Text Information and Spatial Abilities in Learning With Different Visualizations Formats

This research examined whether the informational advantage of an animation over a static picture (and over no visualizations as a control condition) can be compensated by presenting the information in the text that constitutes this informational advantage. In addition, it was investigated whether learners’ spatial abilities acted as a compensator in learning with a static picture compared to an animation. Moreover, the underlying cognitive processes were explored by eye tracking measures. Two hundred and one university students were randomly assigned to one to six conditions resulting from a 2 × 3 between-subjects design with text information (with vs. without dynamic information) and visualization format (no visualization vs. static picture vs. animation) as independent variables and spatial abilities as continuous factor. For learning outcomes, results revealed that, other than expected, text information did not moderate learning with the different visualization formats. However, learners receiving visualizations significantly outperformed learners in the control conditions, and learners receiving animations significantly outperformed learners receiving static pictures in a transfer test. An analysis of the eye tracking data revealed that this beneficial effect of animations over static pictures was mediated by a pupillometry measure that is supposed to reflect effortful cognitive processing. Spatial abilities acted as a compensator in learning with the two visualization formats: The advantage of animations was particularly evident for learners with low spatial abilities, but not for learners with high spatial abilities. These results indicate that the informational advantage of animations over static pictures cannot easily be compensated through text information, but by learners’ spatial abilities.

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

[2]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  The role of dynamic spatial ability in geoscience text comprehension , 2014 .

[3]  Sandra Berney,et al.  Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[4]  Slava Kalyuga.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Expertise Reversal Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2014 .

[5]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  W. Howard Levie,et al.  Effects of text illustrations: A review of research , 1982 .

[7]  Fred Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory: Measuring Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[8]  T. Jong.  Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought , 2010 .

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

[10]  Barbara Weber,et al.  Measuring Cognitive Load During Process Model Creation , 2015 .

[11]  Emmanuel Schneider,et al.  Static and Animated Presentations in Learning Dynamic Mechanical Systems. , 2009 .

[12]  Joseph H. Goldberg,et al.  Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols , 2000, ETRA.

[13]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[14]  Detlev Leutner,et al.  The role of spatial ability in learning from instructional animations - Evidence for an ability-as-compensator hypothesis , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[15]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  J. Carroll.  Human Cognitive Abilities-a sur-vey of factor-analytic studies , 1993 .

[17]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[18]  Fred Paas,et al.  Gender Effects When Learning Manipulative Tasks From Instructional Animations and Static Presentations , 2015, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[19]  Rolf Ploetzner,et al.  Supporting learning from illustrated texts: conceptualizing and evaluating a learning strategy , 2011 .

[20]  E. Bjork,et al.  Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. , 2011 .

[21]  Michael C. Pyryt.  Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies , 1998 .

[22]  J. Beatty,et al.  The pupillary system. , 2000 .

[23]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Sex differences in science learning: Closing the gap through animations , 2010 .

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

[25]  A. Paivio.  Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. , 1991 .

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

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

[28]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[29]  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..

[30]  D. Leutner,et al.  Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis , 2007 .

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

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

[33]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[34]  F. Paas,et al.  Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. , 2004, Psychophysiology.

[35]  Sandra P Marshall,et al.  Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. , 2007, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[36]  Joachim Wirth,et al.  The role of process information in narrations while learning with animations and static pictures , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics , 2008 .

[38]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  The Roles of Mental Animations and External Animations in Understanding Mechanical Systems , 2003 .

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

[40]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning , 2021, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[41]  J. Sinacore.  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[42]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

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

[44]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[45]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  Using Animation to Help Students Learn Computer Algorithms , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[46]  Sandra P. Marshall,et al.  Measuring cognitive workload across different eye tracking hardware platforms , 2012, ETRA.

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

[48]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation principles in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[49]  Stefan Münzer,et al.  Facilitating recognition of spatial structures through animation and the role of mental rotation ability , 2015 .

[50]  Cheryl I. Johnson,et al.  An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[51]  T. Höffler.  Spatial Ability: Its Influence on Learning with Visualizations—a Meta-Analytic Review , 2010 .

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

[53]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning , 2004 .

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

[55]  M. Hegarty.  Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[57]  Mireille Betrancourt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Animation and Interactivity Principles in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[58]  Stefan Münzer,et al.  Facilitating Spatial Perspective Taking through Animation: Evidence from an Aptitude-Treatment-Interaction. , 2012 .

[59]  Joseph W. Rigney,et al.  Pictorial Presentation and Review Strategies in Science Learning. , 1981 .