Psychological Development and Education ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 565-578.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.05.07

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Text-Picture Integration in Multimedia Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Spatial Contiguity Effect

WANG Yuxin, XIE Heping, WANG Fuxing, AN Jing, HAO Yanbin   

  1. Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior(CCNU), Ministry of Education;School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079
  • Online:2016-09-15 Published:2016-09-15

PDF (PC)

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 (dretention=0.48) and transfer test (dtransfer=0.39). Besides, spatially contiguity reduced learners' subjective cognitive load (dcognitive 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 (dhigh interactivity=0.42), system-paced presentation (dsystem-paced presentation=0.52), shorter duration (dshorter 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 (dretention=0.66, dtransfer=0.52) than digital materials. In addition, the spatial contiguity may better enhance retention test when being applied to primary and secondary school students(dprimary 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

CLC Number: 

  • G442

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.
[1] XIE Heping, WANG Yanqing, WANG Fuxing, ZHOU Zongkui, DENG Sue, DUAN Zhaohui. Generative Drawing Effect in Memory and Its Boundary Conditions: A Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2024, 40(1): 29-43.
[2] NIU Xiang, RAN Guangming. The Association between Peer Relationship and Preschoolers' Problem Behavior: A Three-level Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2023, 39(4): 473-487.
[3] CHENG Yangchun, HUANG Jin. Association between the Approximate Number System and Mathematical Competence: A Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2023, 39(3): 379-390.
[4] GAO Feng, BAI Xuejun, ZHANG Peng, CAO Haibo. A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Parenting Styles and Suicidal Ideation in Chinese Adolescents [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2023, 39(1): 97-108.
[5] XIE Yuntian, SHI Zifu, YIN Lin, LAN Luo. A Meta-analysis of the Relationships between Chinese Parenting Styles and Children’s Academic Achievement [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2022, 38(3): 366-379.
[6] SHI Guochun, ZHAO Dongyan, FAN Huiyong. Changes in College Students' Physical Self-esteem in 2004~2016: A Cross-temporal Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(5): 648-659.
[7] NIU Kaining, LI Mei, ZHANG Xiangkui. The Relationship Between Adolescents' Friendship Quality and Subjective Well-being: A Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(3): 407-418.
[8] YAN Zhiqiang, SU Yanjie. Difference between Cognitive Empathy and Affective Empathy in Development: Meta-analysis Preliminary Exploration [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(1): 1-9.
[9] XIN Sufei, YUE Yangming, XIN Ziqiang. A Cross-temporal Meta-analysis of Changes in Chinese Old People's Mental Health During 1996—2016 [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2020, 36(6): 753-761.
[10] LEI Lili, RAN Guangming, ZHANG Qi, MI Qianwen, CHEN Xu. The Associations between Parenting Styles and Anxiety in Preschool-age Children: A Three-level Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2020, 36(3): 329-340.
[11] ZHOU Li, WANG Fuxing, XIE Heping, CHEN Jiaxue, XIN Liang, ZHAO Qingbai. Does Emotional Design in Multimedia Learning Facilitate Learning? A Meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(6): 697-709.
[12] LI Song, RAN Guangming, ZHANG Qi, HU Tianqiang. A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Self-efficacy and Mental Health with Chinese Samples [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(6): 759-768.
[13] XIN Sufei, WANG Yixin. A Cross-Temporal Meta-analysis of Changes in Chinese College Students' Achievement Motivation During 1999~2014 [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(3): 288-294.
[14] XIN Sufei, YUE Yangming, XIN Ziqiang, LIN Chongde. Changes in Chinese Old People's Social Support During 1996~2015: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2018, 34(6): 672-681.
[15] ZHANG Mei, SUN Dongqing, XIN Ziqiang, HUANG Silin. Changes in Impoverished College Students' Mental Health in China: A Cross-temporal Meta-analysis 1998-2015 [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2018, 34(5): 625-632.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright 2018 © Editorial office of Psychological Development and Education
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd