Support for learning from multimedia explanations. A ...

SUPPORT FOR MULTIMEDIA LEARNING

1

Support for learning from multimedia explanations. A comparison of prompting, signaling, and questioning Héctor García-Rodicio University of Cantabria, Spain

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Héctor García-Rodicio Department of Education, Developmental and Educational Psychology University of Cantabria, Faculty of Education Avenida de los Castros s/n, 39005, Santander, Cantabria – Spain Phone number: 0034 942 20 12 75 E-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication: García-Rodicio, H. (2014). Support for learning from multimedia explanations. A comparison of prompting, signaling, and questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, x, xxxx.


2

Abstract In one experiment 97 undergraduate students learned about plate tectonics from a multimedia presentation involving narrated animations and support in one of four forms. Support in the prompting condition included hints inducing participants to self-explain critical information. The signaling condition included overviews recapping critical information. The questioning condition included questions about critical information and feedback on participants’ answers. The control condition included no support. Participants in the questioning condition outperformed those in the rest of conditions in retention and transfer. This means that questioning is a very powerful technique for promoting multimedia learning.

Keywords: multimedia learning; instructional support; prompts; signaling; questioning; active processing.


3

Support for learning from multimedia explanations. A comparison of prompting, signaling, and questioning Suppose you have a well designed multimedia explanation, which takes into account learners’ processing limitations. Thus, you have a material that does not require learners to waste cognitive resources in activities that do not result in knowledge acquisition. However, there is still room for improving learning. You can also enrich the multimedia material with devices such as prompts, signals, or questions that foster crucial learning processes. Prior research on multimedia learning tested the impact of these support devices. However, it never compared these support devices with each other, being unclear which is more effective. The goal of the research presented here was to address this issue. To do so, we had participants learn about plate tectonics (i.e., the theory that explains how terrain is formed) from a multimedia presentation that included either prompts, signals, questions, or no support devices and we compared the retention and transfer performances obtained by all these conditions. The results may clarify prior findings and pose practical implications. Techniques to Promote Multimedia Learning Multimedia learning consists of constructing a mental model from a material containing words and pictures (Mayer, 2005; Schnotz, 2005). According to the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2005; 2009), this involves the processes of selecting relevant words and pictures from the material, organizing them into coherent verbal and pictorial cognitive structures, and integrating these structures among themselves and with prior knowledge. And all this is done within the limited capacity of the working memory. Techniques for Off-Loading Working Memory Empirical research has yielded a number of instructional techniques that promote multimedia learning. These techniques follow one of two main strategies, techniques for offloading working memory and techniques for promoting essential processing (Moreno, 2006).


4

Regarding the techniques directed toward off-loading working memory, they consist of reducing extraneous processing (i.e., processing that does not result in knowledge acquisition), thus making it possible for learners to invest more resources in germane processing, that is, selecting, organizing, and integrating. Extraneous processing can be reduced by excluding irrelevant information from the material (such as music, environmental sounds, or complementary videos), presenting corresponding words and pictures contiguously in space and time (rather than disparately or successively), or presenting words only in spoken modality (rather than in spoken plus written modality). Thanks to these techniques, learners are prevented from processing irrelevant material, searching for the corresponding words and pictures, and overloading the visual processing channel. These techniques are called coherence, contiguity, and redundancy principles, respectively, and have been largely supported by empirical research (Ginns, 2006; Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapangco, 1996; Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001; Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Techniques for Promoting Essential Processing Other techniques follow a different strategy: They are directed toward fostering the processes of selection, organization, and integration by means of different support devices. Examples of this kind of strategy are the prompting, signaling, and questioning techniques. Prompts are devices (questions, hints) that induce learners to perform specific cognitive processes. One kind of prompts is self-explanation prompts (Chi, de Leeuw, Chiu, & LaVancher, 1994). These prompts require learners to self-explain, that is, to try to make sense of the to-be-learned material through making connections across different parts of the material, giving examples, or relating incoming information to prior knowledge. By requiring learners to explain specific parts of the material, prompts guide learners towards relevant information, thus supporting the process of selection. Moreover, in order to generate


