The effect of different chunking strategies in complementing animated instruction

The purpose of this exploratory and small‐scale study was to examine the instructional effects of different chunking strategies used to complement animated instruction in terms of facilitating achievement of higher order learning objectives. Eighty‐five students were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: animated program instruction, simple visual‐text (static images and verbal explanation) chunked animated program instruction and the animated complex visual‐text chunked program instruction. The difference between simple and complex chunked instructions is the content. Simple chunks only deal with one content area while the complex chunks explain two or more related content areas. Students interacted with their respective web‐based instructional treatments and completed four criterion measures. Results (ANOVA) indicated that significant differences in achievement were found to exist in facilitating higher order learning objectives when chunking strategies were specifically designed and positioned to complement the animated instruction. Results also indicated that complex chunking is more effective in reducing the cognitive load present in an animated instructional environment, and that students need prerequisite knowledge before being able to profit from animated instruction designed to facilitate higher order learning outcomes.

[1]  E. A. Feigenbaum,et al.  The simulation of verbal learning behavior , 1899, IRE-AIEE-ACM '61 (Western).

[2]  Lloyd P. Rieber,et al.  Animation in computer-based instruction , 1990 .

[3]  Sarah E. Goldin,et al.  Recognition Memory for Chess Positions: Some Preliminary Research , 1979 .

[4]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[5]  A. V. Napalkov,et al.  COMPUTERS AND THOUGHT, EDITED BY E. A. FEIGENBAUM AND J. FELDMAN, NEW YORK, MCGRAW-HILL, 1963: BOOK REVIEW, , 1967 .

[6]  Fernand Gobet,et al.  Memory for the meaningless: How chunks help , 1998 .

[7]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[8]  Robert Krull,et al.  User information processing strategies and online visual structure , 1992, SIGDOC '92.

[9]  H. Simon,et al.  A theory of the serial position effect. , 1962, British journal of psychology.

[10]  J. C. Hardy,et al.  Latin Vocabulary Acquisition: An Experiment Using Information-Processing Techniques of Chunking and Imagery , 2001 .

[11]  H. Simon,et al.  Expert chess memory: revisiting the chunking hypothesis. , 1998, Memory.

[12]  Dennis H. Holding,et al.  Theories of chess skill , 1992 .

[13]  Robert M. Gagné,et al.  The Conditions of Learning: Training Applications , 1995 .

[14]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[15]  Fernand Gobet,et al.  What forms the chunks in a subject's performance? Lessons from the CHREST computational model of learning , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[17]  H A Simon,et al.  How Big Is a Chunk? , 1974, Science.

[18]  H. Simon,et al.  Pattern recognition makes search possible: Comments on Holding (1992) , 1998 .

[19]  F. Gobet.  Expert memory: a comparison of four theories , 1998, Cognition.

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

[21]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  EPAM-like Models of Recognition and Learning , 1984, Cogn. Sci..