Sex differences in science learning: Closing the gap through animations

Learning and Individual Differences

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 271-275

  Sanchez, Christopher A ^a   Wiley, Jennifer ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Science learning; Sex differences; Visuospatial ability

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952744185     PISSN: 10416080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2010.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Ackerman P.L. Predicting individual differences in complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of ability determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology 1992, 77(5):598-614.
2. Ainsworth S., Th Loizou A. The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science 2003, 27:669-681.
3. Benbow C.P., Lubinski D., Shea D.L., Eftekhari-Sanjani H. Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20years later. Psychological Science 2000, 11(6):474-480.
4. Burkham D.T., Lee V.E., Smerdon B.A. Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory experiences. American Educational Research Journal 1997, 34(2):297-331.
5. Carter C.S., LaRussa M.A., Bodner G.M. A study of two measures of spatial ability as predictors of success in different levels of general chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1987, 24:645-657.
6. Ceci S.J., Williams W.M., Barnett S.M. Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin 2009, 135(2):218-261.
7. ChanLin L.J. Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology 1998, 25:166-175.
8. Conway A.R.A., Kane M.J., Bunting M.F., Hambrick D.Z., Wilhelm O., Engle R.W. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2005, 12:769-786.
9. Conway A.R.A., Kane M.J., Engle R.W. Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science 2003, 7(12):547-552.
10. Fischer S., Lowe R.K., Schwan S. Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22(8):1126-1141.
11. French J.W., Ekstrom R.B., Price L.A. Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors 1963, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.
12. Geiger J.F., Litwiller R.M. Spatial working memory and gender differences in science. Journal of Instructional Psychology 2005, 32:49-58.
13. Gobert J.D. A typology of causal models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education 2000, 22(9):937-977.
14. Haertel G.D., Walberg H.J., Junker L., Pascarella E.T. Early adolescent sex differences in science learning: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. American Educational Research Journal 1981, 18(3):329-341.
15. Harp S.F., Mayer R.E. The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, 89(1):92-102.
16. Halpern D.F. A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2004, 13(4):135-139.
17. Halpern D.F., Benbow C.P., Geary D.C., Gur R.C., Hyde J.S., Gernsbacher M.A. The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2007, 8(1):1-51.
18. Hannus M., Hyönä J. Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1999, 24(2):95-123.
19. Hamilton L.S. Gender differences on high school science achievement tests: Do format and content matter?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1998, 20(3):179-195.
20. Hasson U., Sloutsky V. Similarity and difference judgments under perceptual and non-perceptual conditions. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2002, 429-434. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. W. Gray, C. Schunn (Eds.).
21. Hegarty M. Multimedia learning about physical systems. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 447-465. Cambridge University Press, New York. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
22. Hegarty M., Kriz S., Cate C. The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction 2003, 21(4):325-360.
23. Hegarty M., Steinhoff K. Individual differences in use of diagrams as memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences 1997, 9(1):19-44.
24. Hirnstein M., Bayer U., Hausmann M. Sex-specific response strategies in mental rotation. Learning and Individual Differences 2009, 19(2):225-228.
25. Höffler T.N., Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(6):722-738.
26. Hyde J.S., Linn M.C. Gender similarities in mathematics and science. Science 2006, 314:599-600.
27. Kozma R., Russell J. Multimedia learning of chemistry. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 409-428. Cambridge University Press, New York. R. Mayer (Ed.).
28. Larkin J., Simon H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11:65-99.
29. Levine S.C., Huttenlocher J., Taylor A., Langrock A. Early sex differences in spatial skill. Developmental Psychology 1999, 35(4):940-949.
30. Levine S.C., Vadilyeva M., Lourenco S.F., Newcombe N.S., Huttenlocher J. Socioeconomic status modifies the sex difference in spatial skill. Psychological Science 2005, 16(11):841-845.
31. Lubinski D., Benbow C.P., Webb R.M., Bleske-Rechek A. Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science 2006, 17(3):194-199.
32. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning 2001, Cambridge University Press, New York.
33. Mayer R., Bove W., Bryman A., Mars R., Tapangco L. When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology 1996, 88:64-73.
34. Mayer R.E., DeLeeuw K.E., Ayres P. Retroactive and proactive interference in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21:795-809.
35. Mayer R.E., Hegarty M., Mayer S., Campbell J. When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2005, 11(4):256-265.
36. Mayer R.E., Moreno R. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual-processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 90(2):312-320.
37. Moreno R. Learning with high tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2006, 15:63-67.
38. Moreno R., Mayer R. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:309-326.
39. Morrison J.B., Tversky B. The (In) effectiveness of animation in instruction. Chi 001: Extended abstracts 2001, 377-378. ACM, Danvers, MA. J. Jacko, A. Sears (Eds.).
40. Purnell K.N., Solman R.T., Sweller J. The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science 1991, 20(5-6):443-462.
41. Rieber L.P., Boyce M.J., Assad C. The effects of computer animation on adult learning and retrieval tasks. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 1990, 17:46-52.
42. Sanchez C.A., Wiley J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34(2):344-355.
43. Sanchez C.A., Wiley J., Goldman S.R. Teaching students to evaluate source reliability during internet research tasks. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, IN 2006.
44. Schnotz W., Böckheler J., Grzondziel H. Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education 1999, 14(2):245-265.
45. Schnotz W., Rasch T. Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animation in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development 2005, 53(3):1042-1629.
46. Spelke E.S. Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist 2005, 60(9):950-958.
47. Steinmayr R., Spinath B. The importance of motivation as a predictor or school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences 2009, 19(1):80-90.
48. Stenning K., Oberlander J. A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science 1995, 19:97-140.
49. Tversky B., Morrison J.B., Betrancourt M. Animation: Can it facilitate?. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2002, 57(4):247-262.
50. Webb R.M., Lubinski D., Benbow C.P. Spatial ability: A neglected dimension of talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99(2):397-420.
51. Westelinck K.D., Valcke M., Craene B.D., Kirschner P. Multimedia learning in social sciences: Limitations of external graphical representations. Computer in Human Behavior 2005, 21(4):555-573.
52. Wiley J. Supporting understanding through task and browser design. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2001, 1136-1143. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
53. Wiley J. Cognitive and educational implications of visually-rich media: Images and imagination. Eloquent images: Word and image in the age of new media 2003, MIT Press. M. Hocks, M. Kendrick (Eds.).
54. Wiley J., Voss J.F. Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:1-11.
55. Wu H., Shah P. Exploring visuospatial thinking in chemistry learning. Science Education 2004, 88(3):465-492.
56. Yarden H., Yarden A. Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: Students' comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education. 2010, 40(3):375-402.