• Save
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Renner Thesis Design Principles

on

  • 1,056 views

My thesis integrates perspectives from text comprehension and multimedia learning theories. Results provide evidence for a linear contiguity effect and a text cohesion effect as new multimedia design ...

My thesis integrates perspectives from text comprehension and multimedia learning theories. Results provide evidence for a linear contiguity effect and a text cohesion effect as new multimedia design principles. Publications are forthcoming.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,056
Views on SlideShare
1,055
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • This thesis integrates perspectives from text comprehension and multimedia learning theories. Results provide evidence for a linear contiguity effect and a text cohesion effect as new multimedia design principles. Publications are forthcoming.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • On average, participants performed more poorly compared to those in O’Reilly & McNamara. Participants were particularly unsuccessful in answering the bridging questions and cell knowledge questions, indicating that the lesson and assessment materials were quite challenging.
  • The correlations between the individual difference measures indicate that the ND correlated most highly with general humanities knowledge but also significantly with the biology and cell knowledge measures. This result is to be expected because performance on a comprehension skill test involves knowledge use and the topics in the ND tend to be general rather than related to science. Correlations between the individual difference measures and the comprehension measures indicate that the measures of domain knowledge show higher correlations with comprehension than does the ND.The MSI did not correlate highly with any measures and due to its low reliability is not included in the main analysis as an indication of reading skill.
  • An analysis of variance was performed to examine the relation between the experimental factors and the prior knowledge factor. Assignment biasSo in main analysis, knowledge could explain the difference between groupsGet around it with separate analyses for each group
  • The time on task measure is the difference between the logged start and stop time, divided by the number of words in the text, as a function of the participant’s text type condition.
  • Participants took longer to read the low-cohesion text when it was on the left side of the pageNo additional effects when replicated with prior knowledge or reading skill; they did not interact
  • Univariate analyses revealed that the effect of page configuration on text-based questions was marginally significant when diagrams were available, but was not significant when diagrams were not available. This result is to be expected because when the diagram is present, page configuration should not have an effect.
  • Although there was a main effect of diagram regardless of configuration, they seemed to be most effective when they were presented on the left side of the page and combined with a high cohesion text. This result may have been influenced by the greater number of high-knowledge participants who received diagrams. We initially included configuration so that we could show that there was no effect. The plan was to drop it from further analyses. But since it is playing a significant role, we had to include it. And we could not include reading skill and prior knowledge together as factors because they produced inadequate cell sizes. But including configuration produced cell sizes that were sufficient.
  • We will break down these interactions further when we get to the separate analyses for each group.
  • The benefit of diagrams was limited to text-based questionsMain effect on bridging questions in text-right configuration not entirely significant when conditions are broken downUsed diagrams to help understand the textThey used diagrams to draw some minimal inferences, but did not integrate the two representationsDid not use text to help understand the diagramsAn alternative explanation is that performance simply plateaus when given both; limited cognitive capacityThey benefit from either cohesion or diagrams in isolation, but presenting both does not afford further scaffolding
  • The benefit of diagrams was limited to text-based questionsMain effect on bridging questions in text-right configuration not entirely significant when conditions are broken downUsed diagrams to help understand the textThey used diagrams to draw some minimal inferences, but did not integrate the two representationsDid not use text to help understand the diagrams
  • So unlike the low-knowledge learners, they used the better text to better understand the relations between the objects depicted in the diagrams.
  • So unlike the low-knowledge learners, they used the better text to better understand the relations between the objects depicted in the diagrams.
