Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Modality Effect - EDST1101

    Uploaded by

    Annie Nguyen
    8 views13 pages
    Education Psychology

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Education Psychology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views13 pages

    Modality Effect - EDST1101

    Uploaded by

    Annie Nguyen
    Education Psychology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    John Sweller + Paul Ayres + Slava Kalyuga Cognitive Load Theory g Springer scion tect 2 able lear mation. The abe based on ning domains peu, dia- to occur with apler 15), instwetional snultaneously possible. As integrate dit. letrimental to ms, or in the tion, Without vides us with Information B needs 1 be Secondly the retimes fails. sure that they ly, the spliv. Moemation in tant cognitive of its wider The modality fet Chapter 10 The Modality Effect ‘The modality elfect is closely related to the splivattention effect (Chapter 9) According to cognitive load theory the splitatention etfeet occurs when learners ust process separate but related Sources of information that cannot be understood without mental integration. The eng quired to elec this integra ‘ion are unavailable for learning and may exeeed the available capacity of working ‘memory. This chapter describes an alternative way of dealing with split-atention conditions by engaging both auditory and visual channels of information in work- ing memory rather than just the visual channel, For example, rather than presenting a diagram and weiten text that rely entirely on the visual channel spoken text relying on both auditory and visual modalities are used We need to emphasise that as was the ease with the spit-atention effect, the ‘modality effect only is obtainable when the two sources of information are uninte ligible in isolation. Textual information presented in spaken Form will not 4 modality eet i it merely re-describes a diggrann or some ether form of informa ion. If a diagram and text are being used, hoth must contain information that requires learners to refer tothe other souree in order to enable comprehension. If fr ‘example, a diggram is intelligible in isolation and contains all of the required infor mation, providing a spoken re-description of the diagram will no more generate ‘modialty effect than providing a writen deseripion will generate split-atention elfct, Me issue of text that re describes a diagram is discussed in Chapter 1 on the redundancy effec ‘The modality effect deseribed in this chapter is associated with muttimedia learning and instruction that use multiple forms of information input and represen lation. According (0 the available models of multimedia leamning (Mayer. 2008: Schnotz, 2005), cognitive processing of related texs and pictues, including {dynamic visualisaions such as animations and simulations, involves the selection and organisation ofthe relevant elements of visual and auditory information resulin in acoherent unitied representation, These processes occur in the learner's working diagram and The cognitive architecture described in the early chapters of this book applies Similarly to both the splitattention and the modality effeets with one acktional, critical point. Whereas we have not evolved to handle written text that refers to & 1. Sweller ea. Cogutive Load Theos, Explorations in he Learing Sciences 19 jes apd Peformance Tesholoscs | DOr 10.1007978- 1-49.81 264 10.0 Springer SeienseoBusiness Mei 10 10 The Modahiy es visual information such as objects, pictures or diagrams and 50 may need 10 learn hw to process such information, itis very likely that we have evolved to listen to speech while looking at objects. I so, presenting information in dual-modality form may tap into biologically primary knowledge visual only, writen text plus objects, pictres or diagrams. Such visualnly infor ‘mation may require us to acquire relevant biologicelly secondary information. ‘With respect to the genetal cognitive architecture of Part Il, the presentation of information relies on the borrowing and reorganising principle to facilitate the transfer of information to the long-term memory information store, that informa: tion needs to be structured to take into account the Fimitations of working memory as indicated by the narrow limits of change principle, and ance knowledge | stored in long-term memory. it can be used to govern activity as specified by the environmental organising: und linking principle. If dual-modality pr taps into & biol memory load lel sulting in an advantage ovee ly primary ability, i will automatically reduce workin 1g ton advantage, The Effect of Replacing Written with Spoken Text While working tmemory is often tested a6 if itis @ unitary structurc, in fat it includes multiple processors that correspond io the modality in which information 1o be processed is presented, Several well-established models of work assume is functions are distributed over parly independent components sally associated with processing suditory/serbal oF visual/pictoral information (eg Bandura, 1986; Penney, 1989; Schneider & Detweiler, 1987), For example, the model suggested by Bacideley (1986) includes three subsystems: « phonologies! Toop, a visuospatial sketchpad and a central executive. The phonological loon processes auditory information, while the visuospatial sketehpad processes pct tial or written visual information, In Penney’s (1989) “seperate streams” model of ‘working memory, processing of verbal items presented in auditory and visual fora is curied out independently by auditory and visual processors ‘Thus, according tothe most eommon theories af working memory, we have wo ulferene, partially independent processors for dealing with visual and auditory information. We will assume that both of these processors have capacity and uration limitations. In some situations, effective werking memory capacity may be increased by using both processors, and this possibilty has important instructional implications associated with the presentation of information, The presentation {ormats should be designed in a way that can help learners to avoid an unnecessary cognitive overioad by using both, rater than a Single processor. In that way, the cognitive load can be spread over both processors, thus reducing the load on a single processor Imagine two related sourees of information presented in « visual form, for example, diagram with an accompanying, explanatory, written tent. Initially, both sources of information must be processed inthe visual channel of working memory The Ett Subsequen form for fs ro-coded in processing working spatially se Howeve with diag immediate the capacity of the caps Nevertheles and visual addition, dt Thus, fin one present Instruetiona information modality for physically i A numbe text wih indicators 0 li Chandler, & eung, Cha retention, th Mayer, 1995 Mousavi tional moda inependent mode, There avoided by The results ¢ stated that auditory for Ford et al (1 an audio 12 purely visual Moesliy tee ‘need to learn 126 co listen 10 ‘dual-modaliiy dvantoge over sal-only intor- resentation of late the fa that inform: king memory knowledge is ecified by the + presentation duce working re, in fact ie information nents usually mation (ex example, the Phonological vologieal loop ‘cesses pict ns" model of dd visual forms {we have two) and auditory capacity and pacity may be ‘instructional presentation n unaecessary that way, the the foad on a ual form, for Initially, both ing memory. The Ect of Replacing Writen with poten Te ai Subsequently, the visual text may be partially or fully re-coded into the auditory form for further processing but when dealing with weiten text, auditory processing fannot oceur until after the text has been dealt with by the visual processor and re-coded into auditory form. high levels of element interactivity are involved in processing and integrating these two sources of information, the visval channel of working memory may become overloaded, especially when these sources are spatially separated through a split-source presentation, However, when one of the sources of information such asthe text, when dealing with a diagram and text, is presented in an auditory form, it ca be processed immediately in the auditory channel of working memory” without impesing a cognitive load on the visual channel, while visual information such as diagrams continues to be processed inthe visual channel. The use of bh channels increases the capacity of working memory, although it dovs nox eonsist ofa simple adaition fof the capacity of both channels because they are only pastially independent nowat of information that ean be processed using both auditory Nevertheless, the ‘and visual channe’s should exceed the processing capacity of a single channel, In ‘dition, dusl-modality presentations eliminate possible visual splitattention that ‘may oecur when only visual sources of information are present, ‘Thus, limited working memory can be effectively expanded by using mone than ‘ne presentation modality. The modality effet occurs when dual-modality present tions are superior to single-modality-only presentations of the same information, Lastructionel materials involving dual-modalty presentations of related sources of information ean eliminate cognitive overload in situations whete equivalent single ality formats might fail, The resulting effet on learning is similar to the effect of physically integrating separate sources of information to eliminate spiattemion ‘A numberof experiments have demonstrated that replacing written or on-screen ‘ext with orally narrated text improved student learning using several different indicators af leaning: higher post-test scores combined with lower cognitive load during instruction (eg. Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1999, 2000; Tindall-For, ‘Chandler, & Sweller, 1997}; less time required for subsequent problem solvin (loung, Chandler, & Swveller, 1997; Mousavi, Lov, & Swelle, 1995); and higher retention, transfer and matching tests scores (Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Moremi & Mayer, 1999; see Mayer, 2009 for an overview), Mousavi etal, (1995), using geometry materials, frst demonstrated the insirue tional medality effect, They hypothesised that if working memory fas partially independent processors for handling visual and auditory material elective workin memory may be increased by presenting material in a enixed rather than a unitary eomeiry might be mode. Therefore, the negative consequences of spit-attention in avoided by presenting geometry statements in auditory, rather than visual, form, ‘The results of a sequence of experiments supported this hypothesis. They deimon strated that a visually presented geometry diagram with statements presented in auditory form improved learning compared to visual-only presentations. Tindall try electrical engineering with Purely visually presented instruction. In addition, they also provided evidence fora ke 10 The Modal Eee cognitive load interpn subjective ring cognitive loud indicators ating scales, An alternative explanation ofthe modality effect has been provide by Taber, Martens, ard van Merrignbwer (2004), They argued thatthe effect was eaused by the reduction of extraneous cognitive load due to the simultaneous preseatation of pictorial and verbal information in a dual-modality format rather than duc to the elfective expansion of working memory capacity. We ean simultaneously listen to spoken text while looking ata diagram, bu iis difficult or impossible to simultane ously read text while looking ata diagram, especially under split-souree conditions. ‘This argument is plausible. Nevertheless, Mousavi et al, (1995) studied the role of ‘emporal contiguity m the modality effect by computing sequential und simulaneinus Presentations of geometry diagrams and associated textual explanations in both dality formats and found no evidenee for the influence of femporal contiguity on the modality effect. The effect was obtained imespective ‘whether the textual information was provided simultaneously with the diagrams or before the dizgrams were presented. This result renders & temporal contiguity explanation of the modality effect unlikely The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2005, 2009: Mayer & Moreno, 2002, 2003) has been used to provide detailed theoretical argumenis that elfectively supported the modality effect along with a cognitive load explanation, The works of Mayer and his collaborators have applied the madality elfact «lynamie vsualisations such as instructional animations. Aceording 10 the co theory of multimedia learning, diferent mental representations re conseucted visual-only and dal from verbal and pictorial information, and meaningful learning uccuts when the learner sotively est lishes connections between these represenations. Within a feamework of the cognitive theory of maalimedia learning, Mayer and Moreno (2003) considered the modality effet as a means of off-loading some ofthe processing demands from the visual channel vo the auditory channel, Mayer and his collaborators (Mayer, 1997: Mayer & Anderson, 1991, 1992: Mayer & Morene. 1598; Motene & Mayer, 1999; Moreno, Mayer, Spite, a Lester, 2001; for overviews, sce Clark & Mayer, 2009) have conducted many experiments demonstrating the superiority of dual-modalty insiretions for emeaningful learning. In most cass, they used narrated scientific explanations of animated visuals as experimental materials ‘One oftheir ndings was hat the vodality elect is usualy stronger for measures of tcansterraber than retention, Dual-modality presentations offload information frm the visual chan, reduce extraneous load, nd thus may leave more resoutees for cognitive processing (Harskamp, Mayer, & Sule, 2007), ‘The Modality Effect in Interactive Learning vironments Many cartier stdies ofthe modality effect used well-structured, system-contolled instructions explaining proce dures. In contrast, interaetive learning environments ‘usually imvolve non-linear features that allow learners to determine the sequeace of The Mo informa choose ¢ or they 1 learning and pres control ¢ Most learning Opienma intheirs choose 4 audio tes select th informa applicabl saci writen & appropri learner e: split ater of Tuber als, writ, tory spok variable informati An ex Action Re to learner engaged i udiofvisu and come Anima ‘combina Mayer, & Mayer, So cengagemes Atkin efets wi effect in a sliy Ener indicators Tabbers, aused by station of tue 10 the listen to imultane: onditios, vw role of sltaneous + in beh lence of spective contiguity ayer & lanation, elect 10 structed vinen the ayer and reof the and his 16,1998; astating vata sures of fon fom ees foe tolled cence of ‘The Modality Etec tortie Leaning Ensiconnens 03 information aevess, select the content and its presentation format. Learners may house differnt learning pathways depending on their interaction withthe system ‘or they may just follow system suggestions, For example, electrnic hypermedia learning environments include elements of information inerconnected by hyperlinks ‘and presented in various modalities. Such envieonments usually aller mote learner control than traditional system-controlied, multimedia leaning environments. Most multimedia learning principles are believed tobe applicable to hypeemedia learning environments (Dillon & Jobst, 2005), However, Gerjets, Sehciter, Opfermann, Hesse, and Eysink (2009) luted to find evidence for a modality effect {even though the hypermedia-based instruction in solving probability problems used in their study involved a relatively low level of learner control. While learners could choose to retrieve well-specfied sources of information such as animations or audio text files with spoken explanations, o skip presented information, and to select the pacing of instruction. in all other respects, they had linear access to information. Gerjets et al. (2009) concluded that the modality effect may not be applicable when designing hypermedia learning environments that do not provide Sufficient information indicating, whether students should use spoken rather than written explanations of animated visuals. Students may need to be prompted to use appropriate external representations (Gerjets, Scheite, & Schuh, 2008), In adtion, leamer contra! of the pacing may have reduced the cognitive load associated with split attention in the ease af the visua-only representations, similar to the findings ‘of Tahbers etal. (2004). Since dhere was sufficient time to read the writen matei als, weiten text resulted in similar, or even beter, performance compared to tansi- tory spoken text, While these studies indicate thal learner control may bea relevent ‘arable when considering the modality effect, length and complexity of auditory information isa far more likely explanation of the findings (see Chapter 17 on the {cansient information effect), ‘An example of the effective use of duabmodality presentations for reducing

    You might also like