Do Learner Characteristics Moderate the Seductive-Details-Effect? A Cognitive-Load-Study Using Eye-Tracking

Introduction The design of computer-based multimedia learning instructions has many options concerning the integration of additional, non-redundant and interesting but irrelevant learning material in form of pictures, text, animated sequences, videos or audio commentaries. These options are more than playing with colors and/or shapes of the relevant learning material as recommended by emotional design principles that can evoke learning-conducive affective processing in multimedia learning (Park, Knorzer, Plass, & Brunken, 2015; Park, Plass, & Brunken, 2014; Plass, Heidig, Hayward, Homer, & Um, 2014). The additional, non-redundant and interesting but irrelevant information is also used to make the learning material more interesting and attractive to learners (Park, Flowerday, & Brunken, 2015). However, in fact such additional information can also decrease the learning performance. Until now, research on this negative effect of seductive details has focused on seductive text passages or seductive illustrations in text comprehension studies. Several studies have shown a detrimental effect of seductive details (Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989; Harp & Mayer, 1998; Lehman, Schraw, McCrudden, & Hartley, 2007; McCrudden & Corkill, 2010), whereas others have shown non-significant results (Garner & Gillingham, 1991; Hidi & Baird, 1988). All of these studies showing a detrimental effect were using scientific texts that explain for example detailed differences between insects or the lightning process step by step. In contrast, the studies that could not show the detrimental effect of seductive details were using non-scientific text. This already is a hint to the idea that seductive details can only interfere with learning within a high-loading learning process that requires managing the available cognitive resources. In a study by Park, Moreno, Seufert and Brunken (2011), it was shown that controversial results in seductive-details research can be explained by an effect on cognitive load. The findings showed that students' learning performance was significantly higher when seductive details were presented under the low load condition (narration) as compared to all other conditions. Concerning particular learner characteristics a similar effect should appear: If the degree of cognitive load is responsible for the strength of the seductive-details effect and the individual degree of cognitive load is affected by learner characteristics, there should be learner characteristics that moderate the seductive-details effect. To this end, the goal of the present study was to test this hypothesis for two learner characteristics that are supposed to affect the individual cognitive load while learning with multimedia learning instructions: prior knowledge and spatial ability. Theoretical framework and predictions According to the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Plass, Moreno, & Brunken, 2010; Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011) the total cognitive capacity is limited and the amount of total cognitive load is determined by three components. First, intrinsic cognitive load depends on the element interactivity. The larger the number of elements that must be processed in working memory and the more complex their relation to each other is, the higher the intrinsic load. Second, extraneous cognitive load is directly caused by the format and concept of the information presentation. A proper instructional design fosters information processing and saves cognitive resources by minimizing extraneous cognitive load. Third, germane cognitive load is the load dedicated to relevant information processing. The higher the engagement in learning and schema acquisition is, the higher the germane load. Seductive details consist of additional interesting but irrelevant information, are part of the instructional design and can therefore be allocated to the extraneous load factor. …

[1]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude–treatment–interaction study , 2009 .

[3]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  Eye movements during information processing tasks: Individual differences and cultural effects , 2007, Vision Research.

[4]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics , 2010 .

[5]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  The Use of Eye Movements in the Study of Multimedia Learning. , 2010 .

[6]  Chiara Meneghetti,et al.  Individual differences in spatial text processing: High spatial ability can compensate for spatial working memory interference. , 2009 .

[7]  M. Just,et al.  Eye fixations and cognitive processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  K. Holmqvist,et al.  Reading Information Graphics: the Role of Spatial Contiguity and Dual Attentional Guidance , 2022 .

[9]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[10]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Unique Contributions of Eye-Tracking Research to the Study of Learning with Graphics , 2010 .

[11]  J. Wiley,et al.  An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[12]  O. Wilhelm,et al.  Working memory capacity - facets of a cognitive ability construct , 2000 .

[13]  Roland Brünken,et al.  The Rhythm Method: A New Method for Measuring Cognitive Load—An Experimental Dual‐Task Study , 2015 .

[14]  Ruth Garner,et al.  Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. , 1991 .

[15]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities , 2009 .

[17]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: An eyetracking study on the use of anthropomorphisms , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Dennis M. McInerney,et al.  Cross Cultural Model Testing: Inventory of School Motivation , 1991 .

[19]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. , 1988 .

[20]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[21]  Matthew T. McCrudden,et al.  Verbal Ability and the Processing of Scientific Text With Seductive Detail Sentences , 2010 .

[22]  T. Gog,et al.  Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load , 2014 .

[23]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[24]  C. S. White,et al.  Effects of 'Seductive Details' on Macroprocessing and Microprocessing in Adults and Children , 1989 .

[25]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[26]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[27]  V. Aleven,et al.  Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments , 2014 .

[28]  Ruth B. Ekstrom,et al.  Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests , 1976 .

[29]  Yu-Cin Jian,et al.  Learners' eye movements during construction of mechanical kinematic representations from static diagrams , 2014 .

[30]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[31]  Elizabeth O. Hayward,et al.  Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning , 2014 .

[32]  Florian Schmidt-Weigand,et al.  A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning , 2010 .

[33]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[34]  A. Glenberg,et al.  The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension , 1982 .

[35]  T. Foulsham,et al.  It depends on how you look at it: Scanpath comparison in multiple dimensions with MultiMatch, a vector-based approach , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[36]  Huei-Tse Hou,et al.  Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Matthew T. McCrudden,et al.  Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text , 2007 .

[38]  F. Paas Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. , 1992 .