  • So there is an important distinction between skilled readers and high-knowledge readers in that skilled readers can integrate autonomously, but high-knowledge readers are induced by configuration
  • Spatial contiguity principle states that people learn more deeply from a multimedia message when corresponding words and pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screenIn other words, readers do not integrate information in a split-attention formatResults reveal that spatial contiguity is not merely dependent on physical distancePlacing the text to the left of the diagram compels readers to concentrate entirely on the text before scanning the diagramPlacing the text to the right of the diagram induces a greater amount of integrationHolsanova compared a serial configuration to a radial configuration; did not get as specific as text-left to text-rightSo I am proposing a linear contiguity principle as an extension of the spatial contiguity principleResearch has shown that people adopt verbal reading direction to follow pictorial sequences, so in our case the western convention is to read left to right; this could be different in other cultures.
  • Signaling principle states that people learn more deeply from a multimedia message when cues are added that highlight the organization of the essential material.However the Holsanova study modified textual content so that it was grouped into more logical macro-topics: intro information, background info, advanced info, then practical infoCohesion was altered on both a global and local level, but did not restructure the organization of the contentAdding cohesive devices not only makes the text easier to understand, it increases the conceptual overlap with the diagrams on a semantic level.Thus, it yields greater coherence between text and diagrams.Forming a coherent mental model requires that the learner identify and map the referential connections between the sources.Increasing inter-representational coherence prompts learners to engage in more integrative processing.Some studies (Hegarty and Just, 1993) have shown that students switch between semantically related parts of text and diagrams during several local and global inspectionsSo they may do it more frequently and accurately if text better communicates what is depictedViewing of visual aids is often highly text-directedText cohesion principle is proposed as an extension of the signaling principle, or as a new principleSo the effect may not apply if verbal and visual representations are not properly configured in spaceHolsanova called the combination of these two the Dual scripting principle, but I disagree that they should be combined because they are in fact separate effects, but one is contingent on the other. The fact that skilled readers can benefit from the cohesion principle demonstrates that signaling is not always dependent on contiguity
  • This is perhaps one of the very first studies that actually looks at aspects of text in learning with graphicsThis is critical because students are usually provided instruction with bothLinguistic features must be better accounted for since viewing of graphics is text-directedReading skill is critical for overcoming effects of linear contiguity, knowledge does not matterThis finding highlights importance of promoting reading strategy instruction in schools so that students may sufficiently process the visual aids commonly offered in textbooks and hypermediaSo to conclude, future research is needed to corroborate this data and conjectures, and to replicate with computer-based materials. Pending further investigation, these results provide unique contributions to the refinement of multimedia design principles and reveal how specific they need to be.This study uncovers the importance of inter-representational coherence and how text cohesion is a vital component for helping learners comprehend the semantic connections between text and visual aids.Future research should examine the processes of learning with multiple representations and the design and use of supportive information.

Renner Thesis Design Principles Renner Thesis Design Principles Presentation Transcript

  • When Are Pictures Worth a ThousandWords?Interactions between Reader, Text, and Diagrams in Multimodal Comprehension
    M.S. ThesisDefensepresentation
    Adam Renner
    Committee
    Danielle McNamara, PhD, chair
    Randy Floyd, PhD
    Loel Kim, PhD
    Department of Psychology
    University of Memphis
    July 2, 2010
  • Outline
    Recap
    General statistics & correlations
    Prior knowledge and readingskill
    Effects of conditions on time-on-task
    Full analysiswithexperimentalfactors
    Full analysiswith quasi-experimentalfactors
    Group analysis
    Discussion
  • Review
    Focus: Individuallearningwithtext and diagrams
    6 factors:
    Textcohesion (high, low)
    Staticdiagrams (present, not present)
    Page configuration (text-left, text-right)
    Question type (text-based, bridging-inference)
    Prior domainknowledge (high, low)
    Reading comprehensionskill (high, low)
  • 4. Telophase
    The fourth stage of mitosis is called telophase, because telo- means “end”, and it begins when all the daughter chromosomes reach the two cell poles. During telophase the spindle that was completed in metaphase begins to disappear. Later, the nuclear membrane reappears and encloses the two groups of chromosomes at the two poles.
    While this is happening, the chromosomes begin to disappear and turn back into threadlike chromatin material, or DNA, which spreads throughout the nucleus. Cytokinesis, the division of the cytoplasm, also begins during telophase. Telophase in humans is quite variable, requiring from 30 to 60 minutes.
  • Method
    Participants: 179 U of M undergraduates
    130 female, 49 male
    Meanage = ~21 years (SD = ~5 years), range 17 to 50
    Meanyears in college = 1.85 years
    Procedure
    Read mitosis lesson (self-paced)
    Open-ended comprehension questions (15 mins)
    Nelson-Denny reading comprehension (15 mins)
    Cell prior knowledge (10 mins)
    General & biology knowledge (15 mins)
    Demographics & MSI self-report (untimed)
  • Reliability of measures
    Comprehension questions: α = .84
    Text-based: α = .71
    Bridging-inference: α = .78
    Inter-rater reliability (20%): К = .91
    Nelson-Denny comprehension skill: α = .77
    MSI: α = .45
    Prior cell knowledge: α = .76
    Inter-rater reliability (20%): К = .93
    Prior biology knowledge: α = .69
  • Descriptive statistics
    Current study
    O’Reilly & McNamara (2007)*
    *O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic,
    high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43, 121-152.
  • Correlations
    Note. MSI = Metacomprehension Strategy Index; ND = Nelson-Denny; Hum PK = humanities prior knowledge; Bio PK = biology prior knowledge; Cell PK = cell prior knowledge; BC = biology cell combined; TB = text-based; Brid = bridging-inference
    **p < .001.
  • Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Prior domain knowledge
    High knowledge
    N = 88; M = .70; SD = .71; min = -.17; max = 2.87
    Low knowledge
    N = 91; M = -.68; SD = .31; min = -1.60; max = -.20
    Equality across experimental factors
    ANOVA: F(1, 171) = 2.93, p = .089, d = .26
    Diagram conditions: (Mz-score = .12, SE = .094)
    No diagram conditions: (Mz-score = -.11, SE = .092)
  • Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Reading comprehension skill
    Skilledreaders
    N = 92; M = .80; SD = .68; min = -.08; max = 2.19
    Lessskilledreaders
    N = 87; M = -.84; SD = .42; min = -.2.09; max = -.21
    Equality across experimental factors
    No significant differences
  • Effects of Factors on Time-on- Task
    Cohesion
    F(1, 171) = 4.70, p = .032, d = .33
    Low cohesion (M = .63 spw; SE = .025)
    High cohesion (M = .55 spw; SE = .025)
    Cohesion x Page configuration
    F(1, 171) = 4.25, p = .041
    Text-left, F(1, 86) = 9.89, p = .002, d = .66
    Text-right, F(1, 85) < 1
  • Effects of Factors on Time-on- Task
    No effect of prior knowledge
    Reading skill, F(1, 162) = 2.97, p = .087, d = .25
    Less skilled (M = .63 spw; SE = .025)
    Skilled (M = .56 spw; SE = .025)
    Results indicate that low-cohesion text took longer to process than high-cohesion text, but only when text is positioned on left
    No effect or interaction with diagrams
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Question type:
    F(1, 171) = 36.02, p < .001, d = 1.07
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Cohesion:
    F(1, 171) = 5.39, p = .021, d = .35
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Cohesion X Question:
    F(1, 171) = 7.72, p = .006
    Text-based: F(1, 171) = 8.84, p = .003, d = .32
    Bridging: F(1, 171) = 1.13, p = .256
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Diagrams:
    F(1, 171) = 7.69, p = .006, d = .42
    Text-based: F(1, 171) = 3.82, p = .052, d = .30
    Bridging: F(1, 171) = 10.78, p = .001, d = .62
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Page configuration:
    F(1, 171) = 2.06, p = .153
    Configuration X Question:
    F(1, 171) = 4.61, p = .033
    Text-based: F (1, 171) = 3.97, p = .048, d = .32
