Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Renner Thesis Design Principles
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Renner Thesis Design Principles

965

Published on

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.

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • 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.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
965
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Transcript

    • 1. 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
    • 2. 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
    • 3. 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. 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.
    • 5. 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)
    • 6. 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
    • 7. 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.
    • 8. 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.
    • 9. 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)
    • 10. 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
    • 11. 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
    • 12. 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
    • 13. Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
      Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
      Question type:
      F(1, 171) = 36.02, p < .001, d = 1.07
    • 14. Full Analysis: Experimentalfactors
      Question xCohesionxDiagramx Configuration
      Cohesion:
      F(1, 171) = 5.39, p = .021, d = .35
    • 15. 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
    • 16. 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
    • 17. 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
    • 18. 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
    • 19. 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
    • 20. 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
    • 21. 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
    • 22. 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
    • 23. 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
    • 24. 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
    • 25. 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
    • 26. 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:
    • 27. 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:
    • 28. 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
    • 29. 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
    • 30. 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:
    • 31. 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:
    • 32. 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:
    • 33. 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
    • 34. 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
    • 35. 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
    • 36. 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
    • 37. 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
    • 38. 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
    • 39. 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
    • 40. 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
    • 41. 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
    • 42. 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
    • 43. 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
    • 44. 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
    • 45. 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
    • 46. 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
    • 47. 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
    • 48. 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
    • 49. 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
    • 50. 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
    • 51. 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
    • 52. 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
    • 53. 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
    • 54. 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
    • 55. 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
    • 56. 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
    • 57. 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
    • 58. 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
    • 59. 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
    • 60. 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
    • 61. 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
    • 62. 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
    • 63. 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
    • 64. 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
    • 65. 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
    • 66. 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
    • 67. Discussion
      Cohesionhelpedhigh-knowledgereaders, but onlywhengivenwithdiagrams
      Greaterrepetition of termsincreasedinformationaloverlapwithdiagrams
      Bettercohesion + configuration inducedthem to look atdiagrams more often
    • 68. 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
    • 69. 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)
    • 70. 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)
    • 71. 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
    • 72. 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
    • 73. 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

    ×