5

explanations, learners need to mentally organize what they have learned so far and connect it with other knowledge, which means that prompts trigger the processes of organization and integration (Mayer et al., 2003). Empirical research indicates that prompting self-explanation is an effective technique in the promotion of expository text comprehension (Chi et al., 1994; O'Reilly, Symons, & MacLatchy-Gaudet, 1998) and learning from worked-out examples (Schworm & Renkl, 2006; 2007). There is also evidence of a positive impact of self-explanation prompts in multimedia learning. Berthold and colleagues (Berthold & Renkl, 2009; Berthold, Eysink, & Renkl, 2009) asked participants to learn about probability from a presentation including multimedia worked-out examples. The examples comprised a problem formulation, the solution steps, and the solution itself, which was presented in the form of both a tree diagram and an arithmetical equation. In one condition participants received prompts requiring them to explain the rationale behind the solution steps. In two experiments, participants in the prompting condition outperformed their counterparts in measures of conceptual learning. Signaling refers to the use of devices that highlight important information and the organization of a material (Lorch, 1989). Examples of signals are overviews (devices summarizing main information of a material that can be presented either before or after this material), headings (devices indicating the topic of the material that follows), enumeration devices (e.g., “firstly”, “secondly”), or connectives (e.g., “therefore”, “thus”, “in other words”). Signals help learners to see what parts of the material are critical and how they are related. Accordingly, signals support the processes of selection and organization (Mautone & Mayer, 2001). There is compelling evidence that signals promote better retention and understanding of expository text (see Lorch, 1989). Also, there is some evidence indicating that pictorial signals (such as arrows or photographs) are effective (Mautone & Mayer, 2007).


6

Furthermore, Mautone and Mayer (2001, Experiment 3) applied the signaling technique to multimedia explanations. Specifically, they had participants learn about how planes fly from a multimedia presentation including different forms of signaling. Presentations in one condition included verbal signals consisting of overviews, headings, and connectives. As indicated by performances in transfer, verbal signals were effective. Finally, the questioning technique consists of inserting questions into a material and having learners generate answers to them. When having to answer questions, learners are encouraged to select relevant information, mentally organize the material, and integrate it with their prior knowledge, which means that questioning triggers germane processing on learners (Campbell & Mayer, 2009). Furthermore, questions can include feedback on learners’ answers, which help learners to identify aspects they do not understand well, thus allocating more processing on them (Campbell & Mayer, 2009). Research reveals that questioning fosters retention of facts (Pressley et al., 1992), expository text comprehension (Ozgungor & Guthrie, 2004), and deep learning from classroom-like lessons (Campbell & Mayer, 2009). There is also some evidence that questioning is suitable for multimedia learning. In a prior study (AUTHORS) we found that learners receiving questions and feedback perform better in retention and transfer, as compared with those receiving no support. Present Study, Research Questions, and Predictions As explained above, prior research has yielded a range of techniques that one can take advantage of to promote multimedia learning. However, there are some questions that were not explored in this research. First, there are no studies comparing prompting, signaling, and questioning with each other in multimedia instruction. This prevents from determining which technique is the most effective. It would be interesting to contrast the techniques with each other to examine their


7

relative effectiveness. Second, questioning has hardly ever been applied to multimedia explanations. As mentioned before, questioning has been utilized in the promotion of learning from expository text, classroom-like lessons, and lists of facts. However, to our knowledge, there is only one study testing the effect on learning of questions inserted into multimedia explanations (AUTHORS). It would be interesting to keep on using questioning in multimedia instruction to see if its effects really generalize to other environments. Third, when testing signaling, researchers used multiple signals in combination, which prevents from determining the individual contribution of each signal. Mautone and Mayer (2001) enriched a multimedia presentation with signals in the form of overviews, headings, and connectives. Participants in the signaled condition outperformed those in the control condition in transfer. However, it is not clear from this result which signal or combination of signals was the most crucial. It would be good to test the individual effects of each signal. One possible starting point is to determine the specific role of overviews. The goal of the present research was to address these questions. To do so, we conducted an experiment in which undergraduate students learned about plate tectonics from a multimedia presentation including narrated animations and support in one of four forms. Presentations in the prompting condition included written prompts asking participants to selfexplain critical information of the material. Presentations in the signaling condition were provided with written overviews restating critical information of the material. Presentations in the questioning condition included written adjunct questions (i.e., multiple-choice questions inserted into the material) about critical information of the material and feedback on participants' answers. There was also a control condition including no support. After watching the presentation, we had all participants solve retention and transfer tests. We addressed the following research questions. Firstly, are prompting, signaling (by