    Bridging: F(1, 171) < 1
    F(1, 84) = 3.60
    p = .061
    d = .40
    F(1, 87) < 1
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Text-left condition:
    Question type, F(1, 86) = 184.40, p < .001, d = .98
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 86) = 3.52, p = .064
    Text-based, F(1, 86) = 1.54, p = .218
    Diagrambridging, F(1, 86) = 2.84, p = .096, d = .36
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Text-right condition:
    Question type, F(1, 85) = 159.44, p < .001, d = 1.18
    Cohesion, F(1, 85) = 6.51, p = .013, d = .54
    Diagram, F(1, 85) = 6.65, p = .012, d = .55
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Text-right condition:
    Question X Cohesion, F(1, 85) = 4.26, p = .042
    Text-based, F(1, 85) = 8.27, p = .005, d = .61
    Bridging, F(1, 85) = 2.51, p = .117
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Text-right condition:
    Bridging, Cohesion x Diagrams
    F(1, 85) = 3.40, p = .069
    F(1, 42) = 4.05
    p = .051
    d = .41
    F(1, 42) = 8.29
    p = .006
    d = .87
    F(1, 43) < 1
    F(1, 43) = 1.01
    p = .321
  • Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
    Text-right condition:
    F(1, 41) = 7.14
    p = .011
    d = .81
    F(1, 44) = 1.95
    p = .170
    F(1, 41) = 4.39
    p = .042
    d = .43
    F(1, 43) = 1.01
    p = .321
  • Results of AnalysiswithExperimentalFactors
    Main effects of diagram and cohesionlargelydepend on page configuration
    Text-right configuration improvesTextbase
    Diagrams more effective whenpresented on left
    ImprovesBridgingregardless of configuration
    AlsoimprovesTextbasewhengivenwithhigh-cohesiontext in a text-right configuration
    Cohesionisrelated to Textbase
    AlsoimprovesBridgingwhengivenwithdiagrams
    only in text-right configuration
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 162) = 320.31, p < .001, d = 1.31
    Cohesion, F(1, 162) = 5.78, p = .008, d = .30
    Diagram, F(1, 162) = 5.80, p = .051, d = .28
    Question x Cohesion, F(1, 162) = 6.17, p = .014
    Question x Configuration, F(1, 162) = 3.70, p = .056
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Knowledge, F(1, 162) = 51.66, p < .001, d = 1.12
    Question x Knowledge, F(1, 162) = 9.50, p = .002
    Textbase, F(1, 162) = 67.85, p < .001, d = 1.20
    Bridging, F(1, 162) = 36.46, p < .001, d = .83
    New effects:
    Reading skill, F(1, 162) = 13.15, p < .001
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Knowledge x Question x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 162) = 5.30, p = .023
    New effects:
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Cohesion (Textbase), with diagrams, F(1, 33) < 1
    without diagrams, F(1, 48) = 15.82, p < .001, d =1.09
    No effect of diagram, Ftextbase (1, 82) < 1, Fbridging (1, 82) = 2.02, p = .159
    Low Knowledge:
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Diagrams, F(1, 79) = 3.16, p = .080
    Textbase, F(1, 79) < 1
    Bridging, F(1, 79) = 4.22, p = .023, d = .46
    High Knowledge:
    Textbase, F(1, 79) = 3.68, p = .059, d = .41
    Bridging, F(1, 79) = 1.12, p .293
    Cohesion, F(1, 79) = 2.59, p = .112
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Diagrams, F(1, 79) = 3.16, p = .080
    Textbase, F(1, 79) < 1
    Bridging, F(1, 79) = 4.22, p = .023, d = .46
    High Knowledge:
    with diagrams, F(1, 45) = 6.029, p = .018, d = .79
    without diagrams, F(1, 33) < 1
    Cohesion, F(1, 79) = 2.59, p = .112
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Knowledge x Configuration x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 162) = 3.077, p = .081
    New effect:
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 81) = 3.25, p = .075
    Knowledge x Question, F(1, 81) = 3.81, p = .054
