CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 302Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences

A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style.

Mayer, Richard E., Fennell, Sherry, Farmer, Lindsay, Campbell, Julie·2004·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Students received a personalized or nonpersonalized version of a narrated animation explaining how the human respiratory system works. The narration for the nonpersonalized version was in formal style, whereas the narration for the personalized version was in conversational style in which “the ” was changed to “your ” in 12 places. In 3 experiments, students who received the personalized version scored significantly higher on transfer tests but not on retention tests than did students who received the nonpersonalized version. The results are consistent with a cognitive theory of multimedia learning in which personalization causes students to actively process the incoming material. Suppose you are sitting at your computer, exploring a Web site on health information. You click on a link about how the human respiratory system works, and you see a short presentation on the screen. The presentation consists of an animation depicting the processes of inhaling air into the lungs, exchanging oxygen from the lungs into the bloodstream and carbon dioxide from the blood-stream into the lungs, and exhaling air out of the body. The presentation also consists of a corresponding narration spoken in a

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across three experiments, college students who learned from a narrated animation about the respiratory system with conversational wording (“your” instead of “the” in 12 places) performed better on transfer tests than students who heard formal wording, but not on retention tests. The authors interpret this personalization effect as evidence that conversational style prompts deeper processing of multimedia material.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, the personalized group scored higher on transfer than the nonpersonalized group (M = 7.1, SD = 2.4 vs. M = 6.0, SD = 1.8), t(60) = 2.170, p = .034, effect size = 0.65; retention did not differ significantly (both M = 11.3; effect size = −0.02).
  • In Experiment 2, the personalized group again scored higher on transfer (M = 7.8, SD = 2.4 vs. M = 5.6, SD = 2.0), t(25) = 2.516, p = .019, effect size = 1.07; retention did not differ significantly (M = 8.2 vs. M = 9.0; effect size = −0.21).
  • In Experiment 3, the personalized group scored higher on transfer (M = 6.2, SD = 2.0 vs. M = 4.5, SD = 2.3), t(30) = 2.177, p = .037, effect size = 0.72; retention did not differ significantly (M = 11.1 vs. M = 9.6; effect size = 0.37).
  • Interest measures did not show a statistically significant personalization effect: in Experiment 3, interest ratings were M = 5.1 vs. M = 4.5, t(30) = 1.56, p = .129, effect size = 0.55; in Experiment 2, no participants in either group showed facial expressions during learning.

Methods

  • Three experiments used a personalized or nonpersonalized version of a roughly 60-s narrated animation on how the human respiratory system works; the only difference was changing “the” to “your” in 12 places in a 100-word narration spoken in a male voice.
  • Participants were 62 college students in Experiment 1 (29 personalized, 33 nonpersonalized), 27 college students in Experiment 2 (14 personalized, 13 nonpersonalized), and 32 paid adults in Experiment 3 (17 personalized, 15 nonpersonalized).
  • After viewing, participants completed a retention test and five transfer test sheets; retention and transfer were scored out of 20 idea units or acceptable answers by two raters with consensus. Experiment 2 video recorded faces and tallied smiles; Experiment 3 added 1–7 difficulty and interest ratings. Main analyses were t tests with effect sizes.

Limitations

  • The paper states that its interest measures were problematic: smiling in Experiment 2 was insensitive, and the interest rating in Experiment 3 did not reach significance, so either the measures were defective or the interest hypothesis needs revision.
  • The paper states that direct measures of cognitive processing during learning are missing and calls for further work, including possible fMRI measures, to test whether personalization primes deeper processing.
  • The paper notes that spatial ability data in Experiments 1 and 3 were not used because there were not enough participants, and that an additional study similar to Experiment 1 was not reported because of possible data coding errors. Evident from the text: samples were small, participants were from university subject pools, and the lesson was a single short topic, limiting generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    In three experiments, students who received the personalized version scored significantly higher on transfer tests than did students who received the nonpersonalized version.

    “In 3 experiments, students who received the personalized version scored significantly higher on transfer tests but not on retention tests than did students who received the nonpersonalized version.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    In three experiments, students who received the personalized version did not score significantly higher on retention tests than did students who received the nonpersonalized version.

    “In 3 experiments, students who received the personalized version scored significantly higher on transfer tests but not on retention tests than did students who received the nonpersonalized version.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 5

    In Experiment 3, the mean difficulty rating of the personalized group (M = 5.9, SD = 1.3) was not significantly different from the mean difficulty rating of the nonpersonalized group (M = 5.8, SD = 1.2), t(30) = 0.324, p = .748, effect size = 0.11.

