Realistic details impact learners independently of split-attention effects

Abstract

Realistic visualizations are considered to introduce the risk of distracting learners from relevant information. In two experiments, the interplay between realism and a known form of distraction, the split-attention effect, were investigated. This effect describes that spatially separating relevant information can have a substantial negative effect on learning. The experiments were conducted using short anatomy learning tasks to test whether a combination of realism and split attention would lead to the worst retention performance or, alternatively, whether realism can counteract the negative effects of split attention. The first experiment (n = 125) revealed that realism attenuated the cognitive load induced by split attention, suggesting a compensatory effect of realism (i.e., realism may have helped learners to deal with the detrimental influence of split attention). However, retention performance was not impacted in a similar way, indicating that this compensatory effect on subjective cognitive load may actually be the result of learners’ illusion that realistic details are helpful. Split attention significantly reduced retention performance. Experiment 2 (n = 152) resulted in negative effects of realism and split attention on retention. In sum, the experiments suggest that realistic details can affect learners independently of other visual design factors as exemplified by the split-attention effect. Thus, the assumption that realism is likely to distract learners is rendered implausible by the experiments, as the distraction of split attention should have amplified any distractive potential of realistic details. However, the results also suggest that the effects of realism on learning are still somewhat unpredictable.

Deterministic or probabilistic: U.S. children's beliefs about genetic inheritance

“…Visual representations have been found to promote learning of science concepts (Mayer, 2009;Mayer & Moreno, 2003;Schnotz, 2002); however their effectiveness depends on many factors, including their perceptual features (Rey, 2012;Skulmowski, 2022aSkulmowski, , 2022b. Perceptually rich visualizations (e.g., realistic images) often help students learn the information presented in the lesson, but might not help them generalize to other material (Rey, 2012;Skulmowski, 2023). In contrast, perceptually bland representations (e.g., images that are more schematic), often promote generalization by conveying that the information in the lesson extends beyond the specific exemplar used in the lesson (Menendez, 2022;Menendez et al, 2020).…”

Learners Emphasize Their Intrinsic Load if Asked About It First: Communicative Aspects of Cognitive Load Measurement

“…The study re‐used learning materials from a previous study (Skulmowski, 2023b, Exp. 2) on the effect of split attention on learning.…”

“…2) on the effect of split attention on learning. More precisely, the top row of figure 3 (Skulmowski, 2023b, p. 193) was re‐used, showing a schematic diagram of the stomach either in a split attention format (with label texts placed at a distance) or in an integrated format (in which labels are located adjacent to the elements they describe). In that study, split attention had a large effect of η p 2 = 0.41 on extraneous cognitive load ratings.…”

“…The overall procedure of Study 2 was identical to the first study, with a time‐limited learning phase followed by the cognitive load rating pages (again using the survey by Klepsch et al, 2017), but without the pretraining phase (ω ICL = 0.86 [PFA method], ω ECL = 0.78). The retention test used by Skulmowski (2023b) was re‐used. Again, approval by an ethics committee is not required for this type of research based on local legislation.…”