8

means of overviews), and questioning effective techniques in promoting multimedia learning? Secondly, which technique promotes multimedia learning the most, prompting, signaling, or questioning? Based on the findings and arguments reviewed above, we expected all techniques to be effective. That is to say, we expected participants in the prompting, signaling, and questioning conditions to outperform those in the control condition in retention and transfer. As prior research did not compare the techniques with each other and the theory does not allow making clear claims about which technique may be the most effective, we had no predictions regarding this. Method Participants and Design Ninety-seven undergraduate students (56 females, 41 males) enrolled in a Psychology course in the WITHHELD University participated in the experiment. They were paid US$6 for their participation. Their mean age was 19.77 (SD = 0.94), with an age range of 18.5021.50 years. As confirmed by the prior knowledge test, participants had little or no prior knowledge about plate tectonics (see Table 2). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions, control condition (n = 24), prompting condition (n = 23), signaling condition (n = 23), and questioning condition (n = 24). The experiment had a one-factor design with condition (prompting, signaling, questioning, control) as the between-subjects factor. Performances in the retention and transfer tests were used as dependent variables. Materials Materials to-be-learned. Participants had to learn about plate tectonics from a computer-based multimedia presentation. It included six modules comprising animation with concurrent narration (see Figure 1). The animations were based on simple-line, colored


9

drawings. The narrations were recorded by an expert narrator who used normal rate and standard accent. The modules described three issues within the topic of plate tectonics. First, two modules covered the issue of convection currents. This involved explaining the three layers in the internal structure of the Earth and their relationships, the dynamics of convection currents, and convection currents as the origin of plate divisions, movements, and collisions. Second, other two modules covered the kinds of plate collisions. This involved explaining the collision between a continental and an oceanic plate and its consequences on the Earth’s surface, the Andean range being an example of this kind of collision, and the collision between two continental plates and its consequences on the Earth’s surface, with the Himalayan range as an example of this kind of collision. Finally, the remaining two modules covered the issue of the recycling loop between the activity in ridges and that in trenches. This involved explaining ridges and the process through which new crust is created and the destruction of old crust in trenches. In conjunction, the modules lasted 9 minutes 40 seconds. The contents were verified by a science teacher. –Insert Figure 1 here– The presentation started with a slide containing the title “Plate Tectonics.” Each module was embedded in an individual slide. In order to move from one slide to the next one, participants pressed the space bar. Once a slide containing a module was reached, the module was activated automatically and played in a fixed pace. Once the module stopped, the participant pressed the space bar at will to move to the next slide. The modules were presented sequentially in a predetermined order. All the modules were designed according to the multimedia, modality, temporal contiguity, redundancy, and coherence principles (Mayer, 2005, 2009). Accordingly, we presented words and pictures (rather than words alone), we used spoken modality for the words (rather than in written modality or written plus spoken modality), we presented


10

corresponding words and pictures simultaneously (rather than successively), and we excluded (rather than included) extraneous material, such as background music, environmental sounds, or complementary videos. Support devices. Besides the modules, the presentation included additional slides that comprised support devices. These slides were presented after the modules two, four, and six, so that each support device addressed one of the three issues in plate tectonics covered by the presentation. In the prompting condition the additional slides included prompts. These were hints inducing participants to self-explain critical information of the material (see Table 1). Participants were not required to self-explain out loud, they did it silently. There were three prompts, corresponding to the three issues covered by the presentation, namely, convection currents, kinds of plate collisions, and the recycling loop. Each prompt was presented as onscreen text in a single slide. Participants pressed the space bar at will to move to the next slide. In the signaling condition the additional slides included overviews. These were summaries recapping critical information of the material (see Table 1). There were three overviews, corresponding to the three issues covered by the presentation. The overviews were presented as on-screen text in single slides. Participants pressed the space bar at will to move to the next slide. Participants in the questioning condition were provided with questions. These were multiple-choice questions about critical information of the material (see Table 1). There were three questions, which corresponded to the three main topics covered by the presentation, as happened with prompts and overviews. After receiving the question, participants selected one answer (out of three possible answers) and received feedback on their choice. This feedback indicated if the answer was correct or incorrect. If the answer was correct, feedback also


