When and how seductive details harm learning. A study using cued retrospective reporting

Bender, Lisa; Renkl, Alexander; Eitel, Alexander

doi:10.1002/acp.3822

Cited by 10 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(88 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harp and Mayer ( 1998 ) found seductive details being detrimental to learning when they were presented early but not late in the instruction suggesting that presenting seductive details early primed inadequate prior knowledge and led to deeper processing of irrelevant details at the expense of pertinent content. In a similar vein, Eitel et al ( 2019 ) and Bender et al ( 2021 a) found that seductive details hampered learning only when students (mistakenly) considered them relevant for learning, which presumably led to increased prior knowledge activation and deeper processing of seductive details. Similar assumptions can be made based on the construction-integration model (Kintsch, 1998 ).…”

Section: Seductive Details Hamper Learning Even When They Do Not Disruptmentioning

confidence: 84%

Seductive details hamper learning even when they do not disrupt

Kienitz,

Krebs,

Eitel

2023

Instr Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research often revealed detrimental effects of seductive details on learning with multimedia instruction, but there are mixed findings regarding how to best explain these detrimental effects. We investigated whether the detrimental effects of seductive details are mainly mediated by the cognitive processes of diversion (deeper processing of seductive details rather than pertinent content) or disruption (unsuccessful attempts to integrate seductive details with pertinent content) by assessing the effects of instructional prompts. In an online learning experiment, participants (N = 247) learned either without seductive details (control condition) or with seductive details in one of three conditions: Participants received either a prompt informing them about the irrelevance of seductive details (irrelevance-prompt), a prompt to process seductive details and pertinent content separately (separation-prompt), or no prompt within their task instruction. We assessed recall and transfer of knowledge as dependent variables. Supporting the diversion hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition regarded seductive details as more relevant and consequently spent more time processing them compared to participants in the irrelevance-prompt condition, which negatively influenced their recall performance. Against the disruption hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition reported lower integration avoidance between seductive details and pertinent content compared to participants in the separation-prompt condition, but this led to better rather than worse transfer performance. Our results thus suggest diversion, and not disruption, to be the main process driving the seductive details effect. Reducing the details’ diverting potential seems a good way to deal with seductive details in instruction.

show abstract

Section: Seductive Details Hamper Learning Even When They Do Not Disruptmentioning

confidence: 84%

Seductive details hamper learning even when they do not disrupt

Kienitz,

Krebs,

Eitel

2023

Instr Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because these indicators can mirror the combined effects of several ongoing cognitive processes (Anmarkrud et al, 2019 ; Kok & Jarodzka, 2017 ), deciphering the cognitive meaning of learners’ visual attention distribution based solely on eye tracking technology can be difficult. Future research could triangulate eye tracking data with additional measurement approaches, such as cued retrospective reporting (Bender et al, 2021 ), to minimise ambiguity and avoid misinterpretation of eye movement indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of eye tracking research on video-based learning

Deng

Gao

2022

Educ Inf Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eye tracking technology is increasingly used to understand individuals’ non-conscious, moment-to-moment processes during video-based learning. This review evaluated 44 eye tracking studies on video-based learning conducted between 2010 and 2021. Specifically, the review sought to uncover how the utilisation of eye tracking technology has advanced understandings of the mechanisms underlying effective video-based learning and what type of caution should be exercised when interpreting the findings of these studies. Four important findings emerged from the analysis: (1) not all the studies explained the mechanisms underlying effective video-based learning through employing eye tracking technology, and few studies disentangled the complex relationship between eye tracking metrics and cognitive activities these metrics represent; (2) emotional factors potentially serve to explain the processes that facilitate video-based learning, but few studies captured learners’ emotional processes or evaluated their affective gains; (3) ecological validity should be improved for eye tracking research on video-based learning through methods such as using eye tracking systems that have high tolerance for head movements, allowing learners to take control of the pacing of the video, and communicating the learning objectives of the video to participants; and (4) boundary conditions, including personal (e.g. age, prior knowledge) and environmental factors (e.g. the topic of videos, type of knowledge), must be considered when interpreting research findings. The findings of this review inspire a number of propositions for designing and interpreting eye tracking research on video-based learning.

show abstract

“…Using a cue can elicit a better recollection of what happened during the task ( van Gog et al, 2006 ). Eye-movement videos were previously used in various studies with retrospective verbal protocols (e.g., Bender et al, 2021 ; Greussing et al, 2020 ; Muntinga & Taylor, 2018 ; Penttinen et al, 2013 ) and efficiently helped subject recall their cognitive processes. Cued retrospective interviews were used in previous studies about strategies used by musicians during improvisations ( Després et al, 2017 ; Norgaard, 2011 ), which led us to believe this approach was suitable for another in situ musical task, a sight-singing exercise presented in a context similar to end-of-semester aural skills evaluations in higher education.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Building a mental toolbox: Relationships between strategy choice and sight-singing performance in higher education

Pomerleau-Turcotte

Dubé

Sala

et al. 2022

Psychology of Music

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sight-singing is an inescapable component of music training in higher education and is often challenging for students. However, some strategies could help students perform. Yet, the extent to which students can use strategies to improve their sight-singing performance remains unclear. This article asks two questions to fill this gap: (1) Which strategies do students use when sight-singing? (2) Does the application of some types of strategy predict performance? We recruited 56 postsecondary music students and asked them about their musical backgrounds. They then sight-sang a short melody while we recorded their eye movements. After that, we conducted semi-structured retrospective interviews, using eye-movement videos and attention distribution heatmaps to help participants remember the strategies they used. We analyzed the interview transcripts to identify the strategies students used and regrouped them into categories. We extracted seven categories and discovered that using body movements predicted rhythm scores, that using musical knowledge predicted pitch and combined scores, and that relying on automatic skills predicted all dimensions of sight-singing performance. We recommend that aural skills instructors teach strategies explicitly and help students develop robust musical knowledge, as they are required to build strong automatic skills.

show abstract

When and how seductive details harm learning. A study using cued retrospective reporting

Cited by 10 publications

References 37 publications

Seductive details hamper learning even when they do not disrupt

Seductive details hamper learning even when they do not disrupt

A review of eye tracking research on video-based learning

Building a mental toolbox: Relationships between strategy choice and sight-singing performance in higher education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About