Data Analysis in Educational Communication: How Audiovisual Stimuli Influence Retention and Comprehension in University Students
Keywords:
Neurodata, audiovisual learning, cognitive load, retention, cognitive engagementAbstract
Introduction: In virtual learning environments, audiovisual stimuli have become a key resource for enhancing comprehension and content retention. However, the influence of such stimuli on students' neurocognitive processes varies according to their academic background, digital experience, and level of multimedia literacy. This study examines how university students process audiovisual materials through neurodata indicators, focusing on visual attention, cognitive load, and emotional engagement. Objective: To analyse the influence of audiovisual stimuli on content retention and comprehension based on neurodata indicators in students enrolled in the Online Basic Education and Online Social Communication programmes at Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI). Methodology: A mixed-methods approach was employed, with quantitative predominance and a non-experimental, ex post facto, cross-sectional and synchronous design. A total of 80 students participated, selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling. Three instruments were applied: a retention test (10 items), a comprehension test (8 items), and a simulated neurodata register assessing visual attention, cognitive load, and emotional engagement. Descriptive statistics, Student’s t-test, Pearson correlation and ANOVA were used for data analysis. Results: Students in the Social Communication group achieved higher retention (M = 8.1) and comprehension scores (M = 7.9) compared with those in Basic Education (M = 7.4 and M = 7.1, respectively). They also demonstrated higher visual attention (4.3) and cognitive engagement (4.2). Cognitive load was greater in the Basic Education group (3.7). Significant correlations were found between attention and retention (r = 0.62; p < 0.001) and between engagement and comprehension (r = 0.57; p < 0.01). Image–audio synchrony and visual coherence showed significant effects on comprehension and retention. Conclusions: Audiovisual stimuli influence students’ neurocognitive processes in differentiated ways according to their academic profiles. Prior experience with multimedia content, sustained visual attention, and emotional engagement contribute to improved retention and comprehension. Cognitive load emerges as a critical factor in virtual learning. These findings highlight the importance of designing audiovisual resources based on multimedia cognition principles and adapting them to learners’ characteristics.
References
1. Marino-Jiménez M, Torres-Ravello C, Valdivia-Llerena G. Propósitos y Representaciones. 2020;8(1):1–17. doi:10.20511/pyr2020.v8n1.438
2. Calvo M, Román C, Basualto-Alfaro P, Bannen G, Chamorro M. Rev Esp Geriatr Gerontol. 2022;57(2):79–84. doi:10.1016/j.regg.2022.01.009
3. Chávez L, Hualpa A, Luis E, Vásquez E. Religación. 2021;6(30). doi:10.46652/rgn.v6i30.833
4. Mayer RE, Moreno R. Educ Psychol. 2003;38(1):43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
5. Collado J, Rodríguez G, Romero M, Gamboa S, Navarro I, Lavigne R. Sustainability. 2021;13(10):5336. doi:10.3390/su13105336
6. Park S, Plass JL, Brünken R. Educ Psychol Rev. 2023;35:1–23. doi:10.1007/s10648-022-09686-5
7. Goián V, Goián O, Biletska T. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2021;16(10):35–53. doi:10.3991/ijet.v16i10.19679
8. Temban M, Hua T, Said N. Acad J Interdiscip Stud. 2021;10(3):272–287. doi:10.36941/ajis-2021-0083
9. Dmochowski JP, Ki JJ, DeGuzman PC, Sajda P, Parra LC. NeuroImage. 2014;101:57–65. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.06.004
10. Paas FG, Sweller J. Educ Psychol Rev. 2012;24:83–92. doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9179-5
11. Kalyuga S. Educ Psychol Rev. 2011;23:1–19. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
12. Green MC, Brock TC. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(5):701–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
13. Marroquín A, Caal I, Vásquez R, Cervantes C. Rev Guatemalteca Educ Super. 2022;5(2):216–226. doi:10.46954/revistages.v5i2.103
14. Ki J, Parra LC, Dmochowski JP. Comput Educ. 2021;169:104235. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104235
15. Fiorella L, Mayer RE. Educ Psychol Rev. 2016;28:717–741. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9356-1
16. Sweller J. Cogn Sci. 1988;12(2):257–285.
17. de Jong T. Instr Sci. 2010;38:105–134.
18. Seufert T. Educ Psychol Rev. 2018;30:123–138.
19. Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, Dewhurst R, Jarodzka H, van de Weijer J. Oxford University Press; 2011.
20. Plass JL, Brünken R. Cambridge University Press; 2020.
21. Rocillo C. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid; 2014. Disponible en: https://uvadoc.uva.es/
22. Wendorff C. Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola; 2019. Disponible en: https://repositorio.usil.edu.pe/entities/publication/7612308a-4a56-474f-b938-d19b49557a52
23. Prieto A, Barbarroja J, Lara I, Díaz D, Pérez A, Monserrat J, et al. FEM. 2019;22(6):253–262. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/3d1Bqfl
24. Acevedo A, Prada D, Ramírez J, Chia M, Roman J. Rev Espacios. 2019;40(44):8. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/3a6vbVy
25. Rivas V. Rev Guatemalteca Educ Super. 2020;3(2):136–145. doi:10.46954/revistages.v3i2.39
26. Reinoso J, Guevaraz J, Andino V, Chávez I. Horiz Rev Investig Cienc Educ. 2021;5(17):59–76. doi:10.33996/revistahorizontes.v5i17.159
27. Morales P. Rev Intervención. 2021;10(1):1. doi:10.53689/int.v10i1.87
28. Badarudin R, Djatmiko I. ICCIE 2018; 2019. doi:10.2991/iccie-18.2019.79
29. Veza I, Sule A, Putra N, Idris M, Ghazali I, Pendit U, et al. Carta Cienc Ing. 2022;1(2):41–46. doi:10.56741/esl.v1i02.138
30. Cordero G, Guevara-Vizcaíno C, Erazo-Álvarez C. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT. 2022;7(4-2):328–341. doi:10.33386/593dp.2022.4-2.1426
31. Mullo F. Medwave. 2023;23. doi:10.5867/medwave.2023.s1.uta295
32. Kapilan N, Vidhya P, Xiao G. Educ High Learn Future. 2020;8(1):31–46. doi:10.1177/2347631120970757
33. Gómez J. Cuadernos Centro Estudios Diseño y Comunicación. 2019;(65). doi:10.18682/cdc.vi65.1178
34. Dommett EJ. Comput Educ. 2020;150:103–110.
35. Eitel A, Kühl T. Learn Instr. 2019;61:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.01.004
36. Cabero-Almenara J. Rev Iberoam Educ Distancia. 2020;23(1):9–27. doi:10.5944/ried.23.1.25066
37. Immordino-Yang MH. Norton; 2016.
38. Tokuhama-Espinosa T. Teachers College Press; 2011.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Verónica Annabel Estrella Romero, Luis David Bastidas González, Daniel Alejandro Rodríguez Estrella (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
