FARKLI KISA SÜRELİ BELLEK UZAMLARINA SAHİP ÖĞRENCİLERİN FARKLI DİKKAT TASARIMINA SAHİP ÖĞRENME ORTAMLARINDAKİ GÖZ HAREKETLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencinin dikkatinin asıl bilgiye odaklanması ve dikkatinin bölünmemesi için bilgi sunumlarının konumsal ve zamansal olarak birbirleriyle entegre edilerek tasarlanması gereklidir. Tasarım durumlarının yanı sıra öğrenciler arasındaki bilişsel bireysel farklılıklar bilgi işleme süreci üzerinde etkilidir. Çalışmada bilişsel bireysel farklılık olarak ele alınan kısa süreli bellek (KSB), bilgi işleme kuramlarında önemli yeri olan duyusal reseptörler ile bilgiyi alıp uzun süreli bellekte kalıcı olmasını sağlayan geçici bellektir. Öğrenme ortamlarının tasarımlarının bilgi işleme süreci üzerindeki etkileri değerlendirilirken KSB kapasiteleri göz önünde bulundurulması gereklidir. Öğrenme ortamlarının değerlendirilmesi ve öğrencilerin bilgi işleme sürecine yönelik çıkarımlarda bulunmak için kullanılan yöntemlerden biri de göz izleme yöntemidir. Bu çalışmada farklı KSB uzamlarına sahip öğrencilerin farklı dikkat tasarımlarına yönelik oluşturulan öğrenme ortamlarındaki göz hareketlerinin bireysel farklılıklar çerçevesinde incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada yarı deneysel desenlerden rastgele atamalı eşleştirilmiş desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya bir devlet üniversitesinden 26 öğrenci katılım göstermiştir. Öğrencilerin KSB düzeylerini belirlemek için Görsel İşitsel Sayı Dizileri Testi B (GİSD-B) Formu kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilerin KSB uzamları belirlendikten sonra odaklanmış dikkat tasarımına veya bölünmüş dikkat tasarımına sahip materyaller ile öğrenim görmesi için rastgele gruplara ayrılmıştır. Öğrenciler materyaller ile öğrenim görürken kullanılan göz izleme aracı ile göz hareketlerine ilişkin veriler elde edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda farklı KSB uzamlarına sahip öğrencilerin farklı dikkat tasarımlarına sahip öğrenme materyallerinde yapmış oldukları göz hareketleri ile bilgi işleme süreçlerine yönelik çıkarımlar yapılmış, çeşitli önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kısa süreli bellek,bölünmüş dikkat,odaklanmış dikkat,çokluortam,göz izleme

THE INVESTIGATION OF EYE MOVEMENTS OF STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT SHORT TERM MEMORY SPANS IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS WITH DIFFERENT ATTENTION DESIGN

Abstract

In learning environments, information presentations should be integrated into one another spatially and temporally for the student's attention to focus on the actual knowledge and not to divide attention. In addition to design of learning environments, the cognitive individual differences between students are effective on the information processing. Short-term memory, which is considered as cognitive individual difference in the study, is a temporary memory which has an important role in information processing theories because of takes information with sensory receptors and providing a permanent in long-term memory. When evaluating the impact of learning environments on information processing short term memory capacities should be taken into account. Eye tracking is used to evaluate learning environments and to obtain information about the students' information processing process. In this study, it is aimed to examine the eye movements of students with different short term memory spans in the learning environments created for different attention designs within the framework of individual differences. In this study, randomly assigned paired experimental design was used. 26 students from a state university participated in the study. In order to determine the short term memory capacity levels of the students, The Auditory Verbal Digit Span Test - Form B was used. After the students' short term memory spans are determined, they are divided into random groups for learning with multimedia materials which has focused attention design or split attention design. The data about the eye movements were obtained with the eye tracking tool used while the students were studying with the materials. As a result of the research, information processing of the students with different short term memory spans were determined in the learning materials with different attention designs and various recommendations were given.

Keywords

• short term memory,split attention,focused attention,multimedia,eye tracking

Kaynakça

1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.007
2. Arndt, J., Schüler, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Text-picture integration: How delayed testing moderates recognition of pictorial information in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 702–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3154
3. Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53, 1339–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.017
4. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.013
5. Baadte, C., Rasch, T., & Honstein, H. (2015). Attention switching and multimedia learning: The impact of executive resources on the integrative comprehension of texts and pictures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(4), 478–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.965785
6. 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, 4(2), 81–98.
7. Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attetion effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x

9. Chuang, H.-H., & Liu, H.-C. (2012). Effects of different multimedia presentations on viewers’ information-processing activities measured by eye-tracking technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9316-1
10. 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, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020
11. Fenesi, B., Kramer, E., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Split-attention and coherence principles in multimedia instruction can rescue performance for learners with lower working memory capacity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3244
12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
13. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14. Grimley, M. (2007). Learning from multimedia materials: The relative impact of individual differences. Educational Psychology, 27(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601159795
15. Gropper, G. L. (2015). Are individual differences undertreated in instructional design? Educational Technology, 55(2), 3–13.
16. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525
17. Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013
18. Ilgaz, H., Altun, A., & Aşkar, P. (2014). The effect of sustained attention level and contextual cueing on implicit memory performance for e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.06.008
19. Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2015). Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 803–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12174
20. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1773
21. Karakaş, S., & Yalın, A. (1995). Görsel işitsel sayı dizileri testi b formunun 13-54 yaş grubu üzerindeki standardizasyon çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Derneği, 10(34), 20–31.
22. Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
23. Koppitz, E. M. (1977). The visual aural digit span test. New York: Grune & Stratton.
24. Lindner, M. A., Eitel, A., Strobel, B., & Köller, O. (2017). Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis. Learning and Instruction, 47, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.007
25. Liu, H.-C., & Chuang, H.-H. (2011). An examination of cognitive processing of multimedia information based on viewers’ eye movements. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903520123
26. 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, 27, 2410–2417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.012
27. Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00848.x
28. Majooni, A., Masood, M., & Akhavan, A. (2016). An eye tracking experiment on strategies to minimize the redundancy and split attention effects in scientific graphs and diagrams. In G. Di Bucchianico & P. Kercher (Eds.), Advances in Design for Inclusion: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 (pp. 529–539). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41962-6
29. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012
30. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312
31. Mazman, S. G., & Altun, A. (2012). Individual Differences in Different Level Mental Rotation Tasks: An Eye Movement Study. In P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, Kinshuk, D. G. Sampson, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Towards Learning and Instruction in Web 3.0: Advances in Cognitive and Educational Psychology (pp. 231–243). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1539-8
32. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352.
33. Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Altun, A. (2014). The effect of multimedia design types on learners’ recall performances with varying short term memory spans. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 71, 1201–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-012-1257-z
34. Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Bayram, S. (2017). Evaluation of multimedia learning environment designed according to different attention types via eye tracking method. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.331370
35. Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2015). Do learner characteristics moderate the seductive-details-effect ? A cognitive-load-study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 24–36.
36. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002
37. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2017). The use of eye tracking as a research and instructional tool in multimedia learning. In C. Was, F. Sansosti, & B. Morris (Eds.), Eye-Tracking Technology Applications in Educational Research (pp. 143–164). Her: IGI Global.
38. Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2009). The influence of visual and temporal dynamics on split attention: Evidences from eye tracking. In Robert Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive Effects of Multimedia Learning (pp. 89–107). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
39. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011
40. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1554
41. Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9435-9
42. Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2014). Attention, working memory, and long-term memory in multimedia learning: An integrated perspective based on process models of working memory. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9242-2
43. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1526
44. Sheskin, D. J. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures (2nd Edition). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
45. Sithole, S. T. M. (2017). Enhancing students understanding of introductory accounting by integrating split-attention instructional material. Accounting Research Journal, 30(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-06-2016-0127
46. Solso, R. L., Maclin, M. K., & Maclin, O. H. (2004). Cognitive Psychology (7th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn And Bacon.
47. Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned, and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569570
48. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176
49. Tabbers, H. K., Paas, F., Lankford, C., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Studying eye movements in multimedia learning. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding Multimedia Documents (pp. 169–184). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73337-1_9
50. Terry, W. S. (2009). Learning & memory: Basic principles, processes, and procedures (4th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
51. Torgersen, G.-E., & Saeverot, H. (2016). Multimedia vs. analogue text : Learning outcome and the importance of short-term memory capacity. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 7(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2151-6200.1000224
52. Uz, C., & Altun, A. (2014). Object Location Memory and Sex Difference: Implications on Static vs. Dynamic Navigation Environments. Journal of Cognitive Science, 14, 27–56. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2014.15.1.27
53. van Gog, T., & Jarodzka, H. (2013). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (pp. 143–156). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_10
54. van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021
55. van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009
56. van Meeuwen, L. W., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Jarodzka, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Kirschner, P. A., & de Bock, J. J. P. R. (2014). Identification of effective visual problem solving strategies in a complex visual domain. Learning and Instruction, 32, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.004
57. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1–39.
58. Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72(2), 89–104.
59. 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, 62, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.009