Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
*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.
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: a meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306.
Ardac, D., & Akaygun, S. (2005). Using static and dynamic visuals to represent chemical change at molecular level. International Journal of Science Education, 27(11), 1269–1298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500102284.
*Arguel, A., & Jamet, E. (2009). Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 354–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.014.
*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(2), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1343.
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.
Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.005.
*Berney, S., Bétrancourt, M., Molinari, G., & Hoyek, N. (2015). How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(5), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1524.
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.
Bevilacqua, A. (2017). Commentary: Should gender differences be included in the evolutionary upgrade to cognitive load theory? Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9362-6.
Bonin, P., Gelin, M., & Bugaiska, A. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0368-8.
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.
*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.
*Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: three potential moderators of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 85, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.022.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2016). Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations. Computers & Education, 102, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.004.
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.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018b). Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: don’t overplay the hand. Computers & Education, 116, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.011.
Chanlin, L.-J. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00197.x.
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.
*Chien, Y.-T., & Chang, C.-Y. (2012). Comparison of different instructional multimedia designs for improving student science-process skill learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9286-3.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Desmet, C., Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., De Coster, L., et al. (2018). Automatic imitation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(5), 453–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000143.
Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: a meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
*Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065.
Garland, T. B., & Sanchez, C. A. (2013). Rotational perspective and learning procedural tasks from dynamic media. Computers & Education, 69, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.014.
Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition: implications for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.1.24.
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.
*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.
Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.2190/60y9-bqg9-80hx-ueml.
Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1084–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1084.
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.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.
Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7.
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.
*Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2011). The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations: evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.042.
*Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2010). The influence of visual cognitive style when learning from instructional animations and static pictures. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 479–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.03.001.
*Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I 2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193.
*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.
*Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2011). Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: effects of presentation format and realism. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1961–1970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.004.
Isacco, A., Hammer, J. H., & Shen-Miller, D. S. (2016). Outnumbered, but meaningful: the experience of male doctoral students in professional psychology training programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000107.
Jaffar, A. A. (2012). YouTube: an emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1268.
Jirout, J. J., & Newcombe, N. S. (2015). Building blocks for developing spatial skills: evidence from a large, representative U.S. sample. Psychological Science, 26(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563338.
*Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: an effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.018.
*Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00019-1.
*Lin, H. (2011). Facilitating learning from animated instruction: effectiveness of questions and feedback as attention-directing strategies. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 31–42.
*Lin, H., & Dwyer, F. M. (2010). The effect of static and animated visualization: a perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9133-x.
*Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007.
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X.
*Lowe, R. K., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2011). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 452–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1712.
*Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1347.
Mahmud, W., Hyder, O., Butt, J., & Aftab, A. (2011). Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores. Anatomical Sciences Education, 4(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.194.
*Marcus, N., Cleary, B., Wong, A., & Ayres, P. (2013). Should hand actions be observed when learning hand motor skills from instructional animations? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2172–2178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.035.
Matthews, W. J., Benjamin, C., & Osborne, C. (2007). Memory for moving and static images. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 989–993. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194133.
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197.
*Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1350.
*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.
McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9342-2.
*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.
*Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 481–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.001.
Newcombe, N. S., Bandura, M. M., & Taylor, D. G. (1983). Sex differences in spatial ability and spatial activities. Sex Roles, 9(3), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00289672.
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.025.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.
*Paik, E. S., & Schraw, G. (2013). Learning with animation and illusions of understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030281.
*Park, O.-C. (1998). Visual displays and contextual presentations in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299760.
*Park, O.-C., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296897.
*Patwardhan, M., & Murthy, S. (2015). When does higher degree of interaction lead to higher learning in visualizations? Exploring the role of ‘interactivity enriching features’. Computers & Education, 82, 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.018.
Press, C., Bird, G., Flach, R., & Heyes, C. (2005). Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 632–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.020.
*Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.135.
*Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.318.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.
*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.
*Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009.
*Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Does animation amplify the modality effect—or is there any modality effect at all?. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(4), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000048.
*Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Scheiter, K. (2011). The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.007.
Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03172968.
Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2014). Click versus drag: user-performed tasks and the enactment effect in an interactive multimedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.012.
Shimada, S., & Oki, K. (2012). Modulation of motor area activity during observation of unnatural body movements. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.006.
*Soemer, A., & Schwan, S. (2016). Task-appropriate visualizations: can the very same visualization format either promote or hinder learning depending on the task requirements? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 960–968. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000093.
*Stebner, F., Kühl, T., Höffler, T. N., Wirth, J., & Ayres, P. (2017). The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures. Computers & Education, 104, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.001.
Stephenson, C. L., & Halpern, D. F. (2013). Improved matrix reasoning is limited to training on tasks with a visuospatial component. Intelligence, 41(5), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.05.006.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.
*Swezey, R. W., Perez, R. S., & Allen, J. A. (1991). Effects of instructional strategy and motion presentation conditions on the acquisition and transfer of electromechanical troubleshooting skill. Human Factors, 33(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089103300306.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
*Tekdal, M. (2013). The effect of an example-based dynamic program visualization environment on students’ programming skills. Educational Technology & Society, 16(3), 400–410.
*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.
Türkay, S. (2016). The effects of whiteboard animations on retention and subjective experiences when learning advanced physics topics. Computers & Education, 98, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.004.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017.
Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: a meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446.
VanArsdall, J. E., Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N. S., & Cogdill, M. (2015). Adaptive memory: animacy effects persist in paired-associate learning. Memory, 23(5), 657–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.916304.
Voyer, D., & Jansen, P. (2017). Motor expertise and performance in spatial tasks: a meta-analysis. Human Movement Science, 54, 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.04.004.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250.
Wang, P.-Y., Vaughn, B. K., & Liu, M. (2011). The impact of animation interactivity on novices’ learning of introductory statistics. Computers & Education, 56(1), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.011.
Williamson, V. M., & Abraham, M. R. (1995). The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(5), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320508.
*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.
*Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012.
*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.
Wong, M., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2018). Investigating gender and spatial measurements in instructional animation research. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.017.
*Wu, C.-F., & Chiang, M.-C. (2013). Effectiveness of applying 2D static depictions and 3D animations to orthographic views learning in graphical course. Computers & Education, 63, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.012.
*Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.88.
Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to Mariana Poblete and Monserratt Ibáñez for their assistance.
Funding
Funding from PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003 is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castro-Alonso, J.C., Wong, M., Adesope, O.O. et al. Gender Imbalance in Instructional Dynamic Versus Static Visualizations: a Meta-analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 361–387 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1