The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations

In this study we investigated the influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations in a dynamic domain, namely the physical principles underlying fish locomotion. A 2x2-design with type of visualization (static vs. dynamic) and text modality (spoken vs. written) as independent variables was used. Concerning learning outcomes, it was hypothesized that (1) learners presented with dynamic visualizations would outperform learners presented with static visualizations, (2) learners presented with spoken text would outperform learners presented with written text, and (3) an interaction between type of visualization and modality would occur: the superiority of dynamic over static visualizations was expected to be more pronounced for spoken compared to written text. Subjective cognitive load measures were assessed and expected to mirror the aforementioned pattern of learning outcomes in accordance with Cognitive Load Theory (i.e., higher extraneous cognitive load (ECL) related to lower learning outcomes). For transfer tasks, the first two hypotheses could be confirmed. However, there was no interaction. Moreover, ECL was rated higher by subjects when learning with static compared to dynamic visualizations, but there were no differences for ECL with respect to the text modality. The results are discussed within the framework of Cognitive Load Theory.

[1]  Gert Rickheit,et al.  Inferences in text processing , 1985 .

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

[3]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension , 2005 .

[4]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

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

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

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

[8]  Wolfgang Schnotz,et al.  Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning , 2005 .

[9]  Dirk van Rijn,et al.  Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 2003 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  B. Tversky,et al.  Effect of computer animation on users' performance : A review , 2000 .

[17]  J. Müsseler,et al.  Influences of modality, text difficulty, and processing control on inferences in text processing , 1985 .

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

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

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

[21]  S. Vandenberg,et al.  Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization , 1978, Perceptual and motor skills.

[22]  Peter Gerjets,et al.  Realism in Dynamic, Static-Sequential, and Static-Simultaneous Visualizations during Knowledge Acquisition on Locomotion Patterns , 2009 .

[23]  Fred Paas,et al.  Attention cueing in an instructional animation: The role of presentation speed , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

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

[25]  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..

[26]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[28]  Richard Lowe,et al.  Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics , 2003 .

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

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