Learning from video modeling examples: does gender matter?

Instructional Science

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 69-86

  Hoogerheide, Vincent ^a   Loyens, Sofie M M ^a,b   van Gog, Tamara ^a,c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b University College Roosevelt   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Example based learning; Gender; Model observer similarity; Modeling; Multimedia learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84957848706     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-015-9360-y     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Arroyo, I., Woolf, B. P., Royer, J. M., & Tai, M. (2009). Affective gendered learning companion. In international conference on artificial intelligence and education. Brighton: IOS Press.
2. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research,70, 181–214. doi:10.3102/00346543070002181.
3. Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
5. Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In J. H. Flavell & L. D. Ross (Eds.), Cognitive social development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 200–239). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
7. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
8. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 1–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
9. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
10. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,67, 601–607.
11. Baylor, A. L., & Kim, Y. (2004). Pedagogical agent design: The impact of agent realism, gender, ethnicity, and instructional role. In J. C. Lester, R. M. Vicari, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 592–603). Berlin: Springer.
12. Behrend, T. S., & Thompson, L. F. (2012). Using animated agents in learner-controlled training: The effects of design control. International Journal of Training and Development,16, 263–283. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00413.x.
13. Berger, S. M. (1977). Social comparison, modeling, and perseverance. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 209–234). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
14. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
15. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1969). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review,15, 1–40. doi:10.1023/A:1021302408382.
17. Buunk, B. P., Zurriaga, R., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Subirats, M. (2003). Engaging in upward and downward comparisons as a determinant of relative deprivation at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,62, 370–388. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00015-5.
18. Ceci, S. J., Ginther, D. K., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,15, 75–141. doi:10.1177/1529100614541236.
19. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
22. Contreras, J. M., Banaji, M. R., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Multivoxel patterns in fusiform face area differentiate faces by sex and race. PLoS One,8, e69684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069684.
23. Day, J. (2008). Investigating learning with web lectures (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Georgia Institute of Technology.
24. Day, J., & Foley, J. (2006). Evaluating web lectures: A case study from HCI. Paper presented at the conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved june 6, 2014 from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1125493.
25. Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Overconfidence produced underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students’ learning and retention. Learning and Instruction,22, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.
26. Forgasz, G. B., Leder, L. E., & Klosterman, P. (2004). New perspectives on the gender stereotyping of mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning,6, 389–420.
27. Groenendijk, T., Janssen, T., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2013a). Learning to be creative. The effects of observational learning on students’ design products and processes. Learning and Instruction,28, 35–47. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.001.
28. Groenendijk, T., Janssen, T., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2013b). The effect of observational learning on students’ performance, processes, and motivation in two creative domains. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,83, 3–28. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02052.x.
29. Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67–97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30. Hicks, D. J. (1965). Imitation and retention of film-mediated aggressive peer and adult models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,2, 97–100. doi:10.1037/h0022075.
31. Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, S. M. M., & Van Gog, T. (2014). Comparing the effects of worked examples and modeling examples on learning. Computers in Human Behavior,41, 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.013.
32. Hughes, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality Assessment,93, 278–289. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.559390.
33. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,107, 139–155. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.139.
34. Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A., & Williams, C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science,321, 494–495. doi:10.1126/science.1160364.
35. Hyllegard, R., & Bories, T. L. (2009). Deliberate practice theory: Perceived relevance, effort, and inherent enjoyment of music practice: Study II. Perceptual and Motor Skills,109, 431–440. doi:10.2466/PMS.109.2.431-440.
36. Johnson, C. S., & Lammers, J. (2012). The powerful disregard social comparison information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48, 329–334. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.010.
37. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist,38, 23–32. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4.
38. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 579–588. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.579.
39. Kalyuga, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: Introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science,38, 209–215. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9102-0.
40. Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational settings: Recent research and emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 1–33). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
41. Lee, K. M., Liao, K., & Ryu, S. (2007). Children’s responses to computer-synthesized speech in educational media: Gender consistency and gender similarity effects. Human Communication Research,33, 310–329. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00301.x.
42. Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens and video: Shooting, sharing, streaming and chatting. Retrieved December 11, 2012, from http:\\www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and- online-video/Findings.aspx.
43. Liew, T., Tan, S., & Jayothisa, C. (2013). The effects of peer-like and expert-like pedagogical agents on learners’ agent perceptions, task-related attitudes, and learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society,16, 275–286.
44. Linek, S. B., Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2010). The speaker/gender effect: Does the speaker’s gender matter when presenting auditory text in multimedia messages? Instructional Science,38, 503–521. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9115-8.
45. Ma, X., & Kishor, N. (1997). Attitude toward self, social factors, and achievement in mathematics: A meta-analytic view. Educational Psychology Review,9, 89–120. doi:10.1023/A:1024785812050.
46. McLaren, B. M., Lim, S., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2176–2181). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.
47. Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Student‘s choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity-attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology,31, 186–207. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.05.002.
48. Moreno K. N., Person N. K., Adcock A. B., Eck, R. N. V., Jackson, G. T., & Marineau, J. C. (2002). Etiquette and efficacy in animated pedagogical agents: The role of stereotypes. Paper presented at the AAAI Symposium on Personalized Agents, Cape Cod, MA.
49. Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Atkinson, R. K., & Reisslein, M. (2013). Investigating the impact of pedagogical agent gender matching and learner choice on learning outcomes and perceptions. Computers & Education,67, 36–50. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.006.
50. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.
51. Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–367). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
52. Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science,38, 1–37. doi:10.1111/cogs.12086.
53. Rhodes, M. G., & Tauber, S. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,137, 131–148. doi:10.1037/a0021705.
54. Rodicio, H. G. (2012). Learning from multimedia presentations: The effects of graphical realism and voice gender. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,10, 885–906.
55. Rosenberg-Kima, R. B., Baylor, A. L., Plant, E. A., & Doerr, C. E. (2008). Interface agents as social models for female students: The effects of agent visual presence and appearance on female students’ attitudes and beliefs. Computers in Human Behavior,24, 2741–2756. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.03.017.
56. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55, 68–78. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68.
57. Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment of mental effort in learning from different sources. Educational Psychologist,18, 42–50. doi:10.1080/00461528309529260.
58. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 647–658. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.76.4.647.
59. Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational Psychologist,19, 48–58. doi:10.1080/00461528409529281.
60. Schunk, D. (1987). Peer models and children’s behavioral change. Review of Educational Research,57, 149–174.
61. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Merrill.
62. Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of Education & Psychology,79, 54–61. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.1.54.
64. Simon, S. J., & Werner, J. M. (1996). Computer training through behavior modeling, self-paced, and instructional approaches: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 648–659. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.648.
65. Spires, H. A., Hervey, L. G., Morris, G., & Stelpflug, C. (2012). Energizing project-based inquiry: middle grade students read, write, and create videos. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,55, 483–493. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00058.
66. Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 947–963. doi:10.1037/a0019920.
67. Stewart-Williams, S. (2002). Gender, the perception of aggression, and the overestimation of gender bias. Sex Roles,46, 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1019665803317.
68. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
69. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 66–73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.
70. Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V., & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,58, 19–37. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9128-7.
71. Van Gog, T. (2011). Effects of identical example-problem and problem-example pairs on learning. Computers & Education,57, 1775–1779. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.019.
72. Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 785–791. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007.
73. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist,43, 16–26. doi:10.1080/00461520701756248.
74. Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review,22, 155–174. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7.
75. Van Gog, T., Verveer, I., & Verveer, L. (2014). Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers & Education,72, 323–327. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.004.
76. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychological values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 767–779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.76.
77. Xeroulis, G. J., Park, J., Moulton, C. A., Reznick, R. K., Leblanc, V., & Dubrowski, A. (2007). Teaching suturing and knot-tying skills to medical students: A randomized controlled study comparing computer-based video instruction and (concurrent and summary) expert feedback. Surgery,141, 442–449. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2006.09.012.
78. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,59, 431–449. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9.