British Journal of Education

Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015

___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
EDUCATIONAL MULTIMEDIA AND LEARNING STYLE PREFERENCES
Dr. Omoniyi Tayo and Dr. Olurinola Oluwakemi
Department of Science and Technology Education
Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-iwoye, Nigeria
P.o.box 409, ijebu-Ode, Ogun State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT: Multimedia learning offers a significant opportunity to reach the greatest

number of students and most effectively supports students with different learning styles. The
basis for the use of multimedia is the assumption that when the user interacts within these
media he/she learns more meaningfully. The fundamental principle behind multimedia
learning is best described by Mayer (2005) “People learn better from words and pictures than
from words alone”. This study seeks to provide a framework for multimedia-enhanced
education. The multimedia in this study were PowerPoint and Multiple Mouse Mischief. The
framework for the study was built on what high-end multimedia presentation currently
facilitates: presenting course materials in; text, graphics, photographs and animation (visual),
audio and discussion (aural), with follow-up point-and-click or drag-and-drop exercises
(Kinaesthetic). The study set out to examine how learning styles interact with the presentation
media to influence the learning outcomes of the students. The findings revealed no significant
main effect of learning style on the students’ achievement scores. However, the kinaesthetic
learners recorded the highest adjusted post-test mean achievement score. It was concluded that
interactive multimedia presentation can facilitate diverse learning styles and although there
are claims about the benefits of multimedia presentations but the reality is that the instructional
technologies are only tools and should be applied with careful regard to the complex nature of
human information processing.
KEYWORDS: Multimedia, Learning Style, Powerpoint, Multiple Mouse

INTRODUCTION
The integration of technology into the curriculum has opened up the classroom to accommodate
more flexible teaching methods that result not only in more engaged student learning processes,
but also in the changing roles of the teacher and student. Most of the instruction in schools,
tends to be auditory (lectures), abstract (intuitive), passive (little opportunity for student
feedback) and sequential. According to Bransford, Brophy, and Williams, (2000). ‘When
computer technologies meet learning’ such mismatch between the conventional style of
teaching and the learning styles of the students can lead to poor student performance, and
student frustration, as well as compromise student retention. It has been opined that educational
technology research should be undertaken with an understanding of how people teach and
learn, as this will enable distinct theoretical position concerning the integration of technology
to the teaching and learning process.
Most educators use selected theories of intelligence or learning styles to influence their
teaching. The theories are based on the idea that students have different strengths and learning
preferences; thus teachers must adjust their instruction according to the students learning styles.
(Brian, 2011). The process by which people perceive and process information is as unique as

29
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
the individual. Interest in individual differences spawned the study of learning styles. The
theory of learning styles contends that the amount an individual learns is directly related to the
educational experience that is directed towards that learning style, rather than individual
intelligence. The study of learning styles was active for much of the 1960s and 1970s, but
recently, the interest has further gained ground; especially in education (Brian, 2011).

Learning Styles
There are many interpretations and definitions of learning styles. The definition cited in Byrne
(2002) refers to “a personally preferred way of dealing with information and experiences for
learning that crosses content areas”. Learning styles can be seen as “a description of the
attitudes and behaviours which determine an individual’s preferred way of learning” (Honey
& Mumford, 1992 in Clark, 2011)). Many learning style models exist in literature, such as the
learning style model by Kolb (1984), Honey and Mumford (Clark, 2011), and Felder and
Silverman (Byrne, 2002). While there are still many open issues with respect to learning styles,
the learning style models agree that learners have different ways by which they prefer to learn.
Furthermore, many educational theorists and researchers consider learning styles as an
important factor in the learning process and agree that incorporating them in education has
potential to facilitate students learning. Knowing students’ learning styles can help enhance
learning and teaching. First, teachers can benefit by getting information about how students
learn best, and this provides a deeper understanding that could help explanation or preparation
of learning material. Furthermore, making students aware of their learning styles and showing
them their individual strengths and weaknesses can help students to understand why learning
is sometimes difficult for them and could be the basis for developing on their weaknesses. In
addition, students can be supported by matching the teaching styles with their learning styles.
Providing students with learning material and activities that fit their preferred ways of learning
can make learning easier for them. This matching hypothesis is supported by many educational
theories, as stated and described by Coffield, Moseley, Hall, and Ecclestone (2004).

A number of perspectives have been taken by researchers in an effort to identify, analyse and
label a person’s learning style. Categorising the plethora of learning style models into groups
helps in the understanding of the main differences in the approach to identifying the individual
learning styles. Byrne (2002) offers four categories, which arrange learning style models from
those focusing on external conditions to those based on personality theory. These four groups
are:
(i) Instructional and Environmental Preference: This approach categorises learning
style from a perspective that considers one’s preferences in terms of Sensory Perception
(auditory, aural, visual, and tactile.).
(ii) Social Interaction: this reference learning styles “as a particular set of behaviours
and attitudes related to the learning context”. These include a learner’s epistemic
attitude as well as social and environmental attitudes.
(iii) Information Processing: considers physiological traits as being the decider of
individuality in learning styles.
(iv) Personality Levels: advocate consideration of the psychological types of people
and their resultant cognitive processing. Building on this, the inclusion of personality
traits mean that temperament is a deciding factor. (Byrne, 2002)

30
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Identifying ones learning style is not an easy task as scholars and researchers have concentrated
their works on a very broad range of factors and personal characteristics, which they believe
affects a person’s ability to learn. There is a vast catalogue of Learning Style Models in each
of the main perspective categories. The Instructional and Environmental Preference is of
particular interest in the context of this study. The Instructional Preferences approach directly
facilitates the effort to identify the students’ perception of multimedia as sensory stimuli. This
model is based on learners’ preference for particular external events to stimulate their senses
to help them learn. It classifies learners by their preferred mode of interaction with others based
on input stimulus and output performance. This model facilitates Multimodal-learning styles
for those learners with more than one preference. The Dunn and Dunn VAK model is one of
the most widely known and used theory of Learning style (Coffiel, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone,
2004).
The VAK learning style uses the three main sensory receivers: Visual, Auditory, and
Kinaesthetic to determine the dominant learning style. It is sometimes known as VAKT
(Visual, Auditory, Kinaesthetic, & Tactile). It is based on modalities channels by which human
expression can take place and is composed of a combination of perception and memory. VAK
is derived from the accelerated learning world and seems to be about the most popular model
due to its simplicity (Clark, 2011). VAK Learners use all three modalities to receive and learn
new information and experiences. However, according to the VAK or modality theory, one or
two of these receiving styles is normally dominant. This dominant style defines the best way
for a person to learn new information by filtering what is to be learned. This style may not
always be the same for some tasks. The learner may prefer one style of learning for one task,
and a combination of others for a different task.
VAK categorizes Learning Styles into three:
Visual: Visual learning style is the learning style which focuses on watching to learn. The
individuals who prefer visual learning style learn best through visual stimulation. The visual
learners are able to read and understand and they study best when reading a text and using
highlighters as visual stimulation that assist in remembrance. These students benefit when
diagrams, videos or similar visuals are used to teach them.
Aural: Auditory learning style is the style of learning through listening. Students who prefer
this learning style hear lectures, participate in discussion from which it is easy for them to
understand the information better. For individuals who are auditory learners, written works are
often difficult, information should therefore be sufficiently loud to be heard such that tone,
pitch and sounds will aid comprehension.
Kinaesthetic: Kinaesthetic learning style refers to tactile learning, which is learning by doing
something. The individual learns by touching, putting something together or take something
apart using his hands. These learners are exploratory learners and need to move to understand
the world around them. (Dunn & Dunn, 2002)
Since individuals respond differently to certain situations, the preferred learning style of a
learner may not always be the same for different learning tasks. The learner may prefer one
style of learning for one task, and a combination of others styles for a different task. It is the
dominant style that defines the best way for a person to learn new information which occurs
by filtering what is to be learned. In support of effective learning, Clark (2011) is of the opinion
that the most effective teaching methods involve a combination of all three sensory
components. According to the VAK theorists, we need to present information using all three

31
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
styles. This allows all learners the opportunity to become involved, no matter what their
preferred style may be.
The study set out to examine how learning styles interact with the presentation media to
influence the learning outcomes of the students

