You are here:

The Role of Learners’ Field Dependence and Gender on the Effects of Conversational versus Non-Conversational Narrations in Multimedia Environment
ARTICLE

, , , Multimedia University, Malaysia

Journal of Interactive Learning Research Volume 25, Number 2, ISSN 1093-023X Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to ascertain if the effectiveness of conversational narrations and non-conversational narrations in multimedia environment will be mediated by learners’ field dependence and gender. 53 participants (25 field dependent and 28 field independent subjects) were randomly divided to interact with either one of the two multimedia lessons on C-Programming: conversational narrations or non-conversational narrations. Learning achievements of participants were then assessed in three different measures: drawing, terminology and comprehension. A 2 (narration types) x 2 (field dependence) MANOVA showed a significant interaction effect between field dependence and narrations types on comprehension scores; field independent learners in conversational group significantly outperformed field independent learners in non-conversational group on comprehension scores. Field dependence was also shown to be a factor in learning achievement; field independent learners outperformed field dependent learners on drawing and retention measures. A 2 (narration types) x 2 (gender) MANOVA showed no interaction effect between gender and types of narrations; however, male participants significantly outperformed female participants on drawing and comprehension measures.

Citation

Tze Wei, L., Su-Mae, T. & Nuo Wi, T. (2014). The Role of Learners’ Field Dependence and Gender on the Effects of Conversational versus Non-Conversational Narrations in Multimedia Environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25(2), 281-302. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved July 6, 2022 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Adile askim Kurt. (2011). Personalization Principle in Multimedia Learning: Conversational Versus Formal Style in Written Word. ToJeT: The Turkish online Journal of educational Technology – July 2011, volume 10 issue 3.
  2. Angeli, C. & Valanides, N. (2004). Examining the effects of text-only and textand-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent
  3. Beck, I., McKeown, M., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: a yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96, 385-414.
  4. ChanLin, L.J. (2001). Considerations of Spatial ability in Learning from animation. In ed-Media. Tampere, Finnland: aaCe.
  5. Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R.E. (2008). E-learning and the Science of instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBn 0-7879-6051-9.
  6. Davis-dorsey, J., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of educational Psychology, 83, 61-68.
  7. Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of educational Computing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 139-155.
  8. Kesebir, S. & Oishi, S. (2010). A spontaneous self-reference effect in memory: Why some birthdays are harder to remember than others. Psychological Science, 21, 1525-1531.
  9. Klein, S.B., & Loftus, J. (1988). The nature of self-referent encoding: The contribution of elaborative and organizational processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 5–11.
  10. Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A. & Renaud, A. (1996). Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the american Society for information Science, Vol. 47, pp. 437-448.
  11. Lee, H., Plass, J. L. & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of educational Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 902-913.
  12. Mayer, R. E. Fennell, S., Farmer, L. & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of educational Psychology, 96, 389-395.
  13. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of educational Psychology, 95, 419–425.
  14. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P. & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? a latent-variable analysis. Journal of experimental Psychology, General, Vol. 130, pp. 621−640.
  15. Moon, Y., & Naas, C. (1996). How ‘‘real’’ are computer personalities? Psychological responses to personality types in human-computer interaction. Communication Research, 23, 651–674.
  16. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of educational Psychology, 92, 724-733.
  17. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of educational Psychology, 96, 165-173.
  18. 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, 177–213.
  19. Naas, C., Moon, Y., Fogg, B. J., Reeves, B., & Dreyer, D. C. (1995). Can computer personalities be human personalities? international Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 43, 223–239.
  20. Oltman, P. K., Goodenough, D. R., Witkin, H. A., Freedman, N., & Friedman, F. (1975). Psychological differentiation as a factor in conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 730-736.
  21. Passig, D., & Levin, H. (2000). Gender preferences for multimedia interfaces. Journal of Computer assisted Learning, 16(1), 64-71.
  22. Phifer, J. (1983). Effects of individual cognitive style and processing differences on metacognitive reading strategies. Doctoral dissertation, university of nebraska.
  23. Reeder, G.D., McCormick, C.B., & Esselman, E.D. (1987). Self referent processing and recall of prose. Journal of educational Psychology, 79, 243– 248.
  24. Richardson, J. A. & Turner, T. E. (2000). Field dependence revisited i: intelligence. Educational Psychology, Vol. 20(3), pp. 255–270.
  25. Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677-688.
  26. Strawitz, B. (1984). Cognitive style and the acquisition and transfer of the ability to control variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 21, pp. 133-141.
  27. Symons, C. S. & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371-394.
  28. Thompson, E., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J., Hu, M. & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom„s taxonomy for CS assessment. Proceedings of the Tenth australasian Computing education Conference (aCe2008), Wollongong, australia, January 2008.
  29. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R. & Cox, P. W. (1977). Fielddependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of educational Research, Vol. 47(1), pp. 1-64.
  30. Yea-Ru Chuang. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: a study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement. Interactive Multimedia electronic Journal of Computer-enhanced Learning [online].

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

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections