Gender Effects When Learning Manipulative Tasks from Instructional Animations and Static Presentations.

Abstract

Introduction to the study Are static or animated instructional presentations better for student learning? The answer to this question is rather complex. The research literature comparing instructional statics with animations provides different perspectives, challenging a single conclusion. There are studies supporting the use of animations over static images (e.g., Ardac & Akaygun, 2005; Lin & Atkinson, 2011; Ryoo & Linn, 2012), but there is also contrasting evidence suggesting that statics are superior to dynamic visualizations (e.g., Castro-Alonso, Ayres, & Paas, 2014b; Mayer, Hegarty, Mayer, & Campbell, 2005; Scheiter, Gerjets, & Catrambone, 2006). Moreover, there are comparisons showing no statistical differences between statics and animations (e.g., Mayer, DeLeeuw, & Ayres, 2007; Narayanan & Hegarty, 2002). There are even concerns about the validity of some of these comparisons (see Tversky, Morrison, & Betrancourt, 2002). There are, as observed by Hoffler and Leutner (2007), a number of important moderating variables affecting the instructional effectiveness of static and dynamic visualizations. One such moderator, revealed in the meta-analysis of 26 studies by Hoffler and Leutner (2007), was the type of task to be learned: Animations and videos were most effective, as compared to statics, when procedural-motor tasks were depicted. Evidence also shows the importance of spatial ability when learning from static or dynamic visualizations (see Hoffler, 2010). However, there is a lack of consensus indicating whether high or low spatial ability correlates favorably when learning from dynamic images. Furthermore, highly related to spatial ability issues are gender effects. Research has generally found that spatial ability is higher in males (see Linn & Petersen, 1985; Uttal et al., 2013; Voyer, Voyer, & Bryden, 1995), but there is also evidence accumulating that animated presentations are particularly helpful for females rather than males (see Sanchez & Wiley, 2010; Yezierski & Birk, 2006), which supports the hypothesis that low spatial ability students (females) benefit most from animations. But again to muddy the waters in this field, there is also evidence suggesting that male students can outperform females in animated conditions (see Lin, Hung, Chang, & Hung, 2014). In view of these inconsistent results more research is required in this domain to identify the conditions impacting on the effectiveness of animations. The main aim of the current study was to make such a contribution by conducting two experiments comparing males with females when learning about object manipulative tasks, using both animated and static presentations. The following sections briefly outline the main theoretical aspects underpinning the investigation. Instructional animations of manipulative tasks As well as the meta-analysis of Hoffler and Leutner (2007), some more recent studies have shown that animations and videos that show human motor tasks are more effective than equivalent statics. This has been reported for motor tasks such as unscrambling puzzle rings (Ayres, Marcus, Chan, & Qian, 2009), copying origami paper designs (Wong et al., 2009), or constructing different knots (Garland & Sanchez, 2013; Marcus, Cleary, Wong, & Ayres, 2013). Thus, when human movement is involved, animations (and videos) seem to be more effective instructional tools than static pictures. This finding has been termed the human movement effect (see Paas & Sweller, 2012), and can be explained by the fact that we evolved cognitive mechanisms to imitate tasks involving human motion (see also Castro-Alonso, Ayres, & Paas, 2014a). In particular, humans have evolved an embodied cognition that links cognition to the environment through the body (see Barsalou, 2010). Classical cognitive accounts (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968) tended to isolate the mental processes from the rest of the bodily activities. …