Understanding the Role of the Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning Environments Amy Marie Oberfoell Iowa State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2015 Understanding the role of the modality principle in multimedia learning environments Amy Marie Oberfoell Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the Instructional Media Design Commons Recommended Citation Oberfoell, Amy Marie, "Understanding the role of the modality principle in multimedia learning environments" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 14602. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/14602 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Understanding the role of the modality principle in multimedia learning environments by Amy Marie Oberfoell A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Major: Education (Curriculum and Technology Instruction) Program of Study Committee Ana-Paula Correia, Major Professor Denise Schmidt-Crawford Volker Hegelheimer Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2015 Copyright © Amy Marie Oberfoell, 2015. All rights reserved ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………iv LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………...v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………...vi ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………….vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Study & Research Questions .................................................................... 6 1.2 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 12 2.1 Instructional Design and the Instructional Designer ........................................................... 14 2.2 Modality Principle and Cognitive Load .............................................................................. 16 2.3 Increasing Working Memory Space .................................................................................... 18 2.4 A Closer Look at Cognitive Load ....................................................................................... 20 2.5 Multimedia Learning and the Modality Principle ............................................................... 25 2.6 The Redundancy Principle and Expertise Reversal ............................................................ 28 2.7 Diversification ..................................................................................................................... 29 2.8 Current Research on the Modality Principle ....................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 40 3.1 Participants and Research Design ........................................................................................... 42 Materials ................................................................................................................................ 43 3.2 Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 48 3.3 Scoring the Items ............................................................................................................ 53 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS & RESULTS .......................................................................... 56 iii 4.1 Pre-Survey Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 57 4.2 Overall Picture of Data Analyzed .................................................................................. 58 4.3 Reliability Analysis ........................................................................................................ 59 4.4 T-Tests ................................................................................................................................. 61 4.5 One-Way ANOVA Tests .................................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................. 71 5.1 Contributions of this Study ................................................................................................. 75 Implications ............................................................................................................................... 77 Limitations and Further Research ............................................................................................. 78 References ................................................................................................................................. 79 APPENDIX A POWERPOINTS USED IN STUDY ................................................................... 91 APPENDIX B PRE-SURVEY ..................................................................................................... 94 APPENDIX C RETENTION TEST QUESTION ........................................................................ 97 APPENDIX D TRANSFER TEST QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 98 APPENDIX E MATCHING TEST QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 99 APPENDIX F EXEMPT FORM IRB......................................................................................... 101 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Cognitive Load Influences……………………………………………….…03 Figure 2.2 ADDIE Model………………………………………………………….…...15 Figure 2.6 Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning…………………………….…...27 Figure 2.9 Cognitive-Affective Theory of Learning with Media……………………...34 Figure 3.2 Sampling of Lightning PowerPoint Slides….………………………………46 Figure 4.1 Three Test Comparison……………….…………………………………….66 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Total and Online Enrollment in Degree-Granting Post-secondary Institutions……….10 Table 3.1 General USA University Grading Scale……………………………………………....53 Table 4.1 Data for Question Type, Number of Questions, and Number of Participants per group ………………………………………………………………………………………...59 Table 4.2 Results from Cronbach’s Alpha with AN Group……………………………………..60 Table 4.3 Results from Cronbach’s Alpha with AT Group……………………………………...60 Table 4.4 Results from Retention T-Test……………………………………………………..….62 Table 4.5 Results from Transfer T-Test……………………………………………………….....62 Table 4.6 Results from Matching T-Test………………………………………………………...63 Table 4.7 One-Way ANOVA Retention Scores………………………………………………....64 Table 4.8 One-Way ANOVA Transfer Scores………………………………………………..…65 Table 4.9 One-Way ANOVA Matching/Recall Scores……………………………………….....65 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to begin by thanking my committee chair, Dr. Ana-Paula Correia, who helped me understand my role as a researcher, and my committee members Dr. Denise Schmidt- Crawford, and Dr. Volker Hegelheimer for their guidance and support. I would also like to thank Dr. Larysa Nadolny who collaborated with me in completing my study, and in providing sound ideas and process. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Mayer for kindly sharing his original study materials and his willingness to respond to my questions, as well as the late Dr. Roxanna Moreno, whose research excited me and challenged me to look into the modality principle. I would also like to thank Dr. Catherine Stewart, a dear friend, who supported my additional questions and moments of frustration with gentle reminders that the barriers I saw were merely stepping stones on my journey. In addition, I would like to thank my wonderful children who were required to take on tasks that were often mine and were willing to pitch-in as needed giving me the ability to work full- time and go to school. In the end, however, my largest gratitude goes to my husband who had to take on so much more than one parent should, and he did so with kindness, strength and love. I hope I can be the same to all of you. My sincere thanks. vii ABSTRACT The modality principle was first addressed in 1989 by Mayer and Moreno. The modality principle asserts presenting words as speech, rather than on-screen text, is more effective for the learner. The modality principle states that learners are more successful with understanding information that uses narration than on-screen text because the on-screen text may produce a cognitive overload if it is accompanied by other visual elements. This overload may occur due to the learner needing to give attention to the visual graphic/image as well as provide visual attention to the on-screen text. However, if the on-screen text is narrated, the learner will be able to process this information with the auditory channel and thereby, not taxing the visual channel. Over the next fifteen years, additional studies were completed addressing the modality principle. Many of the studies provided additional data and support for the modality principle in multimedia learning environments. However, some studies began to show the modality principle’s impact had certain parameters and was impacting different