11

included an explanation of why it was so (see Table 1). This explanation recapped information already presented in the material but added no new information. More accurately, the explanations were identical to the overviews included in the signaling condition. If the answer was incorrect, participants had another trial. If the answer was incorrect in this second trial, the correct choice was marked and its corresponding explanation was presented. Each question with its set of possible answers was presented in a single slide as on-screen text. Each feedback message was also presented as on-screen text in a single slide. As happened with prompts and overviews, participants pressed the space bar at will to move to the next slide. Presentations in the control condition did not include support devices. In order to construct a fair control condition, we included three filler slides in this condition after the modules two, four, and six. These slides included the sentence “Press the space bar to continue.” Participants pressed the space bar at will to move to the next slide. –Insert Table 1 here– Tests. The prior knowledge test comprised eight open-ended questions. They dealt with the issues in plate tectonics that were then covered by the presentation. Thus, they addressed aspects such as plate collisions (“How are mountains formed?”), the different kinds of plate collision (“Why do some mountains have volcanoes and others do not?”), or the recycling loop (“Is it possible for the Earth’s surface to be recycled in some way?”). Care was taken not to include clues within the questions that provided information leading to the answers. In order to score the test, we used a template with possible answers for the questions. The template included accurate, correct but incomplete, piecemeal, and incorrect answers, which yielded 3, 2, 1, and 0 points, respectively. For instance, an accurate answer for the question about mountain formation required explaining that, for mountains to be formed, tectonic plates must collide and push each other. A correct but incomplete answer


12

was one stating that mountains are formed as a result of plate movement. A piecemeal answer was one saying that mountain formation is related to plate tectonics. An answer explaining that mountains are formed by sedimentation or a similar mechanism was considered incorrect. Scores ranged from 0 to 24 points. Cohen’s kappa interrater agreement was .91. Disagreements were solved by consensus. The retention test consisted of six open-ended questions. They addressed key aspects of plate tectonics that were explicitly covered by the presentation (e.g., “What is a ridge?”; “What are the differences between the plate collision in the Himalayas and that in the Andes?”; “How is the Earth’s surface permanently being recycled?”). As was done in the test above, we used a template with accurate, correct but incomplete, piecemeal, and incorrect answers, yielding 3, 2, 1, and 0 points, respectively. For instance, an accurate answer for the question about the differences between the plate crash in the Himayalas and that in the Andes required mentioning the plates (continental-continental versus continental-oceanic), processes (mutual pressure versus subduction), and results (mountains versus mountains with volcanoes) involved in each case. A correct but incomplete answer was one mentioning only two of these three aspects. Focusing on only one aspect was scored as a piecemeal answer. Assigning the features of one plate collision to another was considered an incorrect answer. Scores ranged from 0 to 18 points. Cohen’s kappa interrater agreement was .75. The transfer test comprised eight open-ended questions. These questions required participants to use the knowledge they had acquired from the presentation to solve novel problems. Again, the questions addressed all the key issues (e.g., “Imagine that convection currents start moving at half their speed, how would you explain that?”; “Could there be volcanoes in the Himalayan range?”; “In a million years, will there be more or less crust than now?”). Once again, we used the template including all the possible answers to the questions to score the test. For instance, an accurate answer for the question about the amount of crust


13

there would be in the future required predicting that it will not vary, as it is permanently destroyed in trenches and created in ridges at an equal rate. A correct but incomplete answer was one predicting the amount of crust to be the same but failing to completely explain why (e.g., mentioning only one part of the recycling loop). A piecemeal answer was one expecting crust to be the same but giving no reason for this. An incorrect answer was one predicting crust to decrease/increase because of the activity in trenches/ridges or predicting so without giving a good reason (e.g., crust will disappear because of human activity). Scores ranged from 0 to 24 points. Cohen’s kappa interrater agreement was .88. Procedure Participants were tested simultaneously in groups of approximately 10-12 participants per session. Participants were seated in front of their individual computer and headphones. First, participants received basic instructions: “Thank you for participating in this experiment. We are interested in how people learn from multimedia instructional materials. You will be asked to watch a computer-based multimedia presentation dealing with geology. Please pay attention to the presentation because after watching it you will have to answer some questions.” Following this, the prior knowledge test was administered. Participants were given 12 minutes to complete the test, after which they started watching the presentation. An experimenter ran the presentation on the participant’s computer. He randomly ran the version of the multimedia presentation (i.e., prompting, signaling, questioning, control), thus assigning participants randomly to each condition. Participants then watched the modules describing the events about plate tectonics listed above and received the corresponding support devices. After watching the material, participants were handed the retention and transfer tests, for which they were allowed 30 minutes. After the tests had been collected, participants were allowed to leave. Each session lasted about 60 minutes. Results