    Knowledge x Question x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 81) = 3.63, p = .060
    Text-left:
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Domain Knowledge
    - Covariate: Reading skill
    Knowledge x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 80) = 5.12, p = .025
    Text-right:
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Reading skill
    - Covariate: Domain knowledge
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 162) = 320.13, p < .001, d = 1.42
    Cohesion, F(1, 162) = 6.51, p = .012, d = .39
    Diagram, F(1, 162) = 5.80, p = .017, d = .35
    Question x Cohesion, F(1, 162) = 8.79, p = .003
    Question x Configuration, F(1, 162) = 4.17, p = .043
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Reading skill
    - Covariate: Domain knowledge
    New effects:
    Reading skill, F(1, 162) = 4.20, p = .042, d = .31
    Reading skill x Diagram x Cohesion, F(1, 162) = 4.67, p = .057
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Reading skill
    - Covariate: Domain knowledge
    Less skilled:
    Cohesion, without diagrams, F(1, 39) = 8.63, p = .006, d = .88
    with diagrams, F(1, 38) < 1
    Diagrams, with low cohesion, F(1, 40) = 8.36, p = .006, d = .87
    with high cohesion, F(1, 37) < 1
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Reading skill
    - Covariate: Domain knowledge
    Skilled:
    Cohesion, with diagrams, F(1, 40) = 3.12, p = .085, d = .53
    without diagrams, F(1, 42) < 1
    Diagrams, with high cohesion, F(1, 41) = 4.18, p = .047, d = .61
    with low cohesion, F(1, 41) < 1
  • Experimental + Quasi-experimentalfactors
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration x Reading skill
    - Covariate: Domain knowledge
    New effects:
    Reading skill x Diagram x Question, F(1, 162) = 4.33, p = .039
    Less skilled:
    Diagramtextbased, F(1, 78) = 9.51, p = .003, d = .45
    Diagrambridging, F (1, 78) < 1
    Skilled:
    Diagramtextbased, F(1, 83) < 1
    Diagrambridging, F (1, 83) = 5.98, p = .017, d = .48
  • Results of AnalysiswithQuasi -ExperimentalFactors
    Lowknowledgelearners do not benefitfromdiagrams; benefitfromcohesionwhendiagrams absent
    Lessskilledlearnersbenefitfromdiagramswhencohesionlow; benefitfromcohesionwhendiagrams absent
    High knowledge and skilledreadersbenefitfromdiagramswhencohesionishigh
    Alsobenefitfromcohesionwhendiagramspresent
    Depends on page configuration and question type
    Furtheranalysisisneeded to examine all factors for each group
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 82) = 162.84, p < .001, d = 1.52
    Cohesion, F(1, 82) = 7.60, p = .007, d = .54
    Reading skill, F(1, 82) = 20.57, p < .001
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 82) = 10.89, p = .001
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    New effects:
    Configuration x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 82) = 1.73, p = .192
    Text-left:
    Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 42) < 1
    Text-right:
    Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 39) = 3.10, p = .086
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Text-right:
    Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 39) = 3.10, p = .086
    Low cohesion
    Diagram, F(1, 20) = 4.99, p = .037, d = .95
    High cohesion
    Diagram, F(1, 18) < 1
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    New effects:
    Question x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 82) = 4.51, p = .009
    Diagrams absent:
    Cohesion, F(1, 48) = 20.52, p < .001, d = 1.25
    Text-based:
    Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 82) = 4.51, p = .037
    Diagrams present:
    Cohesion, F(1, 33) < 1
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    New effects:
    Question x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 82) = 4.51, p = .009
