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
20 Own interpretation · 11 Own result · 8 Not checked yet · 4 Own method · 2 No basis given
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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“None of the participants in either group showed any facial expressions during learning”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The 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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 302
Designing eBooks to facilitate mathematical dialogue during shared reading
Elhadi, S. A. (2019) · Cited by 2
The Design of Interactive Digital Learning Resource in Geography of Middle School
Guo, F., Liu, Z., Duan, Y., Stoltman, J. P., Zhou, W., & Yao, Y. (2017) · International Conference on Social Science and Higher Education (ICSSHE) · doi:10.2991/icsshe-17.2017.92 · Cited by 1
Hörsch, H., Schumacher, J., & Wolff, F. (2026) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-026-10137-4 · Cited by 1
Personalizing videos to improve fundraising: evidence from reward-based crowdfunding
Yang, J., Arseneault, R., & Calic, G. (2024) · International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research · doi:10.1108/ijebr-08-2023-0805 · Cited by 1
Lee, N. (2020) · Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · doi:10.34917/5363915 · Cited by 1
Coutinho, A. D. L., Sales, G. L., & Jucá, S. C. S. (2026) · Revista de Estudos Interdisciplinares · doi:10.56579/rei.v8i2.2250 · Cited by 1
Multimedia Learning: PRINCIPLES FOR FOSTERING GENERATIVE PROCESSING IN MULTIMEDIA LEARNING
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678.016 · Cited by 1
Self-citationLiew, T. W., Tan, S.-M., & Tay, N. W. (2014) · Siti Hasmah Digital Library-MMU Institutiona Repository (Multimedia University) · Cited by 1
Personalization, Voice, and Image Principles
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678.018 · Cited by 1
Self-citationEFFECTS OF PERSONALIZED NARRATION ON LEARNER MOTIVATION IN A WEB-BASED ENVIRONMENT
Fazioli, M. P., & Fazioli, M. P. (2009) · Cited by 1
Fellnhofer, K. (2015) · Zeitschrift für Klein- und Mittelunternehmen/Zeitschrift für KMU und Entrepreneurship · doi:10.3790/zfke.63.1.25 · Cited by 1
Web-Based Environmental Health Education: Fish Facts
Anderko, L., Otter, A., Chalupka, S. M., Anderko, C., & Fahey, C. (2013) · The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing · doi:10.3928/00220124-20130115-29 · Cited by 1
Identification features and pedagogical agents in a mathematical game
Tzeng, S.-C., & Wang, P.-T. (2014) · doi:10.1109/cgames.2014.6934153 · Cited by 1
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: The Impact of Social Cues
Bechtold, S. W. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_60-1 · Cited by 1
Creating and Sustaining Library Video Tours
Baker, A. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102171-2.00024-6 · Cited by 1
Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108894333.028 · Cited by 1
Self-citationKrist, S., Noll, K., Pick, R., Pielstick, A., Sayeed, S., Schmid, L., & Schneider, M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45062-8_5 · Cited by 1
Κριτήρια Ποιότητας Βίντεο για τα Μαζικά Ανοικτά Διαδικτυακά Μαθήματα (MOOCs)
Γιασιράνης, Σ., Σοφός, Α., & Κώστας, Α. (2023) · Open Journal of Animation Film and Interactive Media in Education and Culture [AFIMinEC] · doi:10.12681/afiinmec.34574 · Cited by 1
THE EFFECT OF USING SCREEN RECORDING APPLICATION AS A MEDIA TO TEACH ONLINE CLASSES
Yuliastini, A. A. (2021) · Lingua Scientia · doi:10.23887/ls.v28i2.32391 · Cited by 1
Divino, I. A., Moreira, M. R., Sierra, D. A., Shiraishi, R. N., & Herrera, V. (2024) · EAD em FOCO · doi:10.18264/eadf.v14i1.2090 · Cited by 1
Toward the role of social agency in explaining the personalization effect
Lindhaus, M., Bolin, J. S., Wesseling, L. A. A., Oest, L., & Dutke, S. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1405308 · Cited by 1
Hughes, C. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105308 · Cited by 1
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
(2013) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-61735-867-820251017 · Cited by 1
HOW CAN VIDEOS HELP ACHIEVE EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Burget, M., Pedaste, M., Uǧur, K., & Lõhmus, E. (2014) · EDULEARN proceedings · Cited by 1
By Design: Building Trust in Virtual Teams
Beach, M., Coates, S., Hinton, C., & Montoya, D. (2013) · Cited by 1
Effects of using learners’ produced screencast as worked examples in learning
Yang, I., & Lau, B. T. (2017) · ICST Transactions on e-Education and e-Learning · doi:10.4108/eai.29-11-2017.153390 · Cited by 1
Duet Lectorials: An Engaging Approach to Interdisciplinary Teaching
Slattery, R. M., Taylor, R. A., & Doerig, C. (2018) · International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd) · doi:10.4995/head18.2018.8125 · Cited by 1
de Souza, D. D. D. (2013) · doi:10.11606/t.48.2013.tde-24042013-140702 · Cited by 1
Towler, A. J., & Mitchell, T. D. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118736982.ch10 · Cited by 1
Investigating effects of computer-based grammar tutorials
Kolesnikova, A. (2011) · doi:10.17077/etd.hhkiu0yr · Cited by 1
Mariano, G. J. (2008) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 1
Ford, S. (2015) · ThinkTech (Texas Tech University) · Cited by 1
The Use of Instructional Videos in K-12 Classrooms: A Mixed-Method Study
Allison, C. (2015) · ProQuest Demo Repository · Cited by 1
The Effect of Story Narrative in Multimedia Learning
Wu, M. (2018) · Arizona State University Library Digital Repository (Arizona State University) · Cited by 1
Lee, B. (2019) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13787 · Cited by 1
Elmosnino, S. (2018) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.122414 · Cited by 1
SUPPLEMENTARY OPEN AND DISTANCE EDUCATION FOR IMPRISONED ADULTS
Koutzeklidou, V., Sakkoula, N., & Lıonarakıs, A. (2024) · European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies · doi:10.46827/ejoe.v9i1.5566 · Cited by 1
Visser, R. D. (2009) · TigerPrints (Clemson University)
Testing the personalisation hypothesis in pre-laboratory e-learning environments
Yeung, A., George, A., Schmid, S., & King, M. M. (2012) · Proceedings of The Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Conference)
The personalisation hypothesis in e-learning: Further developments
Yeung, A., Schmid, S., George, A., & King, M. M. (2012) · eSpace (Curtin University)
Embedding Core Information Skills At The Point Of Need In First Year Science
Arndell, M., Bridgeman, A. J., Goldsworthy, R., Taylor, C., & Tzioumis, V. (2013) · The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney)
Generation of Complex Diagrams: How to Make Lasagna Instead of Spaghetti
Iliinsky, N. (2006) · ResearchWorks at the University of Washington (University of Washington)
Effective Use of Multimedia Presentations to Maximize Learning Within High School Classrooms
Rapp, E. E. (2013) · Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) · doi:10.34917/4478294
Slide presentations and Information Design: uses beyond the artefact
Cadena, R. A., & Coutinho, S. G. (2013) · doi:10.5151/designpro-cidi-53
Ditado Digital - A Inserção de Tecnologias Educacionais na Educação
Oliveira, J., de Lima, M. M., Monteiro, A. C. C., de Lima, E. B., & Nóbrega, M. M. S. (2013) · Anais ... Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação · doi:10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2013.182
DIDACTIC MODEL OF DESCRIPTIVE GEOMETRY STUDIES
Vronsky, O. (2014) · Obrazovatelni alternativi
Fritschi, J. (2008) · ProQuest Demo Repository
The role of screencasts in virtual accounting education
Sánchez, C. B., & Alemán, J. P. (2014) · Acceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria)
Developing Individual Computing Capabilities
Gupta, S. (2014) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780429171529-133
Improving children's understanding of police interviews
Hülsken, J. (2016) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Blogs' Potentialities in Learning
Antonietti, A., Caravita, S. C. S., Colombo, B., & Simonelli, L. (2015) · Advances in human and social aspects of technology book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-8450-8.ch002
Mayer, R. E. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009776660.008
Self-citationPedagogical Issues in Teaching the Psychology of Perception
Stephenson, C. L., & Halpern, D. F. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973017.064
الحازمي, ه. ع. ا. ح. (2014) · مجلة الدراسات التربوية والإنسانية · doi:10.12816/0005712
Margiotta, U. (2014) · ARCA (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia)
The Role of Social Agency in Student Learning
Melville, M. C. (2016) · University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester)
KIM, S. I., & 이영민 (2011) · Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education · doi:10.17055/jpaer.2011.17.2.63
Design Scenes of Online Code Learning Environments
Filimowicz, M. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316481165.008
AL-Nahal, A. N. (2012) · Journal of Educational & Psychological Sciences · doi:10.12785/jeps/130414
Benczúr, B., Bajnok, L., Reiber, I., & Nándor, T. (2019) · Lege Artis Medicinae · doi:10.33616/lam.29.027
خلیفة, ع. ع. ا. م., & مالک, خ. م. م. (2019) · مجلة دراسات تربوية واجتماعية · doi:10.21608/jsu.2019.66159
Brown, T. M. (2018) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
الله, ا. ع. (2019) · المجلة العلمية للتربية البدنية والرياضة · doi:10.21608/jphalex.2019.83082
Förderung des Lernens durch soziale Hinweisreize in Lernmaterialien
Demuth, S., Dreiling, T., Ebnet, V., Hausner, F., & Stiller, K. D. (2020) · MedienPädagogik Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung · doi:10.21240/mpaed/00/2020.07.08.x
Counterfactual historical scenarios as organizers of the sources of insightful understanding
Stewart, W. H. (2012) · W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library Manuscript Collections
No, T.-H. (2006) · Journal of the Korean Chemical Society · doi:10.5012/jkcs.2006.50.6.477
Ein moodle-Lernarrangement zur beschreibenden Statistik
Steinert, C., Wälder, O., & Hattermann, M. (2021) · Konzepte und Studien zur Hochschuldidaktik und Lehrerbildung Mathematik · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-33636-3_5
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118255971.refs
Self-citationClark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119239086.refs
Self-citationGrowing From Childhood Into Adolescence
Yan, Z., & Zheng, R. Z. (2019) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8900-6.ch009
Growing From Childhood into Adolescence
Yan, Z., & Zheng, R. Z. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1858-9.ch001
Designing criteria for developing educational multimedia games
Solanki, C., & Mathew, D. (2021) · LearnXDesign Conference · doi:10.21606/drs_lxd2021.09.282
أحمد, ا. ش. (2023) · دراسات فى التعلیم الجامعى · doi:10.21608/deu.2023.217787.1019
Alodat, A. M., & Al-Gharaibeh, S. (2023) · Dirasat: Educational Sciences · doi:10.35516/edu.v50i3.2500
A aprendizagem mediada pelos jogos digitais
Guerreiro, M. A. D. S. (2021) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2021.1166996
Estilo formal e estilo de conversação em textos didáticos
Troster, T. R. (2024) · Domínios de Lingu gem · doi:10.14393/dlv18a2024-20
Rieger, J., Johnstone, S., Beaver, K., Chari, R., & Brunner, T. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-99-6811-4_11
Δημιουργία εκπαιδευτικού υλικού συμπληρωματικής εξ αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευσης για έγκλειστους ενήλικες
Κουτζεκλίδου, Β. Α., & Λιοναράκης, Α. (2024) · Διεθνές Συνέδριο για την Ανοικτή & εξ Αποστάσεως Εκπαίδευση · doi:10.12681/icodl.5698
Personalizing text by using readers’ names – effects on reading comprehension and social agency
Lindhaus, M., Ehlert, M., & Dutke, S. (2025) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-025-00991-1
Tuğtekin, E. B., & Dursun, Ö. Ö. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2554304
Dressen‐Hammouda, D., & Wigham, C. R. (2024) · Questions vives recherches en éducation · doi:10.4000/14w9y
Hendriks, M., Spit, M., & Weffers-Albu (2013) · Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
THE LANGUAGE OF ENGAGEMENT IN MATH INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO TUTORIALS: A CORPUS-BASED STUDY
Swatek, A. M. (2019) · Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · doi:10.25394/pgs.8046305
Shongwe, B. (2025) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.29333/ejmste/17343
Ji, Y., Ch’ng, E., Huang, D., Hu, Q., & Peng, Y. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6264503
Gallagher, C. A., Türkay, S., Muir, M., Conroy, D., & Schrank, C. E. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/5495369
A transpositional grammar-informed investigation of meanings in MOOC video lectures
Hughes, C. (2026) · Distance Education · doi:10.1080/01587919.2026.2638742
Mayer, R. E. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009776660.007
Self-citationコロナ禍の遠隔授業における対人関係への希求と不安 ―学生のストレス軽減を目指して―
郁, 宮. (2025) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · doi:10.34388/0002000370
Clark, N., Hill, K. M., & Hsu, J. L. (2026) · AJP Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00183.2025
Persona-Conditioned LLM Interaction for Software Engineering Education (Extended Abstract)
Kassab, M., & Shrestha, S. G. (2026) · ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) · doi:10.1145/3803437.3805775
Finger tracing or stylus tracing? Investigating the tracing effect on a computer screen
Lin, L. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10714-y
State Self-Esteem, Personal Investment, and Initial L2 Lexical Acquisition
Qahl, T., & Lambert, C. (2026) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688261479331
Enhancing Digital Learning Through Spatial Contiguity: A Meta-Analysis Study
(2026) · The Journal of Educators Online · doi:10.9743/jeo.2026.23.3.1
Wynne, A. J., Murray, M. C., Johnson, R., & Cipolla, J. (2010)
Text and mimesis: Reconfiguring technology and adult learning
Recchia, N. P. (2011) · USF Scholarship Repository (University of San Francisco)
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