14

The variables under analysis were prior knowledge, retention, and transfer. We conducted a MANCOVA with condition as the between-subjects factor and prior knowledge as the covariate on retention and transfer. Also, we performed ANCOVAs and post-hoc pairwise comparisons (based on the Bonferroni's test) as follow-up tests to the MANCOVA. We used an alpha of .05. We calculated Cohen’s d as a measure of effect size whenever there was a significant effect (values from 0.00 to 0.30 were interpreted as small effects, values from 0.40 to 0.60 as medium effects, and values from 0.70 to 2.00 as large effects). All performances are shown in Table 2. –Insert Table 2 here– The MANCOVA revealed that there were significant differences between conditions on the dependent measures, Wilks’ λ = 0.61, F(6, 182) = 8.52, p < .001. We conducted two ANCOVAs as follow-up tests to the MANCOVA. Regarding retention, the impact of condition was significant, as indicated by the ANCOVA, F(3, 92) = 12.47, MSE = 27.91, p < .001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that participants in the questioning condition outperformed those in the prompting condition (p < .001), the signaling condition (p = .004), and the control condition (p < .001). The size of these effects were large, d = 1.28, d = 0.95, and d = 1.74, respectively. The prompting, signaling, and control conditions did not differ from each other (p’s > .11). Overall, this means that participants receiving questions and feedback were more able to recall key aspects of plate tectonics, in comparison with those in the rest of conditions. With regard to transfer, the ANCOVA revealed a significant effect of condition, F(3, 92) = 15.52, MSE = 24.92, p < .001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed a pattern similar to that in retention. Participants in the questioning condition outperformed those in the prompting condition (p < .001), the signaling condition (p = .04), and the control condition (p < .001). The size of these effects were large, d = 1.40, d = 0.74, and d = 2.49, respectively.


15

Moreover, participants in the signaling condition outperformed those in the control condition (p = .002). The size of this effect was also large, d = 1.33. This indicates that participants receiving questions and feedback were better at applying the knowledge they had acquired than those in the other conditions. Signals also helped participants to achieve better transfer. Discussion For multimedia learning to happen, learners have to execute the processes of selection, organization, and integration within the limited capacity of working memory (Mayer, 2005, 2009). Researchers have developed techniques to support learners in doing so, such as prompting, signaling, and questioning. Although there is empirical research providing support for these techniques, prior studies left some questions unexplored. Specifically, they did not compare the techniques with each other, they hardly ever applied questioning to multimedia explanations, and they did not examine the individual effects of specific signals, such as overviews. We conducted an experiment to address all these questions. Questioning was a very effective technique, as participants in this condition outperformed those in the control condition both in retention and transfer with large effect sizes. The result is in line with our prediction. Also, it replicates a prior finding in research on learning from expository prose (Campbell & Mayer, 2009; Ozgungor & Guthrie, 2004) and generalizes it to a different setting, namely, multimedia explanations. The result means that critical questions support the processes of selection, organization, and integration while feedback indicates learners what aspects they do not understand well and require more processing (Campbell & Mayer, 2009). It should be noted that the contents of the explanations included in the feedback of the questioning condition were identical to those in the overviews of the signaling condition. The questioning condition was significantly better than the signaling condition in retention and transfer. This means that it is not receiving a restatement of critical information what


16

enhanced learning but engaging in the question-and-answer process (see also Campbell & Mayer, 2009). Self-explanation prompts were not effective in fostering multimedia learning, as there were no differences between the prompting and the control condition. This is not consistent with our prediction and contradicts prior findings (Berthold et al., 2009; Berthold & Renkl, 2009). One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that we used only three prompts while Berthold and colleagues used eight. Many prompts may make learners to keep on being active in processing the material to-be-learned while a few prompts may fail in sustaining this active processing. Thus, it could be possible that for prompts to work effectively, they have to be numerous. Another possibility is that the material we used in our experiment was more complex than that used by Berthold and colleagues. Our material dealt with three cause-andeffect chains within the topic of plate tectonics, involving multiple interrelated elements each. Berthold and colleagues designed a material focused on a single issue, the probability of complex events. It may be possible that prompts are not supportive enough for highly complex materials. Finally, another possible explanation is that our prompts did not require participants to self-explain overtly whereas Berthold and colleagues had participants type their self-explanations on the keyboard. It is possible that, when having to type, participants felt more compelled to self-explain. These possibilities should be tested in future research to fully understand the role of prompts in multimedia learning. Signaling in the form of overviews was beneficial to transfer, relative to the control condition. Prior research (Mautone & Mayer, 2001, Experiment 3) found that signaling is an effective technique in promoting multimedia learning. However, Mautone and Mayer used overviews, headings, and connectives in combination, which does not allow one to determine the impact of individual signals. Here we used overviews alone and found they were effective. One might interpret from this result that overviews may be among the most crucial


