You are here:

Narration in Multimedia Learning Environments: Exploring the Impact of Voice Origin, Gender, and Presentation mode
PROCEEDINGS

, , Arizona State University, United States

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Honolulu, HI, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-73-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

This study examined the impact of human and computer voices, male and female voices, and the presence of an animated pedagogical agent coupled with narration or narration only on student learning and perceptions within a multimedia computer educational environment. The 172 participants were taught the basic principles of relational database design in one of eight possible conditions in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design [Voice origination (computer generated or human), delivery method (agent with audio or audio only) and narrator’s gender (female or male)]. Participants presented with a human voice demonstrated significantly greater gains in learning than their peers that listened to a computer voice. Neither the gender of the voice nor presentation mode of the material provided any significant learning advantages, whether analyzed alone or as part of an interaction analysis. The use of an agent was not significantly better than audio alone.

Citation

Harrison, C. & Robert, A. (2009). Narration in Multimedia Learning Environments: Exploring the Impact of Voice Origin, Gender, and Presentation mode. In G. Siemens & C. Fulford (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 980-985). Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2023 from .

© 2009 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Arbuckle, J., & Williams, B.D. (2003). Students' perceptions of expressiveness: Age and gender effects on teacher evaluations. Sex Roles, 49(9), 507-516.
  2. Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416-427.
  3. Atkinson, R.K., Mayer, R.E., & Merrill, M.M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
  4. Choi, S., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning english as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441-466.
  5. Clarebout, G., Elen, J., & Johnson, W.L. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents: Where do we stand?Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), P.O. Box 3728, Norfolk, VA 23514. Tel: 757-6237588; e-mail: info@aace.org; Website: http://www.aace.org/DL/. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
  6. Craig, S.D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D.M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
  7. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2006). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved March 4, 2007, from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins_scl.html
  8. Dehn, D.M., & Van Mulken, S. (2000). The impact of animated interface agents: A review of empirical research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 1-22.
  9. Dirkin, K.H., Mishra, P., & Altermatt, E. (2005). All or nothing: Levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 113-127.
  10. Dunsworth, Q., & Atkinson, R.K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers& Education, 49(3), 677-690.
  11. Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886.
  12. Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., Mancuso, V., & Kwak, S. (2007). How interface agents affect interaction between humans and computers. DPPI '07: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, Helsinki, Finland. 209-221. Gulz, A., & Haake, M. (April 2006). Design of animated pedagogical agents—A look at their look. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(4), 322-339.
  13. Kim, Y., & Baylor, A.L. (2006). A social-cognitive framework for pedagogical agents as learning companions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 569-596.
  14. Lattner, S., Meyer, M.E., & Friederici, A.D. (2005). Voice perception: Sex, pitch, and the right hemisphere. Human Brain Mapping, 24(1), 11-20.
  15. Linek, S. (2004). Learning Environment Evaluation (LEE). Unpublished manuscript.(designed analogously to SEI)
  16. Linek, S. (2004). Speaker impression questionnaire (SIQ). Unpublished manuscript. Independence on Subject Impression Questionnaire by Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M.: www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins_scl.html
  17. Linek, S.B., Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2007). The Speaker/Gender effect: Does the speaker's gender matter when presenting auditory text in multimedia messages? Unpublished manuscript.
  18. Louwerse, M.M., Graesser, A.C., Lu, S., & Mitchell, H.H. (2005). Social cues in animated conversational agents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(6), 693-704.
  19. Lusk, M.M., & Atkinson, R.K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated work examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology.Special Issue: A Cognitive Load Approach to the Learning Effectiveness of Instructional Animation, 21(6), 747-764.
  20. Mayer, R.E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
  21. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
  22. Mayer, R.E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P.D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.
  23. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H.A., & Lester, J.C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177-213.
  24. Mullennix, J.W., Stern, S.E., Wilson, S.J., & Dyson, C. (2003). Social perception of male and female computer synthesized speech. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(4), 407-424.
  25. Nass, C., Moon, Y., & Green, N. (1997). Are machines gender-neutral? gender stereotypic responses to computers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
  26. Veletsianos, G. (2007). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent: Considering contextual relevance and aesthetics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(4), 373-377.
  27. Zahn, C.J. & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument (SEI). Journal of language and social psychology, 4, 113-122. (short version used by Mayer, Soboko & Mautone, 2003)

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts