多媒体学习的图文整合:空间邻近效应的元分析

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.05.07

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 多媒体学习中的空间邻近效应认为，当书页或屏幕上的对应的图像和文本邻近呈现时，要比图文远离呈现更加有利于学习者的学习。本元分析针对Ginns（2006）的不足，增加了近10年最新的研究，以保持测验、迁移测验和主观认知负荷作为结果变量，考察多媒体学习中空间邻近效应的稳定性，以及学习材料特征、学习及测验环境和学习者教育水平等的调节作用。经文献搜索与筛选，有53项研究符合元分析要求，在保持测验、迁移测验、主观认知负荷上分别生成了45个（2000人）、43个（1935人）、11个（645人）独立效应量。主效应检验发现：空间邻近组在保持测验（d_保持=0.48）和迁移测验（d_迁移=0.39）成绩上均显著高于空间远离组，在主观认知负荷上显著低于空间远离组（d_认知负荷=-0.24）。调节效应检验发现：在高交互性材料（d_高交互=0.42）、系统步调（d_系统步调=0.52）、短时学习（d_短时=0.55）等条件下，空间邻近效应对学习的深层理解（迁移测验）能发挥更大的作用；对中小学生学习者（d_中小学=0.71），空间邻近效应促进学习识记（保持测验）的效果更好；相对于电子环境，纸质学习环境下（d_保持=0.66，d_迁移=0.52）的空间邻近效应对保持和迁移测验的促进都更加显著；在主观认知负荷上，学习材料特征、学习及测验环境以及学习者教育水平对空间邻近效应均不存在调节作用。

关键词: 空间邻近效应, 多媒体学习, 图文整合, 元分析, 调节效应

Abstract: The spatial contiguity effect shows that people learn more effectively when corresponding texts and pictures are presented close to each other rather than separately (Mayer, 2009). A meta-analysis based on 53 empirical studies was conducted to investigate the effects of spatial contiguity effect on subjective cognitive load, retention and transfer tests. Consistent with Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) (Mayer, 2009), the main effect analysis indicated that participants who learned from spatially contiguous materials outperformed those who were provided with spatially separated materials in both retention test (d_retention=0.48) and transfer test (d_transfer=0.39). Besides, spatially contiguity reduced learners' subjective cognitive load (d_{cognitive load}=-0.24), which supported Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller, 1994). The moderator analysis revealed that multimedia material characteristics (element interactivity, pacing of presentation, learning duration) affected the spatial contiguity effect on transfer test. Specifically, studies which used materials with high interactivity (d_{high interactivity}=0.42), system-paced presentation (d_{system-paced presentation}=0.52), shorter duration (d_{shorter duration}=0.55) had larger effect size. Learning condition also had moderator effect on the spatial contiguity effect, learning with printed materials performed better both on retention and transfer tests (d_retention=0.66, d_transfer=0.52) than digital materials. In addition, the spatial contiguity may better enhance retention test when being applied to primary and secondary school students(d_{primary and secondary school}=0.71). The subjective cognitive load reduces by spatial contiguity wasn't moderated by above factors. The results suggested that spatial contiguity effect could play an important role in text-picture integration of multimedia learning. Moreover, element interactivity, pacing of presentation, learning duration, learning condition and learners' educational level should be considered as vital moderators of spatial contiguity effect.

Key words: spatial contiguity effect, multimedia learning, text-picture integration, meta-analysis, moderator effect

中图分类号:

G442

王玉鑫, 谢和平, 王福兴, 安婧, 郝艳斌. 多媒体学习的图文整合:空间邻近效应的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(5): 565-578.

WANG Yuxin, XIE Heping, WANG Fuxing, AN Jing, HAO Yanbin. Text-Picture Integration in Multimedia Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Spatial Contiguity Effect[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2016, 32(5): 565-578.

参考文献

Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816-1828.

Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2003). Learning from traditional and alternative texts:New conceptualizations for the information age. In A. Graesser, M. Gernsbacher, & S. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 199-241). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

*Altan, T., & Cagiltay, K. (2015). An eye-tracking analysis of spatial contiguity effect in educational animations. In P. Z. & A. I. (Eds.), Learning and Collaboration Technologies (pp. 3-13). Los Angeles:Springer.

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Vol. 2, pp. 135-146). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.

*Bayram, S., & Bayraktar, D. M. (2012). Using eye tracking to study on attention and recall in multimedia learning environments:The effects of design in learning. World Journal on Educational Technology, 4(2), 81-98.

Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3(1), 1-21.

*Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73-95.

*Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325-341.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons.

*Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345-368.

*Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.

*Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.

*Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151-170.

Chang, P. C., Chou, S. Y., & Shieh, K. K. (2013). Reading performance and visual fatigue when using electronic paper displays in long-duration reading tasks under various lighting conditions. Displays, 34(3), 208-214.

*Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009a). Expertise reversal in multimedia learning:subjective load ratings and viewing behavior as cognitive process indicators. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.

*Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009b). Explaining the split-attention effect:Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.

Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research:A guide for literature reviews. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

*Crooks, S., White, D., Srinivasan, S., & Wang, Q. (2008). Temporal, but Not Spatial, Contiguity Effects while Studying an Interactive Geographic Map. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 17(2), 145-169.

Daniel, D. B., & Woody, W. D. (2013). E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts. Computers & Education, 62, 18-23.

De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 731-746.

De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations:Guidelines for research and design. Educational psychology review, 21(2), 113-140.

Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can offline metacognition enhance mathematical problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188-200.

Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens:A critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.

*Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 137-147.

*Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2011). How can positive effects of pop-up windows on multimedia learning be explained? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(2), 135-156.

*Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010a). The influence of presentation format and subject complexity on learning from illustrated texts in biology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Chicago.

*Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010b). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216-224.

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information:A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525.

*Gordon, C., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2016). Learning from instructor-managed and self-managed split-attention materials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 1-9.

*Harter, C. A., & Ku, H. Y. (2008). The effects of spatial contiguity within computer-based instruction of group personalized two-step mathematics word problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1668-1685.

Hegarty, M. (2014). Multimedia learning and the development of mental models. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 673-701). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0. Oxford, UK:The Cochrane Collaboration.

Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., Edelmann, J., & Gerjets, P. (2012). How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 193-205.

*Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 18(2), 178-191.

*Kablan, Z., & Erden, M. (2008). Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers & Education, 51(2), 660-668.

*Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1-17.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.

Kang, Y. Y., Wang, M. J. J., & Lin, R. (2009). Usability evaluation of e-books. Displays, 30(2), 49-52.

*Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 71-85.

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 178-181.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen:Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.

*Martin-Michiellot, S., & Mendelsohn, P. (2000). Cognitive load while learning with a graphical computer interface. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(4), 284-293.

Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95-109.

Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240-246.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 167-171.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

*Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design:Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31-43.

Mayes, D. K., Sims, V. K., & Koonce, J. M. (2001). Comprehension and workload differences for VDT and paper-based reading. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(6), 367-378.

Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext:Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265-276.

*Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning:The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.

*Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems:The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-199.

Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1994). Why investigate metacognition? In J. Metcalf & A. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition:Knowing about knowing (pp. 1-26). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Noyes, J., Garland, K., & Robbins, L. (2004). Paper-based versus computer-based assessment:Is workload another test mode effect? British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 111-113.

*Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29-45.

*Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2012). Technological literacy learning with cumulative and stepwise integration of equations into electrical circuit diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 480-487.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations:A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

*Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20(5-6), 443-462.

*Roodenrys, K. (2012). Self-management of cognitive load when evidence of split-attention is present. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation), University of Wollongong.

*Roodenrys, K., Agostinho, S., Roodenrys, S., & Chandler, P. (2012). Managing one's own cognitive load when evidence of split attention is present. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 878-886.

Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85(1), 185-193.

*Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects:New insights from investigating students' viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 226-237.

Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 72-103). New York:Cambridge University Press.

She, H. C., & Chen, Y. Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning:Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1297-1307.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.

*Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185-233.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Tabbers, H. K., & de Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instructional Science, 38(5), 441-453.

Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory:Split-attention and modality effects. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Long Beach, CA.

*Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., Bokosmaty, S., Paas, F., & Chandler, P. (2015). Computer-based learning of geometry from integrated and split-attention worked examples:The power of self-management. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 89-99.

*Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, 3(4), 257-287.

*Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1-39.

*Zhou, S. (2012). Text-picture integration of magazine catalogue layout:An eye movement study. Paper presented at the 2012 Eighth International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC), Chongqing, China.

陈英和, & 韩瑽瑽. (2012). 儿童青少年元认知的发展特点及作用的心理机制. 心理科学, 35(3), 537-543.

*王福兴, 段朝辉, 周宗奎, & 陈珺. (2015). 邻近效应对多媒体学习中图文整合的影响:线索的作用. 心理学报, 47(2), 224-233.

谢和平, 王福兴, 周宗奎, & 吴鹏. 多媒体学习中线索效应的元分析. 心理学报, 2016, 48(5), 540-555.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	谢和平, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 邓素娥, 段朝辉. 记忆的生成绘图效应及其边界条件：一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 29-43.
[2]	牛湘, 冉光明. 同伴关系与幼儿问题行为关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[3]	程阳春, 黄瑾. 近似数量系统与数学能力的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 379-390.
[4]	高峰, 白学军, 章鹏, 曹海波. 中国青少年父母教养方式与自杀意念的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 97-108.
[5]	肖雪, 郭磊, 赵永萍, 陈富国. 累积生态风险与初中生受欺凌的关系模式：心理弹性的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 648-657.
[6]	谢云天, 史滋福, 尹霖, 兰洛. 中国父母教养方式与儿童学业成绩关系的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(3): 366-379.
[7]	牛凯宁, 李梅, 张向葵. 青少年友谊质量和主观幸福感的关系:一项元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 407-418.
[8]	颜志强, 苏彦捷. 认知共情和情绪共情的发展差异:元分析初探[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(1): 1-9.
[9]	辛素飞, 岳阳明, 辛自强. 1996至2016年中国老年人心理健康变迁的横断历史研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(6): 753-761.
[10]	雷丽丽, 冉光明, 张琪, 米倩文, 陈旭. 父母教养方式与幼儿焦虑关系的三水平元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 329-340.
[11]	周丽, 王福兴, 谢和平, 陈佳雪, 辛亮, 赵庆柏. 积极的情绪能否促进多媒体学习?基于元分析的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 697-709.
[12]	李松, 冉光明, 张琪, 胡天强. 中国背景下自我效能感与心理健康的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 759-768.
[13]	辛素飞, 王一鑫. 中国大学生成就动机变迁的横断历史研究:1999~2014[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 288-294.
[14]	辛素飞, 岳阳明, 辛自强, 林崇德. 1996至2015年中国老年人社会支持的变迁:一项横断历史研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 672-681.
[15]	颜志强, 苏彦捷. 共情的性别差异:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 129-136.