The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 12 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Personalization Effect in Multimedia Learning: Students Learn Better When Words Are in Conversational Style Rather Than Formal Style.
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
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score on the transfer test was significantly greater for the personalized group than for the nonpersonalized group, t (60) = 2.170, p = .034, yielding an effect size of 0.65.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score on the retention test was not significantly different for the two groups, t (25) = 0.594, p = .557, yielding an effect size of -0.21.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean score on the transfer test was significantly greater for the personalized group than for the nonpersonalized group, t (25) = 2.516, p = .019, yielding an effect size of 1.07.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the mean score on the interest rating was not significantly greater for the personalized group ( M = 5.1, SD = 1.2) than for the nonpersonalized group ( M = 4.5, SD = 1.1), t (30) = 1.56, p = .129, yielding an effect size of 0.55.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the participants in either group showed any facial expressions during learning”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The deeper processing results in more meaningful learning as indicated by better transfer test performance.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Harp & Mayer, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Mayer, Sobko, & Mautone, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Moreno & Mayer, 2000
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mayer &Moreno, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moreno and Mayer (2000)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the experiment did not adequately test Prediction 2.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“transfer is generally recommended as a better measure of learner understanding than retention (Anderson et al., 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Anderson et al., 2001
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were tested in groups of 1 to 4 and were randomly assigned to a treatment group.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tests were scored by two raters; disagreements were resolved through consensus.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, there is not statistically significant evidence that personalization affects students' ratings of interest, but there is a trend in the predicted direction.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moreno and Mayer
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“For example, people learn more deeply when the words in a multimedia presentation are in conversational style rather than formal style (the personalization principle: e.g., Mayer et al. 2004;Moreno and Mayer 2004)”
From An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks (2012) · cites this paper as Mayer et al. 2004
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”
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.
Citations
Cites
(2001) · Cited by 13,930
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678 · Cited by 7,800
Self-citationMayer, R. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781316941355 · Cited by 7,777
Self-citationNine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6 · Cited by 4,207
Self-citationCognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1 · Cited by 3,041
Mayer, R. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164603 · Cited by 2,304
Self-citationThe Role of interest in Learning and Development
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. E., Krapp, A., & Renninger, A. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315807430 · Cited by 1,611
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389 · Cited by 1,191
Self-citation(1999) · Cited by 944
Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_2 · Cited by 857
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 302
Gehret, A. U., & Elliot, L. B. (2025) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-025-10476-z · Cited by 15
Liu, Z., Wen, J., Liu, Y., & Chuan-Peng, H. (2023) · British Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjep.12636 · Cited by 19
Improving the pedagogical effectiveness of medical videos
Iorio‐Morin, C., Brisebois, S., Bécotte, A., & Mior, F. (2017) · Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine · doi:10.1080/17453054.2017.1366826 · Cited by 15
Guidelines for Design and Implementation of Mobile Learning
Ally, M., & Samaka, M. (2016) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0466-5.ch009 · Cited by 14
Clinton‐Lisell, V., Legerski, E. M., & Rhodes, B. (2019) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00110 · Cited by 14
Serious Games for Health: Features, Challenges, Next Steps
Blumberg, F. C., Burke, L. C., Hodent, C., Evans, M. A., Lane, H. C., & Schell, J. (2014) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2014.0079 · Cited by 14
Comparison of Social Presence in Voice-Based and Text-Based Asynchronous Computer Conferences
King, K., & Ellis, T. J. (2009) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.119 · Cited by 14
Comparision of digital and printed text reading process
KAYGISIZ, Ç. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13668-5 · Cited by 13
Zander, S., Wetzel, S., Kühl, T., & Bertel, S. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02202 · Cited by 13
Educational Inequality: The Role of Digital Learning Resources
Zhao, B. (2023) · Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media · doi:10.54254/2753-7048/7/2022980 · Cited by 12
Self-regulated learning in technology enhanced learning environments: problems and promises
Pina, A. R. B., Bergamin, P. B., Persico, D., Steffens, K., & Underwood, J. (2011) · Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · Cited by 12
Hopfer, S., Phillips, K. K.-D., Weinzierl, M., Vasquez, H. E., Alkhatib, S., & Harabagiu, S. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2022.819228 · Cited by 13
Student reflections on multimodal course content delivery
Jackson, S. A. (2014) · Reference Services Review · doi:10.1108/rsr-05-2014-0011 · Cited by 12
Do Pedagogical Agents Enhance Software Training?