    “the mean difficulty rating of the personalized group ( M = 5.9, SD = 1.3) was not significantly different from the mean difficulty rating of the nonpersonalized group ( M = 5.8, SD = 1.2), t (30) = 0.324, p = .748, effect size = 0.11.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 5

    In Experiment 3, the mean retention test score was not significantly different between the personalized and nonpersonalized groups (t(30) = 1.087, p = .286, effect size = 0.37).

    “The mean score on the retention test was not significantly different for the two groups, t (30) = 1.087, p = .286, yielding an effect size of 0.37.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results · p. 5

    In Experiment 3, the mean transfer test score was significantly greater for the personalized group than for the nonpersonalized group (t(30) = 2.177, p = .037, effect size = 0.72).

    “The mean score on the transfer test was significantly greater for the personalized group than for the nonpersonalized group, t (30) = 2.177, p = .037, yielding an effect size of 0.72.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 13
  • May combine two claims. 9
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 3

    Deeper processing results in more meaningful learning as indicated by better transfer test performance.

    “The deeper processing results in more meaningful learning as indicated by better transfer test performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    One of the two most important paths toward fostering meaningful learning is to increase the learner's interest, thus causing the learner to use the available capacity for deep processing during learning.

    “and (b) to increase the learner's interest (Harp & Mayer, 1998; Mayer, Sobko, & Mautone, 2003; Moreno & Mayer, 2000; Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992), thus causing the learner to use the available capacity for deep processing during learning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Harp & Mayer, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mayer, Sobko, & Mautone, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Moreno & Mayer, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    There is not yet a large research base concerning design principles that increase the learner's interest in multimedia learning.

    “In contrast to research on cognitive load, there is not yet a large research base concerning design principles that increase the learner's interest in multimedia learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 3

    Using the self as a reference point increases the learner's interest.

    “Using the self as a reference point increases the learner's interest, which in turn encourages the learner to use available cognitive capacity for active cognitive processing of the incoming information during learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    One of the two most important paths toward fostering meaningful learning is to design multimedia instructional messages in ways that reduce cognitive load, thus making more capacity available for deep cognitive processing during learning.

    “The two most important paths toward fostering meaningful learning are (a) to design multimedia instructional messages in ways that reduce cognitive load (Mayer &Moreno, 2003; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003), thus making more capacity available for deep cognitive processing during learning”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mayer &Moreno, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 3

    Increased interest encourages the learner to use available cognitive capacity for active cognitive processing of the incoming information during learning.

    “Using the self as a reference point increases the learner's interest, which in turn encourages the learner to use available cognitive capacity for active cognitive processing of the incoming information during learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Practical Implications · p. 6

    In a previous set of studies, Moreno and Mayer (2000) found that personalization improved transfer performance on an environmental science educational game and on learning from a multimedia lesson on lightning formation.

    “In a previous set of studies, Moreno and Mayer (2000) found that personalization improved transfer performance on an environmental science educational game and on learning from a multimedia lesson on lightning formation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moreno and Mayer (2000)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results · p. 5

    Experiment 2 did not adequately test Prediction 2.

    “Overall, the experiment did not adequately test Prediction 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Theoretical Implications · p. 5

    Making a seemingly minor change to 12 words (changing 'the' to 'your') in a multimedia lesson had a large effect on students' subsequent performance on tests of transfer, yielding effect sizes of 0.65, 1.07, and 0.72 across the three experiments, respectively.

    “Making a seemingly minor change to 12 words (i.e., changing 'the' to 'your') in a multimedia lesson had a large effect on students' subsequent performance on tests of transfer-yielding effect sizes of 0.65, 1.07, and 0.72 across the three experiments, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation
    § Methodological Implications · p. 6

    Transfer is generally recommended as a better measure of learner understanding than retention.

    “transfer is generally recommended as a better measure of learner understanding than retention (Anderson et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Anderson et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Method · p. 3

    Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group.

    “Participants were tested in groups of 1 to 4 and were randomly assigned to a treatment group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Practical Implications · p. 6

    This set of experiments helps establish the robustness of the personalization effect and explores the conditions for the personalization effect (i.e., even a very modest change in the wording of the lesson is effective).

    “Overall, this set of experiments helps establish the robustness of the personalization effect and explores the conditions for the personalization effect (i.e., even a very modest change in the wording of the lesson is effective).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Results and Discussion · p. 4

    The tests were scored by two raters; disagreements were resolved through consensus.

    “The tests were scored by two raters; disagreements were resolved through consensus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Practical Implications · p. 6

    The present experiments obtained similar personalization effects in a new context-learning about the human respiratory system-greatly adding to the credibility of the personalization effect.