    Text-left:
    Q x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 42) = 2.42, p = .127
    Text-right:
    Q x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 39) = 4.41, p = .042
    F(1, 23) = 15.78
    p = .001
    d = 1.59
    F(1, 24) = 4.72
    p = .040
    d = .84
    F(1, 15) < 1
    F(1, 17) < 1
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    New effects:
    Question x Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 82) = 4.51, p = .009
    Low-cohesion text:
    Diagram, F(1, 42) = 3.51, p = .068, d = .58
    High-cohesion text:
    Diagram, F(1, 41) = 1.47, p = .233
    F(1, 23) = 4.94
    p = .038
    d = .95
    F(1, 19) < 1
  • LowknowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Both configurations, high cohesion-text:
    Question x Diagram, F(1, 41) = 4.41, p = .042
    Text-based: F (1, 41) = 1.47, p = .233
    Bridging: F(1, 41) = 1.39, p = .245
    Text-right:
    Diagramsbridging, F(1, 39) = 4.67, p = .037, d = .66
    F(1, 18) = 2.67
    p = .119
    F(1, 20) = 2.17
    p = .156
  • Low-KnowledgeLearners
    Cohesionimproves performance on text-based questions in a text-only format
    Diagramsimprove performance on text-based questions whengivenwith a low-cohesiontext
    But only in a text-right configuration
    Diagrams + highcohesionhurts performance on text-based questions, helps performance on bridging
    Diagramsutilized more whenpresented to the left of the text
    Use of labels to make up for confusingtext
    Drew somesmallamount of inferencesfromdiagram
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 79) = 174.80, p < .001, d = 1.28
    Diagram, F(1, 79) = 3.16, p = .080, d = .38
    Reading skill, F(1, 79) = 3.10, p = .082
    Configuration x Question, F(1, 79) = 5.19, p = .025
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Text-based:
    Cohesion, F(1, 79) = 3.51, p = .065, d = .40
    Diagram, F(1, 79) = 1.00, p = .320
    Bridging:
    Cohesion, F(1, 79) = 1.12, p = .293
    Diagram, F(1, 79) = 4.81, p = .031, d = .47
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Text-left
    Question x Diagram, F(1, 38) = 2.90, p = .097
    Diagramtextbased, F(1, 38) < 1
    Diagrambridging, F(1, 38) = 1.71, p = .199
    Cohesiontextbased, F(1, 38) < 1
    Cohesionbridging, F(1, 38) < 1
    F(1, 21) = 2.25
    p = .148
    F(1, 16) < 1
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Text-right:
    Cohesion, F(1, 40) = 3.35, p = .075, d = .55
    Diagram, F(1, 40) = 3.05, p = .088, d = .52
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    Text-based:
    Cohesion x Diagrams, F(1, 40) = 2.92, p = .095
    Text-right:
    Cohesion, F(1, 40) = 3.35, p = .075, d = .55
    Diagram, F(1, 40) = 3.05, p = .088, d = .52
    Bridging:
    Cohesion x Diagrams, F(1, 40) = 1.64, p = .208
    F(1, 22) = 8.40
    p = .008
    d = 1.17
    F(1, 17) < 1
    F(1, 22) = 4.01
    p = .058
    d = .81
    F(1, 17) < 1
  • High knowledgeLearners
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Reading skill
    High-cohesion text:
    Diagrams, F(1, 20) = 5.12, p = .035
    Text-right:
    Cohesion, F(1, 40) = 3.35, p = .075, d = .55
    Diagram, F(1, 40) = 3.05, p = .088, d = .52
    Low-cohesion text:
    Diagrams, F(1, 19) < 1
    F(1, 20) = 6.87
    p = .016
    d = .98
    F(1, 20) = 3.61
    p = .072
    d = .81
  • High-KnowledgeLearners
    Cohesionimproves performance on text-based questions in a multimodal format
    But only in a text-right configuration
    Diagramsimprove performance on text-based and bridging questions whengivenwith a high-cohesiontext
    But only in a text-right configuration
    Diagrams+lowcohesiondid not improvecomprehension
    Cohesivetexthelps to understand the diagram
    Linear configuration inducesbettermappingbetweentext and diagram
