装饰图片影响多媒体学习的眼动研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为探讨装饰图片对多媒体学习效果和认知加工过程的影响,本研究采用眼动仪追踪30名低知识经验大学生在有装饰图片和无装饰图片条件下学习多媒体课件的视觉注意过程.结果发现:(1)有装饰图片组的保持和迁移成绩显著低于无装饰图片组;(2)有装饰图片组被试在认知兴趣图的注视次数、文本与认知兴趣图之间的注意转换次数显著少于无装饰图片组;(3)在装饰图片组内,80% 学习者报告被装饰图片吸引,并回忆出与装饰图片有关的先前知识经验.这些结果表明,装饰图片干扰学习者对主要学习内容的记忆与理解;装饰图片可能主要通过干扰学习者对主要学习内容的一致性理解以及激发不恰当的先前知识经验而阻碍学习.

关键词: 多媒体学习, 装饰图片, 眼动

Abstract: This study aimed to explore the effects of seductive illustrations on performance and cognitive processes by using eye movement to track thirty low prior knowledge learners' process of visual attention during multimedia learning with or without seductive illustrations. Findings revealed that relative to learners in the non-seductive illustration condition, learners in the seductive illustration condition (1) recalled significantly fewer main ideas and generated fewer problem-solving solutions, (2) got fewer number of fixations in cognitive interest illustrations and also fewer attention switches between text and cognitive interest illustrations. Moreover, in the seductive illustration condition, 80% learners reported attracted to seductive illustrations, and recalled prior knowledge related to seductive illustrations. The results indicate that seductive illustrations may interfere students' memory and understanding of the main content by disrupting the coherent understanding of the materials and by priming inappropriate prior knowledge around seductive illustrations.

Key words: multimedia learning, seductive illustrations, eye-movement

中图分类号:

G442

龚少英, 段婷, 王福兴, 周宗奎, 卢春晓. 装饰图片影响多媒体学习的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 403-410.

GONG Shao-ying, DUAN Ting, WANG Fu-xing, ZHOU Zong-kui, LU Chun-xiao. The Effects of Seductive Illustrations on Multimedia Learning: An Eye Movement Study[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2014, 30(4): 403-410.

参考文献

Dansereau, D. F., & Simpson, D. D. (2009). A picture is worth a thousand words: The case for graphic representations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(1), 104-110.

De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111-122.

Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of "seductive details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41-57.

Goetz, E. T., & Sadoski. (1995). The perils of seduction: Distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions? Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 500-511.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414-434.

Holsanova, J., Holmqvist, K., & Holmberg, N. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215-1226.

Hyona, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of mutimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20,(2), 172-176

Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 569-587.

Lusk, D. L. (2008). The effects of seductive details and segmentation on interest, recall and transfer in a multimedia learning environment. Doctoral Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Magner, U. I. E, Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning enviornments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141-152

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 329-339.

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.

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

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4

Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5-10.

Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 219-231.

Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291-304.

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & cognition, 34(2), 344-355.

Schmidt - Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100-110.

Shirey, L. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (1988). Effect of interest on attention and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 159-166.

Thalheimer, W. (2004). Bells, whistles, neon, and purple prose: When interesting words, sounds, and visuals hurt learning and performance, Retrieved June 10, 2011, from http://www.oktopusz.hu/domain2019/ files/modules/module2015/28283C28732CAE28682.pdf.

Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 93-114.

沈德立, 陶云. (2001). 初中生有无插图课文的眼动过程研究. 心理科学, 24(4), 385-389.

闫国利,熊建萍,臧传丽,余莉莉,崔磊,白学军(2013).阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述.心理科学进展,21(4), 589-605.

相关文章 15

[1]	王敬欣, 赵赛男, 徐倩倩. 字间空格与词频对青年人和老年人阅读的影响:眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 781-787.
[2]	高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3]	于晓, 张涵, 陈英和, 戚玥, 刘爱芳, 刘丽丽. 类比推理的眼动研究:揭示个体类比推理策略发展的有效手段[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 897-903.
[4]	施芳婷, 郑晨烨, 颜秀琳, 陆露, 王静梅, 邸波, 卢英俊. 5~6岁幼儿对不同文化背景卡通面孔再认的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 323-334.
[5]	马安然, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周治金. 教学微视频的播放速度对学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 391-399.
[6]	辛聪, 张曼曼, 郭盈秀, 郭云飞, 陈幼贞. 前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(2): 138-145.
[7]	刘志方, 仝文, 张骏. 中文阅读中词汇加工的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 665-677.
[8]	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.
[9]	王薇, 徐知宇, 李永鑫, 程奕芸. 情绪主题绘本阅读对自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪理解障碍的干预效果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 566-572.
[10]	张骏, 仝文, 刘志方. 不同词长中文句子阅读知觉广度的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 312-319.
[11]	陈朝阳, 刘志方, 苏永强, 程亚华. 高低阅读技能聋生词汇加工的语境预测性效应特点:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 692-699.
[12]	童钰, 王福兴. 威胁性刺激蛇一定会被更快觉察吗?蛇与蜥蜴的对比[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(5): 524-534.
[13]	苏永强, 付福音, 刘志方, 陈朝阳. 阅读中词汇视觉编码年老化的原因:基于消失文本实验的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(4): 433-440.
[14]	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.
[15]	李文静, 童钰, 王福兴, 康素杰, 刘华山, 杨超. 动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响:学习者经验与偏好的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(4): 453-462.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed