Gender Imbalance in Instructional Dynamic Versus Static Visualizations: a Meta-analysis
Studies comparing the instructional effectiveness of dynamic versus static visualizations have produced mixed results. In this work, we investigated whether gender imbalance in the participant samples of these studies may have contributed to the mixed results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized experiments in which groups of students learning through dynamic visualizations were compared to groups receiving static visualizations. Our sample focused on tasks that could be categorized as either biologically secondary tasks (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEM) or biologically primary tasks (manipulative–procedural). The meta-analysis of 46 studies (82 effect sizes and 5474 participants) revealed an overall small-sized effect (g+ = 0.23) showing that dynamic visualizations were more effective than static visualizations. Regarding potential moderators, we observed that gender was influential: the dynamic visualizations were more effective on samples with less females and more males (g+ = 0.36). We also observed that educational level, learning domain, media compared, and reporting reliability measures moderated the results. We concluded that because many visualization studies have used samples with a gender imbalance, this may be a significant factor in explaining why instructional dynamic and static visualizations seem to vary in their effectiveness. Our findings also support considering the gender variable in research about cognitive load theory and instructional visualizations.
KeywordsDynamic and static visualization Gender and spatial ability STEM and manipulative–procedural tasks Cognitive load theory Meta-analysis
We are thankful to Mariana Poblete and Monserratt Ibáñez for their assistance.
Funding from PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003 is gratefully acknowledged.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
- *Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bétrancourt, M., & Chassot, A. (2008). Making sense of animation: how do children explore multimedia instruction? In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: research implications for design (pp. 141–164). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 2. 2.048) [computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.Google Scholar
- *Boucheix, J.-M., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2018a). Computerized and adaptable tests to measure visuospatial abilities in STEM students. In T. Andre (Ed.), Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences: proceedings of the AHFE 2017 international conference on human factors in training, education, and learning sciences (pp. 337–349). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60018-5_33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chen, S.-C., Hsiao, M.-S., & She, H.-C. (2015). The effects of static versus dynamic 3D representations on 10th grade students’ atomic orbital mental model construction: evidence from eye movement behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- *Goff, E. E., Reindl, K. M., Johnson, C., McClean, P., Offerdahl, E. G., Schroeder, N. L., & White, A. R. (2017). Variation in external representations as part of the classroom lecture: an investigation of virtual cell animations in introductory photosynthesis instruction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
- Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., Edelmann, J., & Gerjets, P. (2012). How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Lin, H. (2011). Facilitating learning from animated instruction: effectiveness of questions and feedback as attention-directing strategies. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 31–42.Google Scholar
- Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- *Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.11.4.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0720(200011/12)14:6<555::aid-acp677>3.0.co;2-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2014). The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 31, 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
- *Tekdal, M. (2013). The effect of an example-based dynamic program visualization environment on students’ programming skills. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 400–410.Google Scholar
- *Thompson, S. V., & Riding, R. J. (1990). The effect of animated diagrams on the understanding of a mathematical demonstration in 11- to 14-year-old pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1990.tb00925.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- *Wong, M., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Gender effects when learning manipulative tasks from instructional animations and static presentations. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 37–52.Google Scholar