Learning Stlyes and Multimedia

According to Mayer (2005), Learner Style influences the way people access multimedia.
Multimedia learning offers a significant opportunity to reach the greatest number of students
and most effectively support students with different learning styles.
Multimedia may be defined in multiple ways, depending on the perspective in view. What is
most common among these definitions is that it involves the integration of more than one
medium into some form of communication. Most commonly though, this term refers to the
integration of media such as text, sound, graphics, animation, video, imaging, and spatial
modelling into a computer system (Jonassen, 2000). Multimedia represents the presentation
of instruction that involves more than one delivery media, presentation modes, and/or sensory
modalit. The basis for the use of multimedia is the assumption that when the user interacts
within these various methods they learn more meaningfully
Investigating the effects of multimedia presentation on learning and performance requires a
solid foundation in learning theory. Bishop and Cates (2001) effectively synthesize information
processing and communication theories as a foundation for the investigation of the use of sound
in multimedia instruction. Another example of multimedia investigations that are grounded in
cognitive theory includes the work of Mayer. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
(CTML) was popularized by the work of Mayer and other cognitive researchers who argue that
multimedia supports the way that the human brain learns. The various authors assert that people
learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone, which in a way explains
the multimedia principle (Mayer 2005a).
Multimedia researchers generally define multimedia as the combination of text and pictures;
and suggest that multimedia learning occurs when we build mental representations from these
words and pictures (Mayer, 2005). The words can be spoken or written, and the pictures can
be any form of graphical imagery that include illustrations, photos, animation, or video.
Multimedia instructional design attempts to use cognitive research to combine words and
pictures in ways that maximize learning effectiveness.
This model is based on three primary assumptions (Mayer, 2001), they are:
Dual channel: Humans possess separate information processing channels for verbal and
visual material.
Limited capacity: There is only a limited amount of processing capacity available in the
verbal and visual channels.
Active processing: Learning requires substantial cognitive processing in the verbal and
visual channels.
Furthermore, this model is activated through five steps: “(a) selecting relevant words for
processing in verbal working memory, (b) selecting relevant images for processing in visual
working memory, (c) organization selected words into a verbal mental model, (d) organizing
selected images into a visual mental model, and (e) integrating verbal and visual
representations as well as prior knowledge” (Mayer, 2001).

32
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning was first used by Mayer and his colleagues in 1996,
and became the standard name for Mayer’s theory in the year 2000. The various models over
the years had focused on different aspects of the current model, but the underlying assumptions
remained unchanged. The cognitive process elements and mental representations were added
and the model refined.

Figure 1 The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. (Mayer, 2009).

Figure 1 presents a cognitive model of multimedia learning that is intended to represent the
human information-processing system. The boxes represent memory stores, sensory memory,
working memory, and long-term memory. Pictures and words come in from the outside world
as a multimedia presentation (see left side of the figure) and enter sensory memory through the
eyes and ears (indicated in the sensory memory box). Sensory memory allows for pictures and
printed text to be held as exact visual images for a very brief period in a visual sensory memory
(at the top) and for spoken words and other sound to be held as exact auditory images for a
very brief period in an auditory sensory memory (at the bottom). The arrow from the pictures
that leads to the eyes corresponds to a picture being registered in the eyes, the arrow from words
to ears corresponds to spoken text being registered in the ears, and the arrow from words to
eyes corresponds to the printed text being registered in the eyes. The central work of
multimedia learning takes place in the working memory. Working memory is used for holding
and manipulating knowledge in active consciousness.
For example, in reading a sentence, one may be able to actively concentrate on only some of
the words at one time, or looking at Figure 2.1, the beholder may be able to hold the images
of only some of the boxes and arrows in mind at a glance. This kind of processing — that is,
processing that involves conscious awareness — takes place in the working memory. The left
side of the working memory represents the raw material that comes into the working memory
— visual images of pictures and sound images of words — so it is based on the two sensory
modalities that is called visual and auditory. In contrast, the right side of working memory
represents the knowledge constructed in working memory — pictorial and verbal models and
the links between them — so it is based on the two representation modes that are called pictorial
and verbal. The term pictorial model includes spatial representations. The arrow from sounds
to images represents the mental conversion of a sound (such as the spoken word "cat") into a
visual image (such as an image of a cat) — that is, when one hears the word "cat" one might
also form a mental image of a cat. The arrow from images to sounds represents the mental

