Research Article
Integrating information from two pictorial animations: Complexity and cognitive prerequisites influence performance
Markus Huff,
Stephan Schwan,
Corresponding Author
Markus Huff
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tübingen, Germany.Search for more papers by this authorStephan Schwan
Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorMarkus Huff,
Stephan Schwan,
Corresponding Author
Markus Huff
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen, Konrad-Adenauer-Str. 40, 72072 Tübingen, Germany.Search for more papers by this authorStephan Schwan
Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Dividing visual attention between spatially distinct sources of information could either be beneficial (if there is too much information for a single visualization) or detrimental (if interrelated information has to be mentally re-integrated) for learning. We present a new display technology allowing for the presentation of two distinct animations by avoiding split foci of visual attention: learners are able to switch between animations by moving their head. We examined how 84 naïve learners integrated information in three presentation modes: the ‘vexing-image’ mode displaying two animations, participants being able to switch between them without shifting the visual focus, a classical ‘split-screen’ and an ‘overlaid’ condition. Results showed that reduced complexity led to higher performance. Further, we showed that participants with high mental rotation abilities were best in the ‘split-screen’ mode, whereas participants with low mental rotation abilities benefited most from the ‘vexing-image’. Theoretical and instructional consequences of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
- Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). A cognitive load approach to the learning effectiveness of instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695–820.
-
Ayres, P., &
Sweller, J.
(2005).
The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In
R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. (pp.
135–146).
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009 Google Scholar
- Ayres, P., & Van Gog, T. (2009). State of the art research into cognitive load theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 253–392. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.007.
- Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology Press.
- Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 408–417. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.408.
- Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7.
- Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
- Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington.
- Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 3–97. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.73.
- Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16, 526–537.
- Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1126–1141. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1426.
- Forsythe, A., Sheehy, N., & Sawey, M. (2003). Measuring icon complexity: An automated analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(2), 334–342.
- Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001.
- Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: Meta-analyses of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.
- Hardiess, G., Gillner, S., & Mallot, H. A. (2008). Head and eye movements and the role of memory limitations in a visual search paradigm. Journal of Vision, 8, 1–13. DOI: 10.1167/8.1.7.
- Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Hg.) (eds.) Human mental workload. (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
- Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.
- Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2008). Verbalizing events: Overshadowing or facilitation? Memory & Cognition, 36(2), 392–402. DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.2.392.
- Inamdar, S., & Pomplun, M. (2003). Comparative search reveals the tradeoff between eye movements and working memory use in visual tasks. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 599–604.
- Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 71–85. DOI: 10.1348/000709904X19254.
- Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143. DOI: 10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1.
- Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902–913. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.902.
- Linder, H. (2005). Biologie. H. Bayrhuber & U. Kull (Hg.) Biologie. Hannover: Schroedel.
- Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1.
-
Mayer, R. E.
(2001).
Multimedia learning.
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9781139164603 Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (2006). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Messaris, P. (1996). Visual literacy: Image, mind, reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- Oestermeier, U., & Hesse, F. W. (2000). Verbal and visual causal arguments. Cognition, 75(1), 65–104. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00060-3.
- Paas, F. G. W. C. (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. G. W. C., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. DOI: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
- Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Pillay, H. K. (1994). Cognitive load and mental rotation: Structuring orthographic projection for learning and problem solving. Instructional Science, 22, 91–113. DOI: 10.1007/BF00892159.
- Pomplun, M., Sichelschmidt, L., Wagner, K., Clermont, T., Rickheit, G., & Ritter, H. (2001). Comparative visual search: A difference that makes a difference. Cognitive Science, 25, 3–36. DOI: 10.1016/S0364-0213(00)00037-9.
- Rayner, K., Rotello, C. M., Steward, A. J., Keir, J., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Integrating text and pictorial information: Eye movements when looking at print advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 219–226.
- Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked-out solution steps works—A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.
- Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 101–120.
- Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
- Snow, R. E. (1991). Aptitude–treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 205–216. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.205.
- Stone, D. E., & Glock, M. E. (1981). How do young adults read directions with and without pictures? Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 419–426.
- Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
- Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
- Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424.
- Underwood, G., Jebbett, L., & Roberts, K. (2004). Inspecting pictures for information to verify a sentence: Eye movements in general encoding and in focused search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology-A, 57, 165–182.
- Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three dimensional spatial visualizations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.
- Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2.
