You are here:

Influences on Visual Attentional Distribution in Multimedia Instruction
Article

, , North Carolina State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 17, Number 2, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Previous work applying cognitive load theory has demonstrated the effect of various text/graphic/narration relations on learning using multimedia material. Other work has looked at how the degree of integration between the text and graphics influences their use. This study set out to look at how the degree of integration between text and graphics interacts with text density, graphic dynamics, and narration to influence visual attention in multimedia instructional material. Eye tracking methodologies were used to explore how visual attentional resources were distributed under these varying conditions. Narration had a clear effect of “pacing” the viewers of the slide show. In addition, both high text density and relevant animation seemed to create high load conditions that favored students relying more heavily on narration, shifting visual attention away from the text and to the graphic.

Citation

Wiebe, E. & Annetta, L. (2008). Influences on Visual Attentional Distribution in Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 259-277. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmuller, K., & Hacker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73-95.
  3. Bunge, S. A., Klingberg, T., Jacobsen, R. B., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2000). A resource model of the neural basis of executive working memory. Proceedings
  4. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.
  5. Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75-100.
  6. Duchowski, A. T. (2003). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
  7. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind : The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
  9. Gillham, M., & Buckner, K. (1997). User evaluation of hypermedia encyclopedias. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6(1), 77-90.
  10. Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.
  11. Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95–123.
  12. Hegarty, M. (1992). The mechanics of comprehension and the comprehension of mechanics. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  13. Henderson, J. M., & Hollingsworth, A. (1998). Eye movements during scene viewing: An overview. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 269-294). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
  14. Horney, M. A., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1994). The ElectroText project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(1), 71-91.
  15. Hutcheson, T. D., Dillon, R. F., Herdman, C. M., & Wood, J. (1997, September). To animate or not to animate, that is the question. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - 1997, st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - 1997, st
  16. Just, M. A., & Varma, S. (2002). A hybrid architecture for working memory: Reply to MacDonald and Christiansen (2002). Psychological Review, 109(1), 55-65.
  17. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.
  18. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46(3), 567-581.
  19. Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures and prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 203-228). New York: Academic Press.
  20. Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustrations: Basic research (Vol. 1, pp. 51-85). New York: Springer-Verlag.
  21. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 225– 244.
  22. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
  25. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
  26. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002a). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107-119.
  27. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002b). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87-99.
  28. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
  29. Moreno, R. (2002, June). Who learns best with multiple representations? Cognitive theory implications for individual differences in multimedia learning. Paper presented at the ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, CO.
  30. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156-163.
  31. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  32. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  33. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
  34. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  35. Peeck, J. (1987). The role of illustrations in processing and remembering illustrated text. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustrations: Basic research (Vol. 1, pp. 115–151). New York: SpringerVerlag.
  36. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  37. Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. K. (2004). Dynamic visualisations and learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 235-240.
  38. Pozzer, L. L., & Roth, W.-M. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114.
  39. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S.-C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 307-323.
  40. Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2005). Children’s thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  41. Slyhkuis, D. A., Wiebe, E. N., & Annetta, L. A. (2005, April). Eye tracking students‘ use of science related PowerPoint presentations. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
  42. Srinivasan, S., & Crooks, S. (2005). Multimedia in a science learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 151-167.
  43. Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J. J. G. V., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251296.
  44. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 3(4), 257287.
  45. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.
  46. Veronikas, S., & Maushak, N. (2005). Effectiveness of audio on screen captures in software application instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(2), 199-205.Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.