compared to groups receiving static visualizations. Our sample focused on tasks that could be categorized as either biologically secondary tasks (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEM) or biologically primary tasks (manipulative–procedural). The meta-analysis of 46 studies (82 effect sizes and 5474 participants) revealed an overall small-sized effect (g+ = 0.23) showing that dynamic visualizations were more effective than static visualizations. Regarding potential moderators, we observed that gender was influential: the dynamic visualizations were more effective on samples with less females and more males (g+ = 0.36). We also observed that educational level, learning domain, media compared, and reporting reliability measures moderated the results. We concluded that because many visualization studies have used samples with a gender imbalance, this may be a significant factor in explaining why instructional dynamic and static visualizations seem to vary in their effectiveness. Our findings also support considering the gender variable in research about cognitive load theory and instructional visualizations.

[1]  R. Mayer,et al.  Effects of Observing the Instructor Draw Diagrams on Learning from Multimedia Messages. , 2016 .

[2]  L. Hedges,et al.  Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. , 1995, Science.

[3]  Timothy A. Hays,et al.  Spatial Abilities and the Effects of Computer Animation on Short-Term and Long-Term Comprehension , 1996 .

[4]  Fred Paas,et al.  Investigating gender and spatial measurements in instructional animation research , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[5]  John Sweller,et al.  Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Using Computer Animated Graphics in Science Instruction with Children , 1990 .

[7]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning , 2012 .

[8]  Olusola O. Adesope,et al.  Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing , 2017 .

[9]  M. Linn,et al.  Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. , 1985, Child development.

[10]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? , 2007 .

[11]  C. Heyes,et al.  Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[12]  Fred Paas,et al.  Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: Three potential moderators of effectiveness , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[13]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities , 2009 .

[14]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  D. Uttal,et al.  The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. , 2013, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Using multimedia for e-learning , 2017, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[17]  Anthony E. Richardson,et al.  Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning , 2006 .

[18]  Eric Jamet,et al.  Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[20]  T. B. Garland,et al.  Rotational perspective and learning procedural tasks from dynamic media , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[21]  Josefa N. S. Pandeirada,et al.  Adaptive memory: Animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning , 2015, Memory.

[22]  Lih-Juan ChanLin.  Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[23]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension , 2018, Educational Research Review.

[24]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[25]  A. Jaffar,et al.  YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education , 2012, Anatomical sciences education.

[26]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  Tania B. Huedo-Medina,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? , 2006, Psychological methods.

[28]  Fred Paas,et al.  Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Sevil Akaygun,et al.  Using Static and Dynamic Visuals to Represent Chemical Change at Molecular Level , 2005 .

[30]  D. Lewalter.  Cognitive Strategies for Learning from Static and Dynamic Visuals , 2003 .

[31]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures , 1999 .

[32]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction , 1992 .

[33]  S V Thompson,et al.  The effect of animated diagrams on the understanding of a mathematical demonstration in 11- to 14-year-old pupils. , 1990, The British journal of educational psychology.

[34]  Mehmet Tekdal,et al.  The Effect of an Example-Based Dynamic Program Visualization Environment on Students' Programming Skills , 2013, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[35]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  Educating the evolved mind : conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology , 2007 .

[36]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education , 2009 .

[37]  Sahana Murthy,et al.  When does higher degree of interaction lead to higher learning in visualizations? Exploring the role of 'Interactivity Enriching Features' , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Eugene Sam Paik,et al.  Learning with Animation and the Illusion of Understanding. , 2013 .

[39]  D. Voyer,et al.  Motor expertise and performance in spatial tasks: A meta-analysis. , 2017, Human movement science.

[40]  Tim N. Höffler,et al.  The Influence of Visual Cognitive Style when Learning from Instructional Animations and Static Pictures. , 2010 .

[41]  T. Höffler.  Spatial Ability: Its Influence on Learning with Visualizations—a Meta-Analytic Review , 2010 .

[42]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction , 1998 .

[43]  Nora S. Newcombe,et al.  Sex differences in spatial ability and spatial activities , 1983 .

[44]  Hsiao-Ching She,et al.  The effects of static versus dynamic 3D representations on 10th grade students' atomic orbital mental model construction: Evidence from eye movement behaviors , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Fred Paas,et al.  Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: Don't overplay the hand , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[46]  Fred Paas,et al.  Gender Effects When Learning Manipulative Tasks From Instructional Animations and Static Presentations , 2015, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[47]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[48]  F. Paas,et al.  An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks , 2012 .

