Abstract
This study explored the effects of prior knowledge and cueing on the learning (retention, transfer, and matching) and mental effort of learners who studied an instructional animation with accompanying narration about photosynthesis. A 4 × 2 between-subjects factorial design with four levels of cueing (no cueing, label cueing, picture cueing, and label and picture cueing) and two levels of prior knowledge (low vs. high) was used. A total of 216 undergraduate students from various majors in a large Southwestern university volunteered to participate in this study. The results revealed no significant effect of cueing on learning or mental effort. However, high prior knowledge learners outperformed low prior knowledge learners on a retention test and reported investing more mental effort than low prior knowledge learners. Although it was not significant, high prior knowledge learners had higher transfer and matching scores when no cues were provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alpizar, D., Adesope, O. O., & Wong, R. M. (2020). A meta-analysis of signaling principle in multimedia learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09748-7.
Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev, 22(4), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach. Appl Cogn Psychol, 21(6), 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1343.
Berney, S., & Betrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Comput Educ, 101, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.005.
Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learn Instr, 20(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.015.
Boucheix, J. M., Lowe, R. K., Putri, D. K., & Groff, J. (2013). Cueing animations: dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learn Instr, 25, 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.005.
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learn Instr, 20(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014). Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks. Learn Instr, 34, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.005.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018). Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: don’t overplay the hand. Comput Educ, 116, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.011.
Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Comput Hum Behav, 28(3), 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.010.
De Koning, B. B., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). Attention guidance strategies for supporting learning from dynamic visualizations. In R. Lowe & R. Ploetzner (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization (pp. 255–278). Cham: Springer.
De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Appl Cogn Psychol, 21(6), 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1346.
De Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educ Psychol Rev, 21(2), 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.010.
De Koning, B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: two approaches to enhance attention cueing animations. Comput Educ, 55(2), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.027.
De Koning, B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Attention cueing in an animation: the role of presentation speed. Comput Hum Behav, 27(1), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.010.
Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Appl Cogn Psychol, 22(8), 1126–1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1426.
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learn Instr, 15(4), 313–331.
Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Comput Hum Behav, 32, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.013.
Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learn Instr, 18(2), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.011.
Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: how experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learn Instr, 20(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.
Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learn Instr, 25, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.004.
Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signaling and animated pedagogical agent: moderating effects of prior knowledge. J Comput Assist Learn, 31(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12078.
Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: an effect of learner prior knowledge. Comput Hum Behav, 24(3), 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.018.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.
Kalyuga, S. (2014). Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 576–597). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educ Technol Res Dev, 53(3), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504800.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480587.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Appl Cogn Psychol, 13(4), 351–371.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educ Psychol, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.
Khacharem, A. (2017). Top-down and bottom-up guidance in comprehension of schematic football diagrams. J Sports Sci, 35(12), 1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1218034.
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(11), 911–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005.
Lin, L. (2011). Learning with multimedia: are visual cues and self-explanation prompts effective? (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ATT 3465746).
Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Comput Educ, 56(3), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007.
Liu, H. C. (2018). Investigating the impact of cognitive style on multimedia learners’ understanding and visual search patterns: an eye-tracking approach. J Educ Comput Res, 55(8), 1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117697020.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learn Instr, 13(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X.
Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J. (2011). Cueing complex animations: does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learn Instr, 21(5), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.002.
Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Animation principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 513–546). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. Br J Educ Technol, 40(4), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00848.x.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol, 93(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1037//O022-O663.93.2.377.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 11(4), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.256.
Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of cueing and segmentation methods. Appl Cogn Psychol, 21(6), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1348.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does cueing enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behaviors, 26(1), 110–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001.
Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive load approach. J Educ Psychol, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol, 38(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.003.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2018). Signaling text–picture relations in multimedia learning: the influence of prior knowledge. J Educ Psychol, 110(4), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000220.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning and continuing motivation. J Educ Psychol, 83(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.318.
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learn Instr, 36, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002.
Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001.
Schroeder, N. L., & Traxler, A. L. (2017). Humanizing instructional videos in physics: when less is more. J Sci Educ Technol, 26(3), 269–278.
Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Comput Hum Behav, 27(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.011.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1017.
van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 263–278). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, X., Lin, L., Han, M., & Spector, J. M. (2020). Impacts of cues on learning: using eye-tracking technologies to examine the functions and designs of added cues in short instructional videos. Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106279. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106279.
Xie, H., Mayer, R. E., Wang, F., & Zhou, Z. (2019). Coordinating visual and auditory cueing in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol, 111(2), 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000285.
Yung, H. I., & Pass, F. (2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: a cognitive load approach. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153–160.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Ismahan Arslan-Ari and Fatih Ari. Data analysis and the first draft of the manuscript were written by Ismahan Arslan-Ari and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Texas Tech University Protection of Human Subjects Committee, 503187) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arslan-Ari, I., Crooks, S.M. & Ari, F. How Much Cueing Is Needed in Instructional Animations? The Role of Prior Knowledge. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 666–676 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09845-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09845-5