Examining the Effects of Gender and Presentation Mode on Learning from a Multimedia Presentation

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 A— 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.

[1]  E. Hirshman,et al.  Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention , 2007 .

[2]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Advance organizers that compensate for the organization of text. , 1978 .

[3]  Steven M. Crooks,et al.  Examining the Influence of Gender on the Modality Effect , 2010 .

[4]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer , 1999 .

[5]  T. Iachini,et al.  Gender differences in remembering and inferring spatial distances , 2008, Memory.

[6]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .

[7]  A. Paivio.  Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

[8]  M. Grimley.  Learning from Multimedia Materials: The relative impact of individual differences , 2007 .

[9]  Anne Schueler,et al.  Does a lack of contiguity with visual text cause the modality effect in multimedia learning , 2008 .

[10]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. , 1983 .

[11]  H. P. Parette,et al.  Using Animation in Microsoft PowerPoint to Enhance Engagement and Learning in Young Learners with Developmental Delay , 2011 .

[12]  Paul Ginns.  Meta-Analysis of the Modality Effect. , 2005 .

[13]  A. Herlitz,et al.  Gender differences in episodic memory , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Elaboration techniques that increase the meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. , 1980 .

[15]  Pao-Ta Yu,et al.  A Multimedia English Learning System Using HMMs to Improve Phonemic Awareness for English Learning , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[16]  L. E. Berk,et al.  Infants, Children, and Adolescents , 1992 .

[17]  Rongchun Li,et al.  The Reflection for Multimedia Teaching , 2011 .

[18]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Working Memory Interference During Processing Texts and Pictures: Implications for the Explanation of the Modality Effect , 2010 .

[19]  A. Paivio,et al.  Dual coding theory and education , 1991 .

[20]  Claudia Quaiser-Pohl,et al.  Girls' spatial abilities: charting the contributions of experiences and attitudes in different academic groups. , 2002, The British journal of educational psychology.

[21]  Andrea Bosco,et al.  Gender effects in spatial orientation: cognitive profiles and mental strategies , 2004, Applied cognitive psychology.

[22]  Mark Taylor,et al.  Animation as an aid for the teaching of mathematical concepts , 2007 .

[23]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[24]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[25]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Can Advance Organizers Influence Meaningful Learning? , 1979 .

[26]  D. Kimura.  Sex and cognition , 1999 .

[27]  M. G. McGee.  Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  C. Penney.  Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[29]  J T Richardson,et al.  Gender Differences in Mental Rotation , 1994, Perceptual and motor skills.

[30]  Mai Neo,et al.  Engaging Students in Multimedia-mediated Constructivist Learning - Students' Perceptions , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

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

[32]  A. Paivio.  Imagery and verbal processes , 1972 .

[33]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction , 1993 .

[34]  D. O. Hebb,et al.  The role of experience , 1961 .

[35]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: Frontmatter , 2001 .

[36]  N. Newcombe,et al.  The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis , 1989 .

[37]  H. Tabbers,et al.  Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. , 2004, The British journal of educational psychology.

[38]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Psychology of How Novices Learn Computer Programming , 1981, CSUR.

[39]  Fred Paas,et al.  Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer , 2009 .

[40]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

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

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

[43]  Richard Riding,et al.  Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi-media materials in 11-year-old children , 1999, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[44]  R. Mayer,et al.  The Role of Interest in Learning From Scientific Text and Illustrations: On the Distinction Between Emotional Interest and Cognitive Interest , 1997 .

[45]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  The Relative Involvement of Visual and Auditory Working Memory When Studying Adjunct Displays , 2002 .

[46]  Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt,et al.  Animated versus Static Images of Team Processes to Affect Knowledge Acquisition and Learning Efficiency , 2010 .

[47]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[48]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[49]  Diane F. Halpern,et al.  A Cognitive-Process Taxonomy for Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities , 2004 .

[50]  Bruce L. Mann,et al.  Evaluation of presentation modalities in a hypermedia system , 1997, Comput. Educ..

[51]  R. Mayer,et al.  Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preference. , 2003 .

[52]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  The effect of animation on comprehension and interest , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[53]  E. Goetz,et al.  Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and good readers: a test of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis , 1994 .

[54]  E. Maccoby,et al.  The Psychology of Sex Differences , 1974 .

[55]  Mark Sadoski,et al.  Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing , 2000 .

[56]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[57]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[58]  Ronald A. Berk,et al.  Multimedia Teaching with Video Clips: TV, Movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the College Classroom , 2009 .

[59]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. , 2001 .

[60]  D. Halpern.  Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities , 1986 .

[61]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. , 1995 .

[62]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[63]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning , 2010 .

[64]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[65]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .