Instructional Visualizations, Cognitive Load Theory, and Visuospatial Processing

There are basically two formats used in instructional visualizations, namely, static pictures and dynamic visualizations (e.g., animations and videos). Both can be engaging and fun for university students in the fields of health and natural sciences. However, engagement by itself is not always conducive to learning. Consequently, teachers, lecturers, and instructional designers need to utilize the cognitive processing advantages of visualizations as well as engagement to achieve full instructional effectiveness. A cognitive processing focus has outlined many ways in which instructional visualization can be optimized. Specifically, cognitive load theory and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning are two research paradigms that provide several methods for directing the design of visualizations by considering how learners process visuospatial information. In this chapter, we describe five methods based on these cognitive theories: (a) the split attention effect and spatial contiguity principle, (b) the modality effect, (c) the redundancy effect and coherence principle, (d) the signaling principle, and (e) the transient information effect. For each of these effects, examples of applications for education in health and natural sciences are provided, where the influence of visuospatial processing is also considered. We end this chapter by discussing instructional implications for science education and providing future directions for research.

[1]  J. Sweller,et al.  Using General Problem‐solving Strategies to Generate Ideas in Order to Solve Geography Problems , 2012 .

[2]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory, Evolutionary Educational Psychology, and Instructional Design , 2016 .

[3]  Ruth N. Schwartz,et al.  Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Geoff Norman,et al.  Learning anatomy: do new computer models improve spatial understanding? , 1999 .

[5]  Markus Huff,et al.  Effects of split attention revisited: A new display technology for troubleshooting tasks , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Paul Ginns.  Meta-Analysis of the Modality Effect. , 2005 .

[7]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning , 2012 .

[8]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis , 2016 .

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

[10]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

[11]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  Effects of spatial ability and richness of motion cue on learning in mechanically complex domain , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[12]  Benedict C. O. F. Fehringer,et al.  Text Information and Spatial Abilities in Learning With Different Visualizations Formats , 2017 .

[13]  Michele Jacobsen,et al.  The relationship between spatial ability, cerebral blood flow and learning with dynamic images: A transcranial Doppler ultrasonography study , 2017, Medical teacher.

[14]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  F. Paas,et al.  Embodied Cognition, Science Education, and Visuospatial Processing , 2019, Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences.

[16]  D. Geary.  Principles of evolutionary educational psychology , 2002 .

[17]  J. Sweller.  Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[18]  Fred Paas,et al.  Dynamic Visualisations and Motor Skills , 2014, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization.

[19]  D. Leutner,et al.  Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. , 2002, Experimental psychology.

[20]  F. Paas,et al.  Computerized and Adaptable Tests to Measure Visuospatial Abilities in STEM Students , 2017 .

[21]  Fred Paas,et al.  Factors that impact on the effectiveness of instructional animations , 2019, Advances in Cognitive Load Theory.

[22]  Michael R. Abraham,et al.  Kinetic versus Static Visuals for Facilitating College Students' Understanding of Organic Reaction Mechanisms in Chemistry , 2009 .

[23]  Fred Paas,et al.  Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Gaëlle Molinari,et al.  How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models , 2015, Anatomical sciences education.

[25]  A. Jaffar,et al.  YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education , 2012, Anatomical sciences education.

[26]  Morgan J. Gainer,et al.  Learning by enacting: The role of embodiment in chemistry education , 2017, Learning and Instruction.

[27]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  Educating the evolved mind : conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology , 2007 .

[28]  J. Sweller,et al.  Natural Information Processing Systems , 2006 .

[29]  L. G. Doak,et al.  The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[30]  D. Uttal,et al.  Science Education and Visuospatial Processing , 2019, Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences.

[31]  D. Geary,et al.  Evolution and Children’s Cognitive and Academic Development , 2016 .

[32]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later , 2019, Educational Psychology Review.

[33]  Fred Paas,et al.  Gender Imbalance in Instructional Dynamic Versus Static Visualizations: a Meta-analysis , 2019, Educational Psychology Review.

[34]  W. Ong,et al.  Orality and literacy : the technologizing of the word , 1982 .

[35]  J. Hosler,et al.  Are Comic Books an Effective Way to Engage Nonmajors in Learning and Appreciating Science?1 , 2011, CBE - Life Sciences Education.

[36]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[37]  Klaus Oberauer,et al.  Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object , 2013, Memory & cognition.

[38]  F. Paas,et al.  An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks , 2012 .

[39]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[40]  F. Paas,et al.  Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective , 2007 .

[41]  Marcus Nyström,et al.  How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding , 2013 .

[42]  Eric Jamet,et al.  Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[43]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  The Cognitive Science of Visual-Spatial Displays: Implications for Design , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Aude Oliva,et al.  Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[45]  R. Mayer,et al.  The Role of Interest in Learning From Scientific Text and Illustrations: On the Distinction Between Emotional Interest and Cognitive Interest , 1997 .

[46]  Heping Xie,et al.  The more total cognitive load is reduced by cues, the better retention and transfer of multimedia learning: A meta-analysis and two meta-regression analyses , 2017, PloS one.

[47]  Joseph A. Kim,et al.  Split‐Attention and Coherence Principles in Multimedia Instruction Can Rescue Performance for Learners with Lower Working Memory Capacity , 2016 .

[48]  Fred Paas,et al.  Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: Don't overplay the hand , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[49]  C. Penney.  Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[50]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Learner characteristics and information processing in multimedia learning: A moderated mediation of the seductive details effect , 2016 .

[51]  Steven M. Crooks,et al.  Does segmenting principle counteract modality principle in instructional animation? , 2014, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[52]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension , 2012, Anatomical sciences education.

[53]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[54]  N. Cowan.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[55]  Günter Daniel Rey.  A Review of Research and a Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Detail Effect. , 2012 .

[56]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing , 1992 .

[57]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[58]  A. Paivio,et al.  Dual coding theory and education , 1991 .

[59]  John Sweller,et al.  The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load , 1991 .

[60]  R. Mayer,et al.  Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[61]  Paul Ginns.  Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[62]  G. Norman,et al.  Virtual reality and brain anatomy: a randomised trial of e‐learning instructional designs , 2007, Medical education.

[63]  Günter Daniel Rey,et al.  Realistic details in visualizations require color cues to foster retention , 2018, Comput. Educ..

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

[65]  Logan Fiorella,et al.  Interactive Science Multimedia and Visuospatial Processing , 2019, Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences.

[66]  R. Mayer.  Systematic Thinking Fostered by Illustrations in Scientific Text , 1989 .

[67]  F. Paas,et al.  Towards a Framework for Attention Cueing in Instructional Animations: Guidelines for Research and Design , 2009 .

[68]  Fred Paas,et al.  Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks , 2014 .

[69]  R. Mayer,et al.  Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect , 2019, Learning and Instruction.

[70]  Günter Daniel Rey,et al.  A Meta-analysis of the Segmenting Effect , 2019, Educational Psychology Review.

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

[72]  Markus Huff,et al.  Integrating information from two pictorial animations: Complexity and cognitive prerequisites influence performance , 2011 .

[73]  J. D. Fletcher,et al.  The Multimedia Principle. , 2005 .

[74]  Nadine Marcus,et al.  The Transient Information Effect: Investigating the Impact of Segmentation on Spoken and Written text , 2012 .

[75]  Eric Jamet,et al.  Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[76]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[77]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[78]  Markus Huff,et al.  Distance Matters: Spatial Contiguity Effects as Trade‐Off between Gaze Switches and Memory Load , 2012 .

[79]  Ioanna Vekiri.  What Is the Value of Graphical Displays in Learning? , 2002 .

[80]  Günter Daniel Rey,et al.  A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media , 2018 .

[81]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Role of Image and Cognitive Load in Anatomical Multimedia , 2020, Teaching Anatomy.

[82]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory for the Design of Medical Simulations , 2015, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[83]  J. Sweller,et al.  Domain-Specific Knowledge and Why Teaching Generic Skills Does Not Work , 2014 .

[84]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[85]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[86]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[87]  M. W. Calkins,et al.  Short studies in memory and in association from the Wellesly College Psychological Laboratory. , 1898 .

[88]  A. Renkl,et al.  Are seductive details seductive only when you think they are relevant? An experimental test of the moderating role of perceived relevance , 2018, Applied Cognitive Psychology.

[89]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[90]  Fred Paas,et al.  Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[91]  T. Gog.  The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[92]  Mary C. Schuller,et al.  Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education , 2011, Medical education.

[93]  Kirsten R. Butcher.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Multimedia Principle , 2014 .

[94]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Learning about locomotion patterns: Effective use of multiple pictures and motion-indicating arrows , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[95]  M. Rinck,et al.  Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams , 2006 .

[96]  Dorothea P. Simon,et al.  Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics Problems , 1980, Science.

[97]  John Sweller,et al.  In Academe, What Is Learned, and How Is It Learned? , 2015 .

[98]  Noah L. Schroeder,et al.  Spatial Contiguity and Spatial Split-Attention Effects in Multimedia Learning Environments: a Meta-Analysis , 2018 .

[99]  J. Castro-Alonso,et al.  Different Abilities Controlled by Visuospatial Processing , 2019, Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences.

[100]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[101]  O. Hyder,et al.  Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores , 2011, Anatomical sciences education.

[102]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

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

[104]  Fred Paas,et al.  Visuospatial tests and multimedia learning : The importance of employing relevant instruments , 2019 .

[105]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[106]  Fred Paas,et al.  VAR: A Battery of Computer-Based Instruments to Measure Visuospatial Processing , 2019, Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences.

[107]  Béatrice S. Hasler,et al.  Learner Control, Cognitive Load and Instructional Animation , 2007 .

[108]  T. Gog,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of How Segmentation of Dynamic Visualizations Optimizes Students' Learning , 2010 .

[109]  Klaus D. Stiller,et al.  How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts , 2009 .

[110]  John Sweller,et al.  Extending Cognitive Load Theory to Incorporate Working Memory Resource Depletion: Evidence from the Spacing Effect , 2018 .

[111]  John Sweller,et al.  The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[112]  Fred Paas,et al.  Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach , 2007 .

[113]  Bruce Wright,et al.  The emotional and cognitive impact of unexpected simulated patient death: a randomized controlled trial. , 2014, Chest.

[114]  Robert K. Atkinson,et al.  Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[115]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[116]  Dong-Hee Shin,et al.  An empirical evaluation of multi-media based learning of a procedural task , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[117]  R. Shepard.  Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures , 1967 .

[118]  Franck Amadieu,et al.  The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..