The voice effect in multimedia instruction revisited: Does it still exist?
Nazmi Dinçer 1 *
More Detail
1 National Defence University, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


The voice effect or principle assumes that people learn better when they are exposed to multimedia instruction that includes a human voice rather than a machine voice. This investigation reconsiders the voice principle by investigating the relationship between learning outcomes and mental effort of the learners. Text-to-speech (TTS) engines have improved dramatically since the early 2000s, thanks to technological advancements. The researchers employed sophisticated TTS engines in a pretest-posttest design to analyze the various voice types (human voice, traditional machine voice, and modern machine voice). The results indicated that the progress in TTS technology enabled to generate real-life-like voices, and therefore no significant difference was observed between the modern and human voice. Furthermore, the participants’ cognitive load was consistent with the findings of the learning outcomes.



  • Ahn, J. (2010). The effect of accents on cognitive load and achievement: The relationship between students' accent perception and accented voice instructions in students' achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ohio University, USA.
  • Akker, E., & Cutler, A. (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(2), 81-96.
  • Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117-139.
  • Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of socialization theory and research, 213, 262.
  • Blascovich, J. (2002, September). A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility ofcollaborative virtual environments. In W. Broll (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Collaborative virtual environments (pp. 25-30). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education, 114, 193-205.
  • Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2019). Text-to-speech software and learning: Investigating the relevancy of the voice effect. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1534-1548.
  • Craig, S. D., Chiou, E. K., & Schroeder, N. L. (2019, November). The impact of virtual human voice on learner trust. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 2272-2276). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
  • Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and speech, 40(2), 141-201.
  • Davis, R. O., Vincent, J., & Park, T. (2019). Reconsidering the Voice Principle with Non-native Language Speakers. Computers & Education, 140, 103605.
  • Dinçer, S., & Doğanay, A. (2017). The effects of multiple-pedagogical agents on learners' academic success, motivation, and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 111, 74-100.
  • Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes?. Journal of media Psychology.
  • Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
  • Johnson, W. L., & Lester, J. C. (2018). Pedagogical Agents: Back to the Future. AI Magazine, 39(2).
  • Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. L. (2016). based design of pedagogical agent roles: A review, progress, and recommendations. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 160-169.
  • Lawson, A. P., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). The Power of Voice to Convey Emotion in Multimedia Instructional Messages. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1-20.
  • Leppink, J., & van den Heuvel, A. (2015). The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education. Perspectives on medical education, 4(3), 119-127.
  • Liew, T.W., Tan, S.-M., Tan, T. M. & Kew, S. N. (2020). Does speaker’s voice enthusiasm affect social cue, cognitive load and transfer in multimedia learning?. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(3/4), 117-135.
  • 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(5), 503-521.
  • Mayer, R. (2020). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi:10.1017/9781316941355
  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239.
  • Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(2), 419.
  • Nass, C. I., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship (p. 9). Cambridge: MIT press.
  • Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 84(4), 429.
  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  • Rey, G. D., & Steib, N. (2013). The personalization effect in multimedia learning: The influence of dialect. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2022-2028.
  • Richards, D., & Dignum, V. (2019). Supporting and challenging learners through pedagogical agents: Addressing ethical issues through designing for values. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2885-2901.
  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138.
  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37-76.
  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. In J. Sweller, P. Ayres, & S. Kalyuga Cognitive load theory (pp. 71-85). Springer.
  • Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
  • Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.
  • Wang, F., Wenjing, L., Richard, E. M., & Huashan, L. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids inmultimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250-268.
  • Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.