Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2014-3
Learners' Field Dependence and the Effects of Personalized Narration on Learners' Computer Perceptions and Task-Related Attitudes in Multimedia Learning
In this article, the effects of personalized narration in multimedia learning on learners' computer perceptions and task-related attitudes were examined. Twenty-six field independent and 22 field dependent participants studied the computer-based multimedia lessons on C-Programming, either with personalized narration or non-personalized narration. The result of this study lent support to the social agency theory: personalized narration in multimedia learning positively affects learners' computer perceptions and task-related attitudes. Contrary to the authors' prediction, personalized narration did not positively affect field dependent learners' computer perceptions and task-related attitudes. Instead, it was shown that field independent learners were marginally more anxious in learning task when learning with personalized narration than with non-personalized narration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreE.RistT.MullerJ. (1998). Guiding the user through dynamically generated hypermedia presentations with a life-like character. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI '98, San Francisco, CA, January 6–9, 1998, pp. 21–28.
2.
AngeliC.ValanidesN. (2004). Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 23–36.
3.
AngeliC.ValanidesN.KirschnerP. (2009). Field dependence–independence and instructional design effects on learners' performance with a computer modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1355–1366.
4.
AtkinsonR. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.
5.
AusburnL. J.AusburnF. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications for instructional design. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 26(4), 337–354.
6.
CaoY. (2008). Effects of field dependent-independent cognitive styles and cueing strategies on students' recall and comprehension. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(3-A), 859.
7.
CrossK. P. (1976). Accent on learning: Improving instruction and reshaping the curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
CrutchfieldR. S.WoodworthD. G.AlbrechtR. E. (1958). Perceptual performance and the effective person. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, Personnel Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center-TN-58-60. ASTIA Document No. AD 151 039.
9.
Davis-DorseyJ.RossS. M.MorrisonG. R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 61–68.
10.
GulzA. (2005). Social enrichment by virtual characters—Differential benefits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 405–418.
11.
HallJ. K. (2000). Field Dependence-Independence and Computer-based Instruction in Geography. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
12.
IngleseT.MayerR. E.RigottiF. (2007). Using audiovisual TV interviews to create visible authors that reduce the learning gap between native and non-native speakers. Learning and Instruction, 16, 67–77.
13.
KleinS. B.LoftusJ. (1988). The nature of self-referent encoding: The contributions of elaborative and organizational processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 5.
14.
KonstadtN.FormanE. (1965). Field dependence and external directedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(5), 490–493.
15.
LiewT. W.SalamS. (2012). The effects of visual cues and learners' field dependence in multiple external representations environment for novice program comprehension. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(2), 165–189
16.
MayerR. E. (2005). Principles based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MayerR. E.FennellS.FarmerL.CampbellJ. (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.
18.
MayerR.SobkoK.MautoneP. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, pp. 419–425.
19.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.RettingerD. A.ShahP.HegartyM. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 130, 621–640.
20.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.
21.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 165–173.
22.
MorenoR.MayerR. E.SpiresH. A.LesterJ. 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.
23.
NassC.LeeK. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 171–181.
24.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103.
25.
NolenS. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 47–65.
26.
OltmanP. K.GoodenoughD. R.WitkinH. A.FreedmanN.FriedmanF. (1975). Psychological differentiation as a factor in conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 730–736.
27.
PaxtonR. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 197–248.
28.
PhiferJ. (1983). Effects of individual cognitive style and processing differences on metacognitive reading strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska.
29.
ReederG. D.McCormickC. B.EsselmanE. D. (1987). Self referent processing and recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 243–248.
30.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
RichardsonJ. A.TurnerT. E. (2000). Field dependence revisited I: Intelligence. Educational Psychology, 20(3), 255–270.
32.
RogersT.KuiperN.KirkerW. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677–688.
33.
RubleD. N.NakamuraC. Y. (1972). Task orientation versus social orientation in young children and their attention to relevant social cues. Child Development, 43, 471–480.
34.
StrawitzB. (1984). Cognitive style and the acquisition and transfer of the ability to control variables. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 133–141.
35.
SymonsC. S.JohnsonB. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394.
36.
WitkinH. A.GoodenoughD. R.DonaldR. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 661–689.
37.
WitkinH. A.MooreC. A.GoodenoughD. R.CoxP. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64.
38.
ChuangYea-Ru. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: A study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement [Electronic version]. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning. Retrieved January 5, 2013 from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/1/10/index.asp
