Multimedia Learning: Contributions of Learners’ Verbal Abilities and Presentation Modalities

Sunjung Kim, Linda J. Lombardino

Abstract


In the current investigation, two studies were designed to examine the effects of learner’s individual cognitive differences and presentation types on students’ learning, using an experimental research design. Prior to the participation in one of two studies, college students were tested on measures of verbal ability, visual memory, and background knowledge. In the first study, 114 students were presented with narration-based lessons (narration + image or narration-only) while in the second study, 190 students were presented with text-based lessons (text + image, text + image + narration, or text-only) followed by comprehension questions. In both studies, verbal ability was a strong concurrent predictor of learning outcomes irrespective of the type of instructional media. Behavioral and eye-gaze data indicated that multimedia presentations resulted in better learning outcome than single media presentations both in the narration-based and text-based conditions and that redundant presentations of information did not improve learning. Findings support the use of multimedia instructional platforms in conjunction with strengthening students’ verbal skills. 

https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.1.6


Keywords


multimedia; verbal ability; retention; transfer knowledge; eye gaze

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1396

Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., Rapp, D. N., & Spiro, A. B. (2006). Learning procedures: The role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 917–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1236

Chiu, T. K. F., & Churchill, D. (2015). Exploring the characteristics of an optimal design of digital materials for concept learning in mathematics: Multimedia learning and variation theory. Computers & Education, 82, 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.001

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01320076

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (4th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cohn, N., Taylor, R., & Pederson, K. (2017). A picture is worth more words over time: Multimodality and narrative structure across eight decades of American superhero comics. Multimodal Communication, 6(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0003

Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979

Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1951). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression, II. Biometrika, 30(3/4), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332325

Gary, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two Decades of Structure Building. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 265–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544994

Gernsbacher, M. A. (2016). Language comprehension as structure building. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R. W., Palladino, P., & Werner, N. K. (2004). Managing Mental Representations During Narrative Comprehension. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3702_4

Goetz, E. T., Sadoski, M., Stricker, A. G., White, T. S., & Wang, Z. (2007). The role of imagery in the production of written definitions. Reading Psychology, 28(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710601186381

Goolsby, R. D., & Sadoski, M. (2013). A theoretical approach to improving patient education through written materials. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 1(19), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03355232

Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7

Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2011). Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: Effects of presentation format and realism. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1961–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.004

Jared, D., Poh, R. P. Y., & Paivio, A. (2013). L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin–English bilinguals: A test of bilingual dual coding theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000685

Jessen, F., Heun, R., Erb, M., Granath, D.-O., Klose, U., Papassotiropoulos, A., & Grodd, W. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 74(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2340

Jones, L. C. (2009). Supporting student differences in listening comprehension and vocabulary learning with multimedia annotations. CALICO Journal; San Marcos, 26(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v26i2.267-289

Kalyuga, S. (2005). Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (1st ed., pp. 325–338). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, S., Wiseheart, R., & Walden, P. (2018). Do multimedia instructional designs enhance comprehension in college students with dyslexia? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(4), 351–365.

Knoopâ€van Campen, C., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). The modality and redundancy effects in multimedia learning in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 24(2), 140–155.

Lin, J. J. H., Lee, Y. H., Wang, D. Y., & Lin, S. S. J. (2016). Reading subtitles and taking enotes while learning scientific materials in a multimedia environment: Cognitive load perspectives on EFL students. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 47–58.

Lin, P. C., & Yang, C. M. (2010). Impact of product pictures and brand names on memory of Chinese metaphorical advertisements. International Journal of Design, 4(1), 57–70.

Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727885

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction, 33, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.004

McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical manual, Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update. IL: Riverside: Rolling Meadows.

Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications. Boston, MA: Duxbury.

Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011

Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. (1969). Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin, 72(5), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028109

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Paivio, A. (2014). Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence, 47, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.09.002

Parmar, R. S., & Signer, B. R. (2005). Sources of error in constructing and interpreting graphs: A study of fourth- and fifth-grade students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(3), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380030601

Pazzaglia, F., Toso, C., & Cacciamani, S. (2008). The specific involvement of verbal and visuospatial working memory in hypermedia learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00741.x

Reynolds, C. R., & Voress, J. K. (2007). Test of Memory and Learning-Second Edition (TOMAL-2). PRO-ED.

Rupley, W. H., & Willson, V. L. (1996). Content, domain, and word knowledge: Relationship to comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading and Writing, 8(5), 419–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00404003

Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.291

Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and Text: A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2014). Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.022

Schmitt, A. J., & Decker, S. L. (2008). Test Reviews: Reynolds, C., & Voress, J. K. (2007). “Test of Memory and Learning: Second Edition.†Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282908322449

Stalbovs, K., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Implementation intentions during multimedia learning: Using if-then plans to facilitate cognitive processing. Learning and Instruction, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.002

Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989

Tong, F., Irby, B. J., Lara-Alecio, R., Guerrero, C., Fan, Y., & Huerta, M. (2014). A randomized study of a literacy-integrated science intervention for low-socio-economic status middle school students: Findings from first-year implementation. International Journal of Science Education, 36(12), 2083–2109. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.883107

Tsai, M.-J., Wu, A.-H., & Chen, Y. (2019). Static and dynamic seductive illustration effects on text-and-graphic learning processes, perceptions, and outcomes: Evidence from eye tracking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3514

Van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328, 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182594

Vukovic, R. K., & Lesaux, N. K. (2013). The relationship between linguistic skills and arithmetic knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.007

Willson, V. L., & Rupley, W. H. (1997). A structural equation model for reading comprehension based on background, phonemic, and strategy knowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0101_3

Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.

Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031971

Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., & Reynolds, J. R. (2009). Segmentation in reading and film comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 138(2), 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015305


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493