Evaluation of Multimedia Learning Environment Designed According to Different Attention Types via Eye Tracking Method

Year 2017, , 119 - 138, 15.08.2017

Duygu Mutlu Bayraktar , Servet Bayram

https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.331370

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In
this study, the effect of using multimedia learning environments design
prepared according to different attention types (focused - split) by learners
on recall performances was examined. For this purpose, the results were
strengthened via using eye tracking data. The study group contains 99
university students. Two environments designed as educational multimedia
according to split and focused attention. The study group was divided into two
groups randomly. Then the data obtained from recall performance and eye
tracking device were analyzed.

The
learners obtained higher recall performance in multimedia prepared according to
focused attention type. It was revealed that the learners using multimedia in
split or focused attention type showed no difference in terms of fixation
numbers obtained from eye tracking device. It is observed that the learners
focus more on pictures than texts.  

Keywords

Multimedia learning environment, focused attention, split attention, recall, eye tracking

References

• Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers & Education, 64, 52–62.
• Akbulut, Y. (2011). Bilişsel yük kuramı ve çoklu ortam tasarımı. Dursun, Ö.Ö. ve Odabaşı, H.F. (Ed.), Çoklu Ortam Tasarımı, (37-55), Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Bayram, S. & Mutlu-Bayraktar, D. (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, Vol 4, issue 2, 81-98.
• Biedert, R., Buscher, G., & Dengel, A. (2009) Hauptbeitrag / The Eyebook. The EyeBook Using Eye Tracking to Enhance the Reading Experience.
• Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. A. (1998). d2 Test of Attention. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
• Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, S. & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel Arastırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2006). Veri analizi el kitabı, 6. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
• Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). 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.
• Crooks, S., Inan, F., Cheon, J., Ari, F. & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1063–1071.
• Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216-224.
• van Genuchten, E., Scheiter, K. & Schüler, A. (2012). Examining learning from text and pictures for different task types: Does the multimedia effect differ for conceptual, causal, and procedural tasks? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2209-2218.
• Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313- 331.
• Hillstrom, A.P., & Chai, Y.C. (2006). Factors that guide or distrupt attentive visual processing. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 648-656.
• Huff, M., Bauhoff, V., & Schwan, S. (2012). Effects of split attention revisited: A new display technology for troubleshooting tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1254-1261.
• Kalyuga, S. (2009). Cognitive load factors in instructional design for advanced learners. NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
• Karakaş, S. & Yalın, A., (1995). Görsel işitsel sayı dizileri testi B formunun 13-54 yaş grupları üzerindeki standardizasyon çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10 (34), 20-31.
• Karasar, N . (2007). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. 17. Baskı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
• Koppitz, E. M. (1970). The Visual Aural Digit Span Test with elementary school children. J Clin Psychol, 26: 349-353.
• Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 29–35.
• Lin, C. F., Hung, Y. H., & Chang, R. I. (2013). Analyzing the effects of different multimedia materials on learning system, Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, vol.4, No.5, 2145-2150.
• Liu, T., Lin, Y., Tsai, M. & Paas, F. (2012) Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environment. Computers & Education, 58 (1) 172-180.
• Liu, H. C., Lai, M. L., & Chuang, H. H. (2011). Using eye-tracking technology to investigate the redundant effect of multimedia web pages on viewers’ cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol: 27, 2410–2417.
• 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. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. J. L. Plass, R. Moreno ve R. Brünken, (Ed.), Cognitive Load Theory (s.131-153). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-119.
• Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In. J.L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Namahn. (2000). Using eye tracking for usability testing. Brussels, Namahn.
• Plass, J.L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E.O., Homer, B.D., & Um, E.J. (2013). Emotional Design in Multimedia Learning: Effects of Shape and Color on Affect and Learning. Learning and Instruction. Advanced Online Publication, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.
• Plass, J. L., Moreno, R. & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory, ch. 4. New York: Cambridge.
• Russell, M. (2005). Using eye-tracking data to understand first impressions of a website. Usability News, 7(1), 1- 14.
• Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A. & Glowalla, U. (2009), A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, Vol. 1, 11.
• Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Scheiter, K. (2011). The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 22-28. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.007
• Seufert, T., Schütze, M., & Brünken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitudeetreatmenteinteraction study. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 28-42.
• Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to ınstructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science Journal, V:8.
• Spreen, O. & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. (2nd ed.). NY. Oxford University Press. 6-10.
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.
• Širanović, Z. (2007). Guidelines for designing multimedia learning materials. Varaždin: University of Zagreb.
• Underwood, G., & Radach, R. (1998). Eye guidance and visual information processing: Reading, visual search, picture perception and driving. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception (pp. 1–28). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.
• Yang, F. Y., Chang, C. Y., Chien, W. R., Chien, Y. T., & Tseng, Y. H. (2013). Tracking learners’ visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real classroom. Computers & Education, Vol: 62, 208–220.