van der Meij, H. (2013) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2013.789348 · Cited by 12
Instructor Utilization Of Podcasts In The Online Learning Environment
Supanakorn, S., & Bolliger, D. U. (2014) · Cited by 12
Evidence-Based Educational Practices and a Theoretical Framework for Hybrid Learning
Tashiro, J. S., Hung, P. C. K., & Martín, M. V. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22763-9_6 · Cited by 12
Resolución de problemas y comprensión situacional
Vicente, S., & Orrantia, J. (2007) · Culture and Education · doi:10.1174/113564007780191232 · Cited by 12
Zimmermann, M., & Jucks, R. (2018) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/10282 · Cited by 14
Qahl, T., & Lambert, C. (2025) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.3402 · Cited by 11
A Research-Based Checklist for Development and Critique of STEM Instructional Videos
Seethaler, S. L., Burgasser, A. J., Bussey, T. J., Eggers, J. R., Lo, S. M., Rabin, J. M., Stevens, L., & Weizman, H. (2020) · The journal of college science teaching · doi:10.1080/0047231x.2020.12290671 · Cited by 11
Li, E., Xiao, F., Zou, T., & Guo, J. (2021) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104994 · Cited by 11
Parker, A. S., Hill, K. A., Steffes, B. C., Mangaoang, D., O’Flynn, E., Bachheta, N., Bates, M. F., Bitta, C., Carter, N. H., Davis, R. E., et al. (2022) · Annals of Surgery Open · doi:10.1097/as9.0000000000000141 · Cited by 11
Andersen, L. (2011) · Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia · Cited by 11
Reading direction and signaling in a simple computer simulation
Rey, G. D. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.027 · Cited by 11
A design study of a multimedia instructional grammar program with embedded tracking
Koehler, N. A., Thompson, A. D., & Phye, G. D. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9161-2 · Cited by 11
Fostering Transfer in Multimedia Instructional Environments
Mariano, G. J. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-158-2.ch013 · Cited by 11
“Address me personally!”: On the role of language styles in a MOOC
Riehemann, J., & Jucks, R. (2018) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12278 · Cited by 11
Pygmalion in media-based learning: Effects of quality expectancies on learning outcomes
Fries, S., Horz, H., & Haimerl, C. (2006) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.07.005 · Cited by 11
Repurposing spoken professional genres to teach workplace video-based activity
Dressen‐Hammouda, D. (2022) · ASp · doi:10.4000/asp.8169 · Cited by 10
PaperWave: Listening to Research Papers as Conversational Podcasts Scripted by LLM
Yahagi, Y., Chujo, R., Harada, Y., Han, C., Sugiyama, K., & Naemura, T. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3706664 · Cited by 10
Blog Content and Structure, Cognitive Style and Metacognition
Colombo, B., Antonietti, A., Sala, R., & Caravita, S. C. S. (2013) · International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · doi:10.4018/jthi.2013070101 · Cited by 10
Zimmermann, M., & Jucks, R. (2018) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2018.1519165 · Cited by 12
Research-Based Guidelines for Multimedia Instruction
Mayer, R. E. (2007) · Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics · doi:10.1518/155723408x299861 · Cited by 10
Self-citationChoe, E. Y. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2909769 · Cited by 11
Storifying instructional videos on online credibility evaluation: Examining engagement and learning
Anttonen, R., Kiili, K. J. M., Räikkönen, E., & Kiili, C. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108385 · Cited by 10
Learning from multimedia presentations: The effects of graphical realism and voice gender
Rodicio, H. G. (2017) · Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology · doi:10.25115/ejrep.v10i27.1513 · Cited by 9
Personalisation and embodiment in e‐Learning for health professionals: A randomised controlled trial
Skrupky, L. P., Stevens, R. W., Virk, A., Tande, A. J., Oyen, L. J., & Cook, D. A. (2023) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.15198 · Cited by 9
Measuring Personalization, Embodiment, and Congruence in Online Learning: A Validation Study
Cook, D. A., & Skrupky, L. P. (2022) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005088 · Cited by 10
Tekınarslan, E. (2013) · Journal of Information Technology Education Research · doi:10.28945/1891 · Cited by 9
Foster, M. K., West, B., & Bell-Angus, B. (2016) · Marketing Education Review · doi:10.1080/10528008.2016.1166441 · Cited by 9
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: The Impact of Social Cues
Bechtold, S. W. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_60 · Cited by 8
Ahn, J. (2010) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · Cited by 8