33
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
conversion of a visual image (e.g., a mental picture of a cat) into a sound (e.g., the sound of the
word "cat") — that is, one mentally hears the word cat when one sees a picture of one.
As Mayer observes, multimedia messages that are designed in the light of how the human mind
works are more likely to lead to meaningful learning than those that are not. A cognitive theory
of multimedia learning assumes that the human information processing system includes dual
channels for visual/pictorial and auditory/verbal processing, that each channel has limited
capacity for processing, and that active learning entails carrying out a coordinated set of
cognitive processes during learning. (Mayer, 2005). Good multimedia instruction is driven by
an understanding of how the brain processes information, this is why the most effective
multimedia applications should take advantage of this knowledge. There is a growing body of
research that is exploring what makes multimedia effective. The summary of multimedia
learning principles is now presented:
Multimedia Content Characteristic

1. Words and pictures are better than words alone.

2. Multimedia learning is more effective when the learner’s attention is focused and not
split.
3. The presentation of multimedia content should exclude extraneous and redundant
information.
Multimedia Delivery Characteristic

4. Multimedia learning is more effective when it is interactive and under the control of the
learner.
5. Multimedia learning is most effective when the learner is engaged with the presentation.
Multimedia context characteristic

6. Multimedia learning is more effective when learner knowledge structures are activated
prior to exposure to multimedia content.

7. Multimedia learning is most effective when learner can apply newly acquired
knowledge and receive feedback.

Framework
This multimedia principle was used as a guide to the development of the presentation media
that this study proposed. A critical perspective to maintain while designing multimedia lessons
according to CTML is that the multimedia instructional methods are learner-centred—they are
not technology-centred approaches. Mayer (2009) points out that multimedia can be as simple
as a still image with words and that it is the instructional method, not the technology that
matters. Multimedia instructional designers often fall victim to letting the technology drive the
instructional design, rather than looking at the design from the perspective, and limitations, of
the learner
This framework has the potential to underpin the development of instruments for research into
examining the pedagogical effectiveness of multimedia presentations. This research therefore

34
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
proposes that information should be presented in different ways in order to engage learners
with different learning styles and strengths, knowing that students may have preferences for a
particular mode or learn most effectively through different modes thus improving attitude
towards the subject. This framework was built on what high-end multimedia presentation
currently facilitates: presenting course materials in; text, graphics, photographs and animation
(visual), audio and discussion (aural), with follow-up point-and-click or drag-and-drop
exercises (Kinaesthetic).
The multimedia learning tools used in this study (PowerPoint & Multiple Mouse Mischief)
accommodates the three types of learning styles and these three types are effective in the
classical ways of learning. The fundamental principle behind multimedia learning is best
described by Mayer (2005), one of the leading researchers in this area: “People learn better
from words and pictures than from words alone”. In this context, the PowerPoint presentation
used words, which include written and spoken text, and pictures include static graphic images
and animation. Research tells us that the use of both words and pictures allows the brain to
process more information in working memory (Sweller, 2005). By using multiple channels of
working memory, multimedia content can increase the likelihood that information will be
effectively integrated into long term memory and not lost.
Mayer (2003) also states that Multimedia presentations are more effective when the learner
has the ability to interact with the presentation and when the content and format actively engage
the learner. Active engagement helps the student construct knowledge and organize
information into meaningful schema (Mayer 2003). The Microsoft mouse mischief add-on
allows for multiple mouse presentation which enables the learners to interact with the
PowerPoint presentation and thus lead to active engagement of the learners. The multiple
mouse presentation also provides feedback through its student’s response system. Feedback is
an important part of the learning process, and multimedia is no exception. It is important to
provide learners with clear feedback about their progress on an ongoing basis (Gee, 2005).
Multimedia applications like the Microsoft multiple mouse add-ons that provide opportunities
for student self-assessment offer a particularly valuable opportunity for feedback.

