You are here:

Effects of Modality and Pace on Motivation in Multimedia Learning
PROCEEDINGS

, , Anadolu University, Turkey

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-90-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine students’ opinions about the effects of four types of multimedia software developed by considering pace (system or learner paced) and modality (written text or narration) on their motivation. Participants of the study were 97 freshmen students from a university in Turkey. There were four groups in the study. First group took learner paced instructions with written text and animation (WA+L). Second group took system paced instructions with written text and animation (WA+S). Third group took learner paced instructions with narration and animation (NA+L). And fourth group took system paced instruction with narration and animation (NA+S). Qualitative data were collected through an open-ended questionnaire. Results showed that students who studied learner paced software stated more positive opinions than students who studied system paced software. Furthermore, it can be said that NA+L group showed highest study motivation.

Citation

Izmirli, S. & Kurt, A.A. (2011). Effects of Modality and Pace on Motivation in Multimedia Learning. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2011--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1959-1962). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

© 2011 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia
  2. Kinzie, M.B., & Sullivan, H.J. (1989). Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 5-14.
  3. Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 29 – 35.
  4. Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentation should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401-418.
  5. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd edition). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). California: Sage Publications.
  8. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and
  9. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226-237.
  10. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257-287.

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