    Leads to bettertextbase and mental model
  • Lessskilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 78) = 209.86, p < .001, d = 1.67
    Cohesion, F(1, 78) = 6.77, p = .011, d = .56
    Diagram, F(1, 78) = 5.27, p = .024, d = .49
    Prior knowledge, F(1, 78) = 130.85, p < .001
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 78) = 4.29, p = .042
  • Lessskilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    New effects:
    Configuration x Question, F(1, 78) = 4.05, p = .048
    Text-left:
    Cohesion, F(1, 44) < 1
    Text-right
    Cohesion, F(1, 33) = 8.05, p = .008, d = .88
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 33) = 3.97, p = .055
    F(1, 15) < 1
    F(1, 17) = 13.31
    p = .002
    d = 1.67
    F(1, 15) < 1
    F(1, 17) < 1
  • Lessskilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    New effects:
    Configuration x Question, F(1, 78) = 4.05, p = .048
    Text-left:
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 44) < 1
    Cohesiontextbased, F(1, 44) < 1
    Cohesionbridging, F(1, 44) < 1
    F(1, 15) < 1
    F(1, 17) = 13.31
    p = .002
    d = 1.67
    F(1, 15) < 1
    F(1, 17) < 1
  • Lessskilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    New effects:
    Configuration x Diagram, F(1, 78) = 1.40, p = .241
    Diagramtext-left, F(1, 44) < 1
    Diagramtext-right, F(1, 33) = 4.49, p = .042, d = .64
    Diagramtextbase, F(1, 33) = 5.79, p = .022, d = .79
    Diagrambridging, F(1, 33) = 1.28, p = .267
    Text-right, text-base questions:
    Cohesion x Diagram, F(1, 33) = 2.80, p = .103
    F(1, 17) < 1
    F(1, 15) = 8.07
    p = .012
    d = 1.35
    F(1, 17) < 1
  • Less-skilledReaders
    Cohesionimproves performance on text-based questions in a text-only format
    But onlysignificant in a text-right configuration
    Diagramsimprove performance on text-based questions whengivenwith a low-cohesiontext
    But only in a text-right configuration
    Diagramsutilized more whenpresented to the left of the text
    Use of labels to make up for confusingtext
    Did not drawinferences
  • Skilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    Same effects:
    Question, F(1, 83) = 139.87, p < .001, d = 1.27
    Cohesion, F(1, 83) = 2.18, p = .144
    Question, F(1, 83) = 2.21, p = .141
    Prior knowledge, F(1, 83) = 47.34, p < .001
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 83) = 5.72, p = .019
    Text-based questions:
    Cohesiondiagrams, F(1, 40) = 4.99, p = .031, d = .67
    Cohesionno diagrams, F(1, 42) < 1
  • Skilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    New effects:
    Diagrams x Question, F(1, 83) = 3.00, p = .087
    Cohesiontextbase, F(1, 83) < 1
    Cohesionbridging, F(1, 83) = 5.98 p = .017, d = .52
  • Skilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    Text-left:
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 36) = 5.29, p = .027
    Text-right:
    Cohesion x Question, F(1, 46) = 2.37, p = .130
    Cohesiontextbase, F(1, 46) = 3.49, p = .068, d = .53
    F(1, 17) = 5.94
    p = .026
    d = .62
    F(1, 22) = 3.31
    p = .083
    d = .74
    F(1, 23) < 1
    F(1, 18) < 1
    F(1, 22) = 1.64
    p = .214
  • Skilledreaders
    Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration; Cov: Knowledge
    Text-left:
    Diagrambridging, F(1, 36) = 2.80, p = .103
    Text-right:
    Diagrambridging, F(1, 46) = 3.47, p = .069, d = .52
    Diagram x Cohesionbridging, F(1, 46) = 2,90, p = .095
    F(1, 21) = 3.48
    p = .076
    d = .79
    F(1, 16) < 1
    F(1, 24) < 1
    F(1, 19) = 2.28
    p = .148
  • SkilledReaders
    Cohesionimproves performance on text-based questions in a multimodal format
    Independent of configuration
    Diagramsimprove performance on bridging questions whengivenwith a high-cohesiontext