Purpose of the Study

This study set out to examine how learning styles interact with the presentation media to
influence the learning outcomes of the students. The study generated and tested the following
null hypotheses:
1) There is no significant main effect of treatment (PowerPoint (PPT), Multiple
Mouse (MM), and Conventional Method (CM) on students’ achievement

2) There is no significant main effect of learning style on students’ achievement

3) There is no significant interaction effect of treatment (presentation media) and
learning style on students’ achievement

METHODOLOGY
The population for this study consisted of the Junior Secondary School students in Ogun state,
Nigeria. Purposive sampling was used in the selection of schools based on some criteria which

35
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
include prior familiarity with the Computers, as this would help reduce the time required for
training and the effect of novelty of the technology on the students. It was also to ensure
possible continuity of the use of the technology after the end of the treatment. Intact classes in
this schools were used. A total number of 110 students participated in the study.
The instructional packages were designed by the researcher, the design of the PowerPoint slides
was guided by the Mayer’s (2009) multimedia principle. The learning materials used were a
combination of World Wide Web resources and computer-generated multimedia designed and
developed by the author. These were administered on the experimental group assigned to power
point presentation.
The multiple mouse presentation package was also designed by the researcher using, a
PowerPoint add-in called Mouse Mischief, which is used to create and play interactive,
multiple-mouse presentations. The same PowerPoint slides created for the PowerPoint group
was used, with the interactive dimension enabled by Mouse Mischief application, which allows
the students to point and click or pick and drag on the PowerPoint presentations. Questions
requiring yes or no answers, multiple choice questions, and drawing activities were included
in the slides and administered on the experimental group assigned to Microsoft Multiple
Mouse.
The Learning Styles Self-Assessment Test (LSSAT) was an adaptation of the VAK (Visual,
Aural, Kinaesthetic), which is an informal learning styles inventory designed to help students
identify how they prefer to learn. The inventory contained 30 questions whose answers
provided students with an indication of what their personal learning preference could be. The
students were asked to respond to thirty items to detect their learning style, ten items each,
representing one of the three categories of Visual, Aural and Kinaesthetic. However, the items
were shuffled to control for respondents’ fixation on any of the categories. The statements
made in the instruments required respondents to indicate how each applied to them.
specifically *1* means Not Like Me, *2* means A Little Like Me, *3* means Like Me, *4*
means A Lot Like Me . Scores were totalled to determine learning style preference.
A pre-test was given to determine if any statistically significant differences existed among the
groups at the beginning of the study. At the end of the treatment, the two instruments (SAVA
& VAAT) were administered as posttest, the same set of test used for the pretest where used,
in order to reduce the test re-test effects, the items were reshuffled to minimize students’ use
of previously acquired response sets.
The data collected were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Means and
standard deviation scores were the descriptive statistics used to show estimates of the post-test
achievement and attitude scores according to the levels of presentation media and learning
style. The formulated hypotheses were tested using the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA),
with the pre-test scores as covariates. The accompanying Multiple Classification Analysis
(MCA) was used to explain the magnitudes of the post-test mean achievement and attitude
scores across the different levels of presentation media and learning style

36
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
RESULTS
Descriptive Results of Students’ Achievement
Table 1: Students’ Achievement Scores According to Presentation Media

Presentation Media N Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum Range

Power Point (PPT) Pre-test 28 14.18 4.16 7 23 16
Post-test 16.64 3.54 10 23 13
Multiple Mouse Pre-test 45 14.67 3.58 5 23 18
(MM) Post-test 17.67 3.59 8 23 15
Conventional Pre-test 37 13.30 3.30 8 19 11
(CM) Post-test 15.16 2.50 11 21 10
Total Pre-test 110 14.08 3.66 5 23 18
Post-test 16.56 3.40 8 23 15

The result in Table 1 revealed the participants’ pre-test and post-test mean achievement scores
before and after exposure to the presentation media used as instructional strategies. At the end
of the treatment period, the group of participants taught using the multiple mouse presentation
strategy recorded the highest post-test mean achievement score of 17.67 (S.D. = 3.59); this was
followed by the participants taught using the power point presentation strategy whose post-test
mean achievement score was 16.64 (S.D. = 3.54), while the participants taught using the
conventional method recorded the least post-test mean achievement score of 15.16 (S.D. =
2.50).
The result in table 1 also revealed mean gains across the three treatment groups when the pre-
test and post-test scores are compared, with the highest mean achievement gain from the
multiple mouse presentation group.

Table 2: Students’ Achievement Scores According to Learning Style Group

Learning Style Group N Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum Range

Visual Pre-test 38 14.58 3.81 10 23 13
Post-test 16.53 3.42 10 23 13
Aural Pre-test 49 13.98 3.53 5 20 15
Post-test 16.61 3.79 8 23 15
Kinesthetic Pre-test 23 13.48 3.73 8 19 11
Post-test 16.52 2.52 13 22 9
Total Pre-test 110 14.08 3.66 5 23 18
Post- 16.56 3.40 8 23 15
test
The result in table 2 revealed the participants’ pre-test and post-test mean achievement scores
according to learning style before and after exposure to the three presentation media used as
instructional strategies. At the end of the treatment period, the aural learners who participated
recorded the highest post-test mean achievement score of 16.61 (S.D. = 3.79); followed by the
visual learners who participated, the post-test mean achievement score was 16.53 (S.D. = 3.42),
while the kinaesthetic learners who participated recorded the least post-test mean achievement
score of 16.52 (S.D. = 2.52). The result in table 2 also revealed mean gains across the three

37
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
levels of learning style when the pre-test and post-test scores are compared, with the highest
mean achievement gain recorded by the kinaesthetic learners.

Table 3: Summary of Analysis of Covariance of Students’ Achievement Scores

According to Presentation Media and Learning Style

Sum of Sig. of
Source of Variation Squares df Mean Square F F
Main Effects 800.819 1 800.819 93.045 .000
Covariates (pre-test) 142.744 1 142.744 16.585 .000
Treatment (PPT, MM, CM) 64.683 2 32.342 3.758 .027*
Learning Style (LS) 5.281 2 2.641 .307 .737
2 Way Interactions
Treatment * L. Style 59.490 4 14.873 2.728 .151
* indicate significant F at .05 level R Squared = .378 (Adjusted R Squared = .255)

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant main effect of treatment (PowerPoint (PPT),

Multiple Mouse (MM), and Conventional Method (CM) on students’ achievement
The result in Table 3 shows the main effect of presentation media on the students’ achievement
scores. The result revealed significant outcome (F (2, 91) = 3.758, P < 0.05), that is, the post-test
mean achievement scores of the students exposed to the different presentation media are
significantly different. As a result, the null hypothesis one that states that there is no significant
main effect of treatment (PowerPoint (PPT), Multiple Mouse (MM), and Conventional Method
(CM) on students’ achievement is rejected.

Table 4: Multiple Classification Analysis of Students’ Achievement Scores According to

Presentation Media and Learning Style

Variable + Category N Unadjusted Eta Adjusted for Beta

Presentation Media Deviation Independent +
Covariates
1. Power Point (PPT) 28 - 0.96 1.40
2. Multiple Mouse (MM) 45 - 0.02 1.80
3. Conventional (CM) 37 - 2.23 .08 0.01 .28
Learning Style
1. Visual 38 - 1.37 0.74
2. Aural 49 - 0.65 .01 1.07 .08
3. Kinesthetic 23 -1.15 1.36
Multiple R Squared .378
Multiple R .615

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant main effect of learning style on students’

achievement.
The result of the main effect of learning style in table 3 revealed no significant main effect of
learning style on the students’ achievement scores (F (2, 91) = .307, P > 0.05). The result implied
that the post-test mean achievement scores of students having visual, aural and kinaesthetic

38
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
learning styles exposed to the different presentation media were not significantly different.
Therefore, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
However, the result of the multiple classification analysis (MCA) on learning style in table 4
showed that with a grand mean of 16.559, the kinaesthetic learners recorded the highest
adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 17.919 (i.e. 16.559 + 1.36). The aural learners
recorded the next higher adjusted post-test mean achievement score of 17.629 (i.e. 16.559 +
1.07) while the visual learners recorded the least adjusted post-test mean achievement score of
17.339 (i.e. 16.559 + 0.74). This outcome thus revealed that the treatment had more impact on
the kinaesthetic learning style than the visual or aural learning style. There was however no
statistically significant difference in the post-test mean achievement scores of the students
according to learning style.

Hypothesis 3: There is no significant interaction effect of treatment (presentation media)

and learning style on students’ achievement.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect of treatment and learning style in table 3 revealed no
significant interaction effect of treatment and learning style on the students’ achievement
scores (F (4, 91) = 1.728, P > 0.05). The obtained results implied that students’ post-test mean
achievement scores under different treatment (presentation media) did not vary significantly
among students with different learning styles i.e visual, aural or kinaesthetic. Hence, the null
hypothesis that states that there is no significant interaction effect of treatment (presentation
media) and learning style on students’ achievement cannot be rejected.

DISCUSSION
This results show that the multimedia presentations of PowerPoint and Multiple Mouse had
more superior potency in enhancing learning than the conventional method. This finding
corroborates the assertion of the multimedia principle which states that including multimedia
as part of instruction can significantly enhance student learning (Mayer, 2005). Zywno and
Waalen (2002) quasi-experimental study in a course offered in a hypermedia-assisted mode,
found a statistically significant increase in academic achievement in the hypermedia mode, as
compared with the conventionally instructed control group.
The findings revealed no significant main effect of learning style on the students’ achievement
scores. The result implied that the post-test mean achievement scores of students having visual,
aural and kinaesthetic learning styles exposed to the different presentation media were not
significantly different. However, the result of the multiple classification analysis (MCA) on
learning style showed that the kinaesthetic learners recorded the highest adjusted post-test
mean achievement score. Followed by the aural learners while the visual learners recorded the
least adjusted post-test mean achievement score.
The result of the 2-way interaction effect of treatment and learning style also revealed no
significant interaction effect of treatment and learning style on performance. This outcome
implied that students’ post-test mean achievement scores under different treatment
(presentation media) did not vary significantly among students with different learning styles
(visual, aural or kinesthetic). These findings seem to support what is documented in literature,
namely that due to multi-modal attributes involved, hypermedia is more effective in reaching
all types of students and reducing differences in the academic performance among different

39
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
learning styles (Mayer, 2009). Adedapo (2013) reported similar results of no significant effect
of learning style on students’ cognitive achievements in microteaching and no significant
interactive effect of microteaching modes and learning style on students’ cognitive
achievement in microteaching.
However, that does not mean that learning styles are unimportant. As Coffield et al (2004)
noted, just varying delivery style may not be enough, the unit of analysis must be the individual
rather than the group. That is, when you analyze a group, the findings often suggest that
learning styles are relative unimportant, however, when you analyze an individual, then the
learning style often distinguishes itself as a key component of being able to learn or not.
(Coffield et al, 2004).
The results of the study confirmed that students’ learning style preference does not reflect in
their academic performance, and that learning styles and presentation media do not interact in
a way that could affect learning outcomes. This may indicate that everyone in the sampled
groups had equal opportunity to learn in a preferred way. Those who learn well in a
lecture/direct instruction still had the benefit of the lecture/direct instruction and those who did
n’t, rather than being disadvantaged had a different perspective provided by the multimedia
presentation, therefore there was equal opportunity for the use of the three learning styles
during the treatment.

CONCLUSION
How a learner approaches multimedia is hypothesized to depend on their learning style and
their level of engagement with the material, the latter being dependent on their level of
motivation which can be altered by their experience with the features of the multimedia
environment. Also, material presented in a variety of methods keeps the learners interested and
reinforces learning.
Most researchers agree that we do have various learning styles and preferences, however, the
research tends to agree that it is relative unimportant when designing learning programs. Hattie
(2011) notes that no single measurement of style ensures that a learner's need will be met. It is
perhaps more important to build an adaptable learning environment that presents the material
in a variety of methods than try to determine each learners' style. The more styles you address,
the easier the instruction will be received by the learners. Rather, it is far more important to
match the presentation with the nature of the subject, such as providing correct learning
methods, strategies, and context; rather than matching individual preferences (Coffield, et. al.,
2004).
According to Merrill (2000) the best philosophy for using learning styles as instructional
strategies should first be determined on the basis of the type of content to be taught or the
objectives of the instruction (the content-by-strategy interactions) and secondarily, learner
styles and preferences are then used to adjust or fine-tune these fundamental learning strategies.
Finally, content-by-strategy interactions take precedence over learning-style-by-strategy
interactions regardless of the instructional style or philosophy of the instructional situation.
Furthermore in Talia, (2012) question whether quantitative studies are the best method by
which to evaluate whether teaching to a student's learning style affects the student's learning.
The authors point out that learning-style teaching may benefit a child, but such studies don't
allow for other factors, such as a more-educated teacher, better classroom environment or the