[49]  Francis M. Dwyer,et al.  The effect of static and animated visualization: a perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency , 2010 .

[50]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[51]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[52]  Chih-Fu Wu,et al.  Effectiveness of applying 2D static depictions and 3D animations to orthographic views learning in graphical course , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[53]  Huifen Lin,et al.  Facilitating Learning from Animated Instruction: Effectiveness of Questions and Feedback as Attention-directing Strategies , 2011, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[54]  N. Newcombe,et al.  Building Blocks for Developing Spatial Skills: Evidence From a Large, Representative U.S. Sample , 2015, Psychological science.

[55]  Paul Ayres,et al.  Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

[57]  Susan D. Voyer,et al.  Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[58]  David C. Geary,et al.  Reflections of evolution and culture in children's cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction. , 1995 .

[59]  Noah L. Schroeder,et al.  Variation in external representations as part of the classroom lecture:An investigation of virtual cell animations in introductory photosynthesis instruction* , 2017, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[60]  Andy Bevilacqua,et al.  Commentary: Should Gender Differences be Included in the Evolutionary Upgrade to Cognitive Load Theory? , 2017 .

[61]  Dianne C. Berry,et al.  Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations , 2000 .

[62]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[63]  Ruth N. Schwartz,et al.  Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[64]  Aurélia Bugaiska,et al.  Animates are better remembered than inanimates: further evidence from word and picture stimuli , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[65]  Anna Wong,et al.  Should hand actions be observed when learning hand motor skills from instructional animations? , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[66]  John C. Nesbit,et al.  Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration , 2013 .

[67]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[68]  Zlatan Krizan,et al.  Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. , 2015, The American psychologist.

[69]  Peter Gerjets,et al.  How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns , 2012 .

[70]  Gaëlle Molinari,et al.  How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[71]  O. Hyder,et al.  Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[72]  M. Brass,et al.  Automatic Imitation: A Meta-Analysis , 2018, Psychological bulletin.

[73]  Min Liu,et al.  The impact of animation interactivity on novices' learning of introductory statistics , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[74]  Fred Paas,et al.  Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach , 2007 .

[75]  Sotaro Shimada,et al.  Modulation of motor area activity during observation of unnatural body movements , 2012, Brain and Cognition.

[76]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations - Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[77]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text comprehension , 2014 .

[78]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[79]  David N. Rapp,et al.  How Visual Displays Affect Cognitive Processing , 2017 .

[80]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: Effects of presentation format and realism , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[81]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students , 1995 .

[82]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[83]  Emmanuel Schneider,et al.  Static and Animated Presentations in Learning Dynamic Mechanical Systems. , 2009 .

[84]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[85]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  Does Animation Amplify the Modality Effect – or is there any Modality Effect at All? , 2011 .

[86]  Robert W. Swezey,et al.  Effects of Instructional Strategy and Motion Presentation Conditions on the Acquisition and Transfer of Electromechanical Troubleshooting Skill , 1991 .

[87]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[88]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Aligning Affordances of Graphics with Learning Task Requirements , 2011 .

[89]  Selen Turkay,et al.  The effects of whiteboard animations on retention and subjective experiences when learning advanced physics topics , 2016 .

[90]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning , 2007 .

[91]  Anastasios A. Economides,et al.  The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students' science motivation and achievement , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[92]  W. Matthews,et al.  Memory for moving and static images , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[93]  F. Paas,et al.  Computerized and Adaptable Tests to Measure Visuospatial Abilities in STEM Students , 2017 .

[94]  D. Geary,et al.  Reflections of evolution and culture in children's cognition. Implications for mathematical development and instruction. , 1995, The American psychologist.

[95]  Chun-Yen Chang,et al.  Comparison of Different Instructional Multimedia Designs for Improving Student Science-Process Skill Learning , 2012 .

[96]  Joachim Wirth,et al.  The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[97]  Stephan Schwan,et al.  Task-appropriate visualizations: Can the very same visualization format either promote or hinder learning depending on the task requirements? , 2016 .

[98]  Jan L. Plass,et al.  Click versus drag: User-performed tasks and the enactment effect in an interactive multimedia environment , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[99]  Diane F. Halpern,et al.  Improved matrix reasoning is limited to training on tasks with a visuospatial component , 2013 .

[100]  Sandra Berney,et al.  Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[101]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[102]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation , 1991 .

[103]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

[104]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.