    “Given the somewhat unexpected effects reported by Moreno and Mayer, it was worthwhile to determine whether similar effects could be obtained in a new contextlearning about the human respiratory system. The overwhelming answer is yes, greatly adding to the credibility of the personalization effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Method · p. 3

    The only difference between the personalized and nonpersonalized presentations was that 'the' was changed to 'your' at 12 places in the narration.

    “The only difference between the personalized and nonpersonalized presentations was that 'the' (in the nonpersonalized version) was changed to 'your' (in the personalized version) at 12 places in the narration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style · p. 1

    Using words in a conversational style rather than a formal style is a technique to increase learner interest in computer-based multimedia presentations (personalization principle).

    “Examples of techniques to increase learner interest in computerbased multimedia presentations include using a human voice rather than a machine voice (voice principle) and using words in a conversational style rather than a formal style (personalization principle).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results · p. 5

    There is not statistically significant evidence that personalization affects students' ratings of interest, but there is a trend in the predicted direction.

    “Overall, there is not statistically significant evidence that personalization affects students' ratings of interest, but there is a trend in the predicted direction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results · p. 5

    The interest rating findings of Experiment 3 were more encouraging and suggestive than the findings related to smiling in Experiment 2, in that the interest measure yielded a larger difference in the predicted direction, this time approaching significance.

    “The interest rating findings of Experiment 3 were more encouraging and suggestive than the findings related to smiling in Experiment 2, in that the interest measure yielded a larger difference in the predicted direction, this time approaching significance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Methodological Implications · p. 6

    By using multiple measures, the study determined that although both groups remembered equivalent amounts of the presented text, the personalized group was better able to apply the material to new situations.

    “By using multiple measures, we were able to determine that although both groups remembered equivalent amounts of the presented text, the personalized group was better able to apply the material to new situations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Practical Implications · p. 6

    The personalization treatments used by Moreno and Mayer were somewhat heavy-handed and perhaps idiosyncratic, including adding a lot of new sentences to the instructional material.

    “In addition, the personalization treatments used by Moreno and Mayer were somewhat heavy-handed and perhaps idiosyncratic, including adding a lot of new sentences to the instructional material.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moreno and Mayer

      Not checked in the free run.

20 of 20

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Both the personalized and nonpersonalized groups have adequate cognitive capacity for basic processing of the material and will pay attention to and encode the material.

    “The rationale for this prediction is that both groups have adequate cognitive capacity for basic processing of the material and they both will pay attention to material and encode it”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Both the personalized and nonpersonalized groups have adequate cognitive capacity for deeper processing.

    “although both groups also have adequate cognitive capacity for deeper processing”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students in the personalized group will be more likely to use their cognitive capacity for organizing the material and integrating it with prior knowledge because they are more interested in understanding the material.

    “students in the personalized group will be more likely to use that capacity for organizing the material and integrating it with prior knowledge because they are more interested in understanding the material.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cognitive theory of multimedia learning correctly describes that personalization increases the learner's interest, which increases effort and deeper processing, leading to improved transfer performance.

    “One answer to this question comes from the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Personalization increases the learner's interest, increased interest causes the learner to exert more effort to engage in active cognitive processing during learning, and an increase in active cognitive processing during learning results in deeper learning, which is manifested in improved transfer performance.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Not confirmedt(25) = 0.594reported p = .557 · recomputed p = .558

    “t (25) = 0.594, p = .557”

  • Consistentt(60) = 2.17reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034

    “t (60) = 2.170, p = .034”

  • Consistentt(25) = 2.516reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019

    “t (25) = 2.516, p = .019”

  • Consistentt(30) = 1.087reported p = .286 · recomputed p = .286

    “t (30) = 1.087, p = .286”

  • Consistentt(30) = 2.177reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .037

    “t (30) = 2.177, p = .037”

  • Consistentt(30) = 1.56reported p = .129 · recomputed p = .129

    “t (30) = 1.56, p = .129”

  • Consistentt(30) = 0.324reported p = .748 · recomputed p = .748

    “t (30) = 0.324, p = .748”

7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
ORCID
Mayer, Richard E.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2004-06
Volume
96
Issue
2
Pages
389-395
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389
OpenAlex
W2096394886
Semantic Scholar
13bc860cf6f55b6f221d447b65c42733cd80fbc7
Cited by
298
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Keywords
personalization, conversational style, formal style, narrative style, multimedia learning, cognitive theory of multimedia learning, transfer, retention, respiratory system, active processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review