Gupta, S., & Anson, R. (2014) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2014040104 · Cited by 8
Beege, M., Krieglstein, F., Schneider, S., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.678798 · Cited by 8
Ramirez, D. C. O., Salazar, D. A. R., Muñoz, Á. M. V., Betancur, L. M. Q., & Fletscher, L. A. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15081075 · Cited by 7
Personalization and pauses in speech: Children’s learning performance via instructional videos
Yang, J., Wu, C., Liu, C., Zhang, Y., & Pi, Z. (2022) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03497-x · Cited by 7
Test Takers and the Validity of Score Interpretations
Kopriva, R., Thurlow, M. L., Perie, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Clark, A. K. (2016) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1158111 · Cited by 7
Impact of Conversational Formality on the Quality and Formality of Written Summaries
Li, H., & Graesser, A. C. (2020) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52237-7_26 · Cited by 7
Learning about a serious disease: When a personalized message is harmful unless you are happy
Kühl, T., & Münzer, S. (2021) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12571 · Cited by 7
Lessons Learned From Instructional Design Theory: an Application in Management Education
Burke, L. A. (2007) · Business Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1080569907309009 · Cited by 7
Lin, H., Dwyer, F. M., & Swain, J. (2006) · Cited by 7
Developing a computer interaction to enhance student understanding in statistical inference
Lipson, K., Francis, G., & Kokonis, S. (2006) · Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) · doi:10.25916/sut.26262299 · Cited by 7
What Really Works in Hybrid Learning: A Cognitive Perspective
Tashiro, J. S., Hung, P. C. K., Martín, M. V., & Tashiro, R. R. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20621-9_2 · Cited by 6
Bernstein, B. L., Bekki, J., Wilkins‐Yel, K. G., & Harrison, C. J. (2016) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-016-9110-4 · Cited by 9
Hanselman, K., & Liu, L. (2021) · Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange · doi:10.18785/jetde.1402.03 · Cited by 6
Guidelines for Design and Implementation of Mobile Learning
Ally, M., & Samaka, M. (2016) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0783-3.ch022 · Cited by 6
Features of Computerized Multimedia Environments that Support Vicarious Learning Processes
Gholson, B., Coles, R., & Craig, S. D. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5716-0_4 · Cited by 6
Hsu, J. L., Clark, N., Hill, K., & Rowland‐Goldsmith, M. (2023) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.22-12-0249 · Cited by 5
Using the Personalization Hypothesis to Design E-Learning Environments
Yeung, A., Schmid, S., George, A. V., & King, M. M. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9732-4_25 · Cited by 5
Newcomb, T. L., Bruhn, A. M., Ulmer, L. H., & Diawara, N. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 5
Bräuer, V., Leiß, D., & Schukajlow, S. (2021) · Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik · doi:10.1007/s13138-021-00182-7 · Cited by 5
The effect of captions and written text on viewing behavior in educational videos
Persson, J. R., Wattengård, E., & Lilledahl, M. B. (2019) · LUMAT International Journal on Math Science and Technology Education · doi:10.31129/lumat.7.1.328 · Cited by 5
Mejía, C., Díaz, A., Jiménez, J. E., & Fabregat, R. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21852-1_50 · Cited by 5
Exploiting Multimedia in Reproductive Science Education: Research Findings
Senger, P. L., Oki, A. C., Trevisan, M. S., & McLean, D. J. (2012) · Reproduction in Domestic Animals · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02053.x · Cited by 5
Would Students Benefit from using Ebook Ereaders in Academic Programs
Gupta, S., & Gullett-Scaggs, C. (2010) · Cited by 5
Mayer, R. E. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0026 · Cited by 5
Self-citationInstruktionale Texte und Lernvideos – Konzeption und Evaluation zweier multimedialer Lernformate
Hattermann, M., Salle, A., Bärtl, M., & Hofrichter, R. (2021) · Konzepte und Studien zur Hochschuldidaktik und Lehrerbildung Mathematik · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-62854-6_17 · Cited by 4
Design Principles for Creating Educational Virtual Worlds
Nelson, B. C., Ketelhut, D. J., Kim, Y., Foshee, C. M., & Slack, K. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_14 · Cited by 4
Personalized-Adaptive Learning – A Model for CIT Curricula
Tashiro, J. S., Hurst, F., Brown, A. L., Hung, P. C. K., & Martín, M. V. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08961-4_25 · Cited by 4
Designing Mobile Learning for the User
Ally, M. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-516-8.ch014 · Cited by 4
The Cognitive Demands of Student-Centered, Web-Based Multimedia
Hannafin, M. J., West, R. E., & Shepherd, C. E. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-158-2.ch011 · Cited by 4
Emotionen beim Lernen mit Multimedia
Stark, L., Park, B., & Brünken, R. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-18333-2_8 · Cited by 4
Söbke, H., & Reichelt, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.09776 · Cited by 4
Hu, L., Lin, L., & Wang, M. (2025) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410.2025.2561031 · Cited by 3
Exploring Q-Learning in Social Robots for English-Slovak Vocabulary Learning
Dudiak, D., Szabóová, M., & Magyar, J. (2023) · IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI) · doi:10.1109/cinti59972.2023.10382107 · Cited by 3
Almeida, L. M. C. G., Münzer, S., & Kühl, T. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13026 · Cited by 3
Fostering Learning with Visual Displays
Mayer, R. E. (2013) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-62396-235-720251006 · Cited by 3
Self-citationLiew, T. W., Tan, S.-M., & Seydali, R. (2014) · Journal of Educational Technology Systems · doi:10.2190/et.42.3.e · Cited by 3
Instructional design as a form of information design
Mayer, R. E. (2019) · Information Design Journal · doi:10.1075/idj.25.3.03may · Cited by 3
Self-citationMueller, C. M., & Richardson, P. (2021) · Journal of Second Language Studies · doi:10.1075/jsls.21023.mue · Cited by 3
Multimedia Instructional Design Corresponded to Cognitive Psychology
Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Zhao, B., Li, G., & Lou, Y. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89962-4_16 · Cited by 3
Growing From Childhood into Adolescence
Yan, Z., & Zheng, R. Z. (2011) · International Journal of Cyber Behavior Psychology and Learning · doi:10.4018/ijcbpl.2011010101 · Cited by 3
MISSED – Studying Students’ Development of Misconceptions in Hybrid Courses
Tashiro, J. S., Martín, M. V., & Hung, P. C. K. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39750-9_34 · Cited by 3
Applying the Spatial-Contiguity Effect to Software Manuals
Lam, C. (2006) · IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm) · doi:10.1109/ipcc.2006.320365 · Cited by 3
Foshee, C. M., & Nelson, B. C. (2014) · International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations · doi:10.4018/ijgcms.2014040101 · Cited by 4
DaCosta_Boaventura_200805_PhD-3319235.pdf
DaCosta, B. (2018) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.7524611 · Cited by 3
Nieuwboer, I., Maes, A., & Swanepoel, P. H. (2005) · IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm) · doi:10.1109/ipcc.2005.1494257 · Cited by 3
Shaw, T. J. (2009) · SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) · Cited by 3
Alyahya, S. M. (2021) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · Cited by 3
Knoster, K. C. (2021) · The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) · doi:10.33915/etd.8322 · Cited by 3
Designing Generative AI-Based Agents to Empower Collaborative Self-Learning in Higher Education
Banh, L., Holldack, F., & Strobel, G. (2026) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-026-01012-1 · Cited by 3
Locating the university lecture as a contemporary educational practice
Crook, C. K. (2022) · Journal of China Computer-Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1515/jccall-2022-0013 · Cited by 2
Lin, L., Xu, K. M., Zhang, P., & Zuo, G. (2023) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-023-05191-y · Cited by 2
Reinventing the Library's Message Through the Alignment of Research and Instruction
Huber, R. (2013) · Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship · doi:10.1080/08963568.2013.795787 · Cited by 2
Oki, A. C., Senger, P. L., & Bartol, F. F. (2015) · Animal Frontiers · doi:10.2527/af.2015-0034 · Cited by 2
Halkyard, S. J. (2012) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco) · Cited by 2
Brouwer, K., & den Ouden, H. (2018) · Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing · doi:10.5117/tvt2018.1.oude · Cited by 2
A tale of two studies: TEL research and the theory-practice nexus
McDowell, J., & McDowell, J. (2020) · doi:10.21428/8c225f6e.dc7eba12 · Cited by 2
Holliday, W. G., & Harris, D. W. (2012) · ProQuest Demo Repository · Cited by 2
Pilot study of a multimedia instructional program for teaching ESL grammar with embedded tracking
Koehler, N. A. (2009) · doi:10.31274/etd-180810-911 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- 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
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 389-395
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