    Onlysignificant in a text-right configuration
    Diagrams+lowcohesiondid not improvecomprehension
    Cohesivetexthelps to understand the diagram
    Skilledreaderscannavigate a multimodal textautonomously, unlikehighknowledgelearners
    Particularly on text-based questions
  • Discussion
    Diagramshelpedlow-knowledge & less-skilledreaders, but onlywhengivenwithlow-cohesiontext in a text-right configuration
    Limited to text-based questions
    Effect on bridging not entirelysignificant
    Useddiagrams to help understandconfusingtext
    Did not use bettertext to help understanddiagrams
    Drew minimal inferences but did not integrate
  • Discussion
    Cohesionhelpedlow-knowledge & less-skilledreaders, but onlywhendiagrams not given
    Limited to text-based questions
    Independent of configuration
    Not significant for less-skilledreaders in text-left configuration
  • Discussion
    Diagramshelpedhigh-knowledgereaders, but onlywhengivenwith a high-cohesiontext in a text-right configuration
    Optimized performance withdiagrams and good text
    Induced by configuration to reference the diagrams
    Explicit connections helped to understanddiagrams
    Lowcohesiontextdid not adequatelydescribe the diagrams
  • Discussion
    Cohesionhelpedhigh-knowledgereaders, but onlywhengivenwithdiagrams
    Greaterrepetition of termsincreasedinformationaloverlapwithdiagrams
    Bettercohesion + configuration inducedthem to look atdiagrams more often
  • Discussion
    Diagramshelpedskilledreaders, but onlywhengivenwith a high-cohesiontext
    Only on bridging questions
    Independent of configuration
    Cohesionhelpedskilledreaders, but onlywhengivenwithdiagrams
    Only on text-based questions
    Independent of configuration
  • Implications for Multimedia Learning
    Most readers have to be induced to pay attention to diagrams
    Spatial contiguity principle (Mayer, 2005)
    Until now studies have only addressed effects of significant changes
    Current results suggest greater specificity
    Text-left configuration is a split-attention format
    Results suggest a linear contiguity effect
    Similar to Holsanova et al. (2008)
    May be culturally constrained (Spinillo & Dyson, 2001)
  • Implications for Multimedia Learning
    Signaling principle (Mayer, 2005)
    Use of headings, labels, color coding, lists, etc.
    Holsanova et al. (2008) extended to include cues resulting from conceptual organization
    Different from enhancing text cohesion
    Explicit connections produces a clearer understanding of spatial features and relations
    Increases inter-representational coherence
    Results suggest a text cohesion principle
    Contingent on spatial/linear contiguity
    Dual scripting principle - Holsanova et al. (2008)
  • Limitations
    Results are contextually constrained
    Needs replication in a digital medium
    Needs replication with multiple diagrams/texts per page/screen
    Results need confirmation with eye-tracking
    Use to detect shifts in attention
    Role of integrative saccades
    Also use to study individual differences in processing or changes in processing over time
  • Contributions & Conclusion
    Extends text comprehension research into multimedia
    Highlights importance of textual features
    Spur further research that incorporates comprehension & multimedia disciplines
    Role of individual differences
    Specific behaviors & processes are contingent on cognitive capacity and/or strategy use of learner
    Push for reading strategy instruction in schools
    Refinement of multimedia principles
  • Thankyou for your attention!
    This research is supported by IES (R305A080589)
    Special thanks to
    Danielle McNamara
    Randy Floyd
    Loel Kim
    …. and all you guys!
    Wolfgang Schnotz
    Amy Witherspoon
    Natalie Davis