40
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
child's own aptness for learning. These variables may be causing the positive results in a child's
learning that are being attributed to learning-style teaching.
Thus one can assert from the these findings that the ‘multi’ modality of the presentation media
used as strategies in this study has equally influenced the students learning outcomes across
board, irrespective of the presentation mode the students had improved learning outcomes.
Therefore it seems reasonable to claim that if we use the three presentation media in the
teaching and learning, there would be much more improvement on the students learning
outcome than exposing them to just one style of presentation. Also one can then conclude that
the no significant interaction effect of treatment and learning style on the students’ learning
outcome may be due to the fact that there are other moderators that can influence learning
outcomes of students other than learning style, as such, further investigation may therefore be
needed to isolate these variables.
In conclusion, interactive multimedia such as Multiple Mouse presentation can facilitate
diverse learning styles. Such sensory-rich participatory presentation goes beyond the more
abstract style typical of lectures or textbooks, helping students who learn by seeing, hearing or
doing. This study was built on an extensive body of multimedia material and it seeks to provide
a framework for multimedia-enhanced education in the curriculum. There are claims about the
benefits of multimedia presentations such as PowerPoint over traditional instruction but the
reality is that the instructional technologies are only tools and should be applied with careful
regard to the complex nature of human information processing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this study have indicated that the two treatments groups (PPT) and (MMM) have
significantly higher level of learning achievement than the control group (CP). This implies
that these two presentations media have been effective and can be recommended for use in
teaching, especially for younger classes.

Teachers in planning their lessons should prepare to present information in ways that
accommodate the different learning styles in the class and include activities that would meet
the preference need of the different learning style.
Further investigation into other moderators that can influence learning outcomes of students
using multimedia, other than learning style may be needed.

REFERENCES
Adedapo, Y. A. (2013). Impact of three microteaching modes on trainee-teachers’ learning
outcomes in selected teaching skills. Unpublished doctoral thesis submitted to the
Department of Curriculum Studies and Instructional Technology, Olabisi Onabanjo
University, Ago-iwoye.
Bishop, M.J., & Cates, W.M., (2001). Theoretical foundations for sound’s use in multimedia
instruction to enhance learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,
49(3), 5-22.

41
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)
 British Journal of Education
Vol.3, No.12, pp.29-42, December 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK (www.eajournals.org)
Bransford. J, Brophy. S. & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning
sciences: issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1),
59-84.
Brian, Gabriel. (2011). Theories of Intelligence & Learning Styles. Retrieved June 20 2013
from http://www.ehow.com/info_8155798_theories-intelligence-learning-styles.html
Byrne, Denice. (2002). A study of individual learning styles and educational multimedia
preferences: an experiment using self-directed online learning resources.
School of Computer Applications, Dublin City University, Ireland. Available from
www.computing.dcu.ie/~mfarren/educators.html
Clark, Donald R. (2011) Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic Learning Style (VAK). Retrieved
Jan 8, 2013 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles/vakt.html
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in
post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Retrieved from http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/1543.pdf
Dunn & Dunn.(1981) VAK Learning Style. retrieved from Dunn and Dunn website. (2002).
Accessed Febuary 23, 2013. Available from http://www.learningstyles.net.
Gee, J.P. (2005). Learning by design: Good video games as learning machines. E-Learning.
2, 5-16.
Hattie john. (2011) visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. routle
Jonassen, D. (2000). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kolb, David A., (1984) Experiential Learning. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall. Retrieved
from academic.regis.edu/ed205/kolb.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. In
Applying the Science of Learning. Retrieved January 8, 2013 from
www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/33972230
Mayer, R.E. (2003). Learning and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R.E. (2005) Introduction to multimedia learning. in R. E. Mayer (Ed.). The Cambridge
Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R.E. (2005a). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: personalization,
voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer, (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of
Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

42
ISSN 2055-0219(Print), ISSN 2055-0227(online)