A study of the effects of spatial contiguity and hierarchically structured headings in a shipboard operating and maintenance manual

Doherty, P. E.

doi:10.1007/s13437-015-0090-4

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with Experiment 1, a medium spatial proximity should be beneficial for learning because of the effects of the spatial contiguity principle (Mayer, 2014) and the spatial contiguity failure (Doherty, 2016;Schüler, 2017).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 61%

“…High proximity and a too-large amount of information in limited space was confusing. High spatial proximity might cause interference (Wickens and McCarley, 2008) and lead to micro-switching between unrelated information, which was presented too closely together (Ganier, 2004;Doherty, 2016;Schüler, 2017). Learners might have problems in finding corresponding text fragments for the relevant parts of the picture and often switched inadvertently between information that was not needed for schema construction at a specific time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, a higher proximity should lead to higher learning outcomes, as learners do not have to split their attention between related representations (spatial contiguity principle; Mayer, 2014). However, unrelated representations should not be presented too close to each other, because the probability of micro-switches between unrelated representations increases with a high proximity (spatial contiguity failure) (Doherty, 2016;Schüler, 2017). Therefore, a medium proximity should be ideal for learning.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spatial contiguity between unrelated representations induces an incidental cognitive load (Moore and Fitz, 1993) since unrelated information should not be processed simultaneously. This spatial contiguity failure is based on the process of microswitching between unrelated representations which takes place with increasing proximity (Doherty, 2016). According to Moore and Fitz (1993), this additional micro-switching hinders visual orientation processes and therefore, learning.…”

Section: Split-attention and Cognitive Theory Of Multimedia Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Spatial Continuity Effect vs. Spatial Contiguity Failure. Revising the Effects of Spatial Proximity Between Related and Unrelated Representations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The split-attention effect refers to learning with related representations in multimedia. Spatial proximity and integration of these representations are crucial for learning processes. The influence of varying amounts of proximity between related and unrelated information has not yet been specified. In two experiments (N 1 = 98; N 2 = 85), spatial proximity between a pictorial presentation and text labels was manipulated (high vs. medium vs. low). Additionally, in Experiment 1, a control group with separated picture and text presentation was implemented. The results revealed a significant effect of spatial proximity on learning performance. In contrast to previous studies, the medium condition leads to the highest transfer, and in Experiment 2, the highest retention score. These results are interpreted considering cognitive load and instructional efficiency. Findings indicate that transfer efficiency is optimal at a medium distance between representations in Experiment 1. Implications regarding the spatial contiguity principle and the spatial contiguity failure are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Split-attention and Cognitive Theory Of Multimedia Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spatial Continuity Effect vs. Spatial Contiguity Failure. Revising the Effects of Spatial Proximity Between Related and Unrelated Representations

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The goal of building user partnerships is to give insight into your user's psychology so that you can design and develop user-centred information (Coe 1996). (Doherty 2016).…”

Section: How Procedures Are Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shipboard operating and maintenance procedures and the knowledge gap

Doherty

2016

Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper advocates the use of shipboard procedures as a strategy for bridging the knowledge gap. It also recognises that an over-reliance reflects a failure to equip seafarers with the appropriate prior knowledge. Maritime accident reports frequently cite poor procedures as contributing factors towards maritime accidents. This may suggest a nexus among technical systems, seafarer competence, shipboard procedures and accidents at sea. It is suggested in this paper that a holistic approach is needed to ensure that the approval of technical systems, seafarer training and written procedures are inextricably linked. Shipboard written procedures are described in terms of a negotiation of meaning between writer and seafarer, where successful execution of a shipboard task requires an accurate interpretation, by the seafarer, of the writer's intentions. It is suggested that this may only be achieved by ensuring that seafarer prior knowledge is sufficient, writer's anticipation of this knowledge is accurate and communication of new knowledge is explicit. This paper does not offer specific advice on the design of shipboard procedures; however, the process of acquiring a mental action plan is discussed. The factors that support or impede this acquisition are described and supported by a number of accident reports and academic studies.

show abstract

Learning from screencast software tutorials: A comparison of cognitive load in dual and single‐monitor learning environments

Kueker,

Moore

2023

Computer Assisted Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLearning to use software using screencast videos with worked examples in the corresponding practice files presents a classic split‐attention problem that requires learners to mentally integrate information from the video with a target application. While there is evidence that splitting attention either temporally or spatially adversely impacts learning, it is unclear if there is a meaningful difference in the load imposed by splitting attention in different ways. Furthermore, while much is known about effective screencast design, little is known about how learning environment features, such as the monitor configuration, influence learning from this form of instruction.ObjectiveAn experiment was conducted with 42 novice learners to compare the effects of two common monitor configurations that divided attention differently on three physiological measures of cognitive load.MethodsEffects due to the monitor setup were assessed using a 2 × 2 study design that controlled for task order and working memory capacity. In one condition, subjects split attention temporally by toggling back and forth between the video and target application on one monitor. In contrast, the other condition required subjects to split attention spatially by shifting their gaze between the video and target application displayed on two side‐by‐side monitors.Results and ConclusionsResults indicated that cognitive load as measured through task‐evoked pupil response was significantly higher, p < 0.05, for groups with two monitors during both instruction and testing, even after controlling for working memory capacity.

show abstract

A study of the effects of spatial contiguity and hierarchically structured headings in a shipboard operating and maintenance manual

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Spatial Continuity Effect vs. Spatial Contiguity Failure. Revising the Effects of Spatial Proximity Between Related and Unrelated Representations

Spatial Continuity Effect vs. Spatial Contiguity Failure. Revising the Effects of Spatial Proximity Between Related and Unrelated Representations

Shipboard operating and maintenance procedures and the knowledge gap

Learning from screencast software tutorials: A comparison of cognitive load in dual and single‐monitor learning environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About