Cargando…

Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures

The main objective of this study is to investigate the importance of three compositions in multimedia for learning outcomes (LOs) in relation to individual differences in short-term memory (STM) capacity. The study is based on a survey of 378 individuals at the bachelor level (military officers, tea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torgersen, Glenn-Egil, Boe, Ole
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34276455
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.545335
_version_ 1783723400677556224
author Torgersen, Glenn-Egil
Boe, Ole
author_facet Torgersen, Glenn-Egil
Boe, Ole
author_sort Torgersen, Glenn-Egil
collection PubMed
description The main objective of this study is to investigate the importance of three compositions in multimedia for learning outcomes (LOs) in relation to individual differences in short-term memory (STM) capacity. The study is based on a survey of 378 individuals at the bachelor level (military officers, teachers, and psychology students). The LOs of three different multimedia compositions (means) were tested. This applied to individuals with low, medium, and high STM capacity. The results show that the successive presentation (Type II) of learning materials through multiple representation forms/channels (speech, pictures, and screen text/labels) provides a better LO than just speech (Type I) and simultaneous presentation (Type III). Overall, visual and verbal channel capacities did not contribute to the LO in any of the three tools tested, but some specific STM capacity types or substructures (visual and verbal progressive capacities) and non-verbal (RAPM) types have significance, particularly in exploiting successive presentation (Type II) for learning. Although the tools used in the multimedia educational material had a low cognitive load, the individuals with low capacity learned relatively less than the individuals with higher capacity. A symbolic form of expression was introduced concerning the relationship between cognitive load structure (CLS) and LOs through various tools in multimedia as an aid in the theoretical and empirical analyses. This is referred to as the CLS-LO formula. The main assumption of this study, based on previous empirical and theoretical ones, is that the relationship between CLS and LO is expressed with the following CLS-LO formula: [Formula: see text]. Based on this study, the relationship became: [Formula: see text]. This basic research study is primarily a contribution to understanding underlying cognitive processes in STM and their importance for learning in multimodal forms compared with analogue text. The findings will also be relevant as a basis for performance analysis and decision-making under high information pressure, risk, and unpredictable conditions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8284485
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82844852021-07-17 Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures Torgersen, Glenn-Egil Boe, Ole Front Psychol Psychology The main objective of this study is to investigate the importance of three compositions in multimedia for learning outcomes (LOs) in relation to individual differences in short-term memory (STM) capacity. The study is based on a survey of 378 individuals at the bachelor level (military officers, teachers, and psychology students). The LOs of three different multimedia compositions (means) were tested. This applied to individuals with low, medium, and high STM capacity. The results show that the successive presentation (Type II) of learning materials through multiple representation forms/channels (speech, pictures, and screen text/labels) provides a better LO than just speech (Type I) and simultaneous presentation (Type III). Overall, visual and verbal channel capacities did not contribute to the LO in any of the three tools tested, but some specific STM capacity types or substructures (visual and verbal progressive capacities) and non-verbal (RAPM) types have significance, particularly in exploiting successive presentation (Type II) for learning. Although the tools used in the multimedia educational material had a low cognitive load, the individuals with low capacity learned relatively less than the individuals with higher capacity. A symbolic form of expression was introduced concerning the relationship between cognitive load structure (CLS) and LOs through various tools in multimedia as an aid in the theoretical and empirical analyses. This is referred to as the CLS-LO formula. The main assumption of this study, based on previous empirical and theoretical ones, is that the relationship between CLS and LO is expressed with the following CLS-LO formula: [Formula: see text]. Based on this study, the relationship became: [Formula: see text]. This basic research study is primarily a contribution to understanding underlying cognitive processes in STM and their importance for learning in multimodal forms compared with analogue text. The findings will also be relevant as a basis for performance analysis and decision-making under high information pressure, risk, and unpredictable conditions. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8284485/ /pubmed/34276455 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.545335 Text en Copyright © 2021 Torgersen and Boe. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Torgersen, Glenn-Egil
Boe, Ole
Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title_full Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title_fullStr Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title_full_unstemmed Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title_short Which Tools in Multimedia Are Best for Learning Outcomes? A Study Grounded in Cognitive Load Structures
title_sort which tools in multimedia are best for learning outcomes? a study grounded in cognitive load structures
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8284485/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34276455
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.545335
work_keys_str_mv AT torgersenglennegil whichtoolsinmultimediaarebestforlearningoutcomesastudygroundedincognitiveloadstructures
AT boeole whichtoolsinmultimediaarebestforlearningoutcomesastudygroundedincognitiveloadstructures