THE EFFECT OF MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ON RECALL Degree of Doctor of Education Institute of Education Denise Anne Mosher June 2018 MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES i Author’s Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all materials from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Signature: Denise Anne Mosher MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ii Abstract The exponential growth of technology has placed today’s educational system in a quandary, where many schools are endeavouring to meet the requirements of the current digital generation without knowing how mobile technology affects learning. Mayer’s (2005) Multimedia and Redundancy Principles of Learning offer explanations for learning, and were the key theories against which the current research was measured. The aim of the investigation was to measure learning outcome in three separate subject disciplines: science–topic heart; geography–topic map; and English–topic poem, over two testing times, to determine whether mode of presentation (paper vs. M-technology, i.e., Pads®) and cognitive load (text-only vs. text & graphics vs. graphics & audio vs. text, graphics & audio) had an impact on recall. The variables of gender, working memory, and motivation were identified as possible individual differences affecting learning outcome. An opportunity sample of 346 secondary school students, males and females 11-14 years- of-age, from a multinational independent school in The Middle East participated in the quasi-experimental research. Statistical analyses included group comparisons (ANOVA, ANCOVA) with supporting correlational analysis. Prior knowledge had an impact on recall in the heart topic. Findings revealed no significant difference to learning outcome between paper and M-technology resources in each of the three curriculum topics, except in the science topic where boys’ retention of information was significantly better in the paper condition than the M-technology condition. Cognitive load had an impact on recall in each of the three subject areas, where a different cognitive load combination resulted in the significant retention of information in each of the curriculum areas. Motivation and gender modulated the effects of recall. Findings across the different subject disciplines either supported or refuted Mayer’s (2005) Multimedia and Redundancy Principles of Learning, determining that no one cognitive load combination was suitable for all three subject disciplines and the type of content should dictate the cognitive load condition most effective for learning. Discovery informs teaching methods and warns educationalists about making claims for innovation without any data to support gains. MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES iii Acknowledgements I would like to dedicate my research to my father and mother, Jimmy and Lyn Erlank, who have instilled in me a love of learning; my daughters, Chantal and Bronwen, who are an eternal source of love and inspiration; and my loving husband, Brian, who has provided the emotional support and cups of coffee at 4 a.m. (even on our wedding day). In addition, I would like to thank my wonderfully patient supervisors, Professor Daisy Powell and Professor Rhona Stainthorp, for their wisdom and guidance throughout the whole process, as well as the extremely supportive head teacher Mr Paul Young, parents, teachers, and students of the secondary school in which I conducted my research, and my study buddy Dr Terry McAdams, who shared in this journey with me. Thank you all so very much! MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES iv Table of Contents Author’s Declaration ............................................................................................................. i Abstract ................................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ x Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Knowledge, Learning, and Memory in Education ................................................. 2 1.1.1 Knowledge Defined ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Learning Defined ............................................................................................ 3 1.1.3 Memory Defined ............................................................................................. 4 1.1.4 The Importance of the Learning Process in Education ................................... 5 1.1.5 Knowledge, Learning, and Memory Summary ............................................... 6 1.2 Identifying the Problem–Learning in Education, Pyschology, and Technology ... 6 1.3 Choice of Curriculum Subjects .............................................................................. 9 1.3.1 Science as a Research Subject ......................................................................... 9 1.3.2 Geography as a Research Subject ................................................................. 10 1.3.3 English as a Research Subject ....................................................................... 11 1.4 Choice of Participants .......................................................................................... 12 1.5 Individual Differences ......................................................................................... 12 1.6 Overview of the Current Study ............................................................................ 13 1.7 Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2. Literature Review ............................................................................................. 15 2.1 Theories of Learning and Cognitive Load ........................................................... 16 2.1.3 Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model ............................................ 18 2.1.4 Cognitive theory of multimedia learning ...................................................... 21 2.1.5 Embedded-processes model of learning ........................................................ 25 2.2 Mode of Presentation and Theories of Learning ................................................. 28 2.2.1 An Overview of Technology ......................................................................... 29 2.2.2 M-Technology as Mode of Presentation ....................................................... 31 2.2.3 Paper as Mode of Presentation ...................................................................... 35 2.2.4 Research material design ............................................................................... 36 2.3 Individual Differences and Theories of Learning ................................................ 37 2.3.1 Gender as an individual difference ............................................................... 38 2.3.2 Working memory as an individual difference ............................................... 40 2.3.3 Motivation as an individual difference ......................................................... 45 2.4 Theories of Consolidation and Forgetting ........................................................... 50 2.4.1 Reflection as consolidation ........................................................................... 50 2.4.2 Theory of spaced learning as consolidation .................................................. 51 2.4.3 Theories of forgetting .................................................................................... 52 2.5 Chapter Summary and Research Questions ......................................................... 53 MODE OF PRESENTATION, COGNITIVE LOAD, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES v Chapter 3. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 55 3.1 Paradigm Rationale .............................................................................................. 55 3.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 59 3.3 Sample Selection ................................................................................................. 59 3.4 Tasks, Materials, and Measures ........................................................................... 61 3.4.1 Design ........................................................................................................... 61 3.4.2 Material overview ......................................................................................... 63 3.4.3 Motivation questionnaire .............................................................................. 69 3.4.4 Working memory assessment ....................................................................... 70 3.4.5 General Information ...................................................................................... 71 3.5 Procedure ............................................................................................................