17

signals. Future research should examine the specific effects on multimedia learning of other signals, such as headings or connectives. Questioning was not only better than the control condition but also superior to the other two techniques. This means that questioning is a very powerful strategy in fostering multimedia learning. As argued by Campbell and Mayer (2009), one can interpret that having to answer questions encourages learners to mentally organize the material and connecting it with other knowledge while receiving feedback makes learners allocate more processing resources on the aspects they do not understand well. In other words, questioning elicits active processing on learners indeed. It is important to note that participants in the present study had little or no prior domain knowledge and were expected to learn a highly complex conceptual system. This means that there was a large gap between their starting point and the intended goal. In other words, the task was really challenging for participants. The results reported here are limited to this constraint. It is possible that a less demanding task would have yield a different pattern of results. For instance, prompting and signaling might have had stronger effects. Future studies might consider difficulty as another factor in their design to shed light on this question. One the practical side, based on the results of the present study, we could recommend questioning as a powerful technique to enhance learning from multimedia explanations. Accordingly, a useful guideline in the design of multimedia instructional materials may be to insert critical questions and provide feedback on learners’ answers. This might also be applied in classroom instruction. When providing students with multimedia presentations, it may be good to ask critical questions at specific points and give feedback on students’ answers. One advantage of this strategy is that questioning has been successfully validated in classroom settings (Mayer et al., 2009).


18

Conclusions Multimedia explanations consist of words and pictures. In order to learn from them, learners have to select, organize, and integrate relevant material. Multimedia explanations can include devices supporting learners in doing so, such as prompts, signals, and questions. For learners with low prior domain knowledge studying from a highly complex material, questioning is the most effective support in promoting better retention and transfer. Prompts seem to be neutral while signals in the form of overviews have an intermediate impact on learning. Therefore, if one wants learners to deeply learn from multimedia explanations, asking questions and providing feedback may be the best strategy.

References Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345-363. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional Aids to Support a Conceptual Understanding of Multiple Representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70-87. Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 747-759. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525. Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects in reading and memory. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209-234. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia


19

learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640-652. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When Less Is More: Meaningful Learning From Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia Learning in an Interactive SelfExplaining Environment: What Works in the Design of Agent-Based Microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-813. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints in multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51-57. Moreno, R. (2006). Learning in High-Tech and Multimedia Environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 63-67. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. O'Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A Comparison of SelfExplanation and Elaborative Interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,


20

23, 434-445. Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions Among Elaborative Interrogation, Knowledge, and Interest in the Process of Constructing Knowledge From Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 437-443. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. E. S. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46, 426445. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.


21

Figure 1. Screenshot from a narrated animation of the multimedia presentation (the narration is transcribed in the bubble and translated into English from the original).


22

Table 1 Examples of the Support Devices used in the Experiment Support

Example

Device Prompt

What has been discussed in these modules is the differences between continental-continental and continental-oceanic collisions. Could you explain what this means to you?

Signal

These modules discussed the differences between continental-continental and continentaloceanic collisions. These collisions differ in the plates involved. In the Himalayas two continental plates crash, with identical weight and size, thus their collision is head on. In the Andes one plate is oceanic and heavier, thus sinking under the continental one and melting in the mantle. Moreover, collisions differ in their consequences on Earth's surface. Plates in the Himalayas push each other, folding up and forming mountains. The sinking plate in the Andes pushes the continental one, lifting it and forming cracks through which magma emerges in the form of volcanoes.

Question

[Question] These modules discussed the differences between continental-continental and continental-oceanic collisions. What do you think about these differences? A) The Himalayas will develop volcanoes while the Andes have them already B) The Andes will never have volcanoes while the Himalayas have them already C) The Himalayas will never have volcanoes while the Andes have them already [Feedback to A) and B)] No. This is a common answer but is not correct. [Feedback to C)] Yes, this is one of the differences between the collisions. They differ in the plates involved. In the Himalayas two continental plates crash, with identical weight and size, thus their collision is head on. In the Andes one plate is oceanic and heavier, thus sinking under the continental one and melting in the mantle. Moreover, collisions differ in their consequences on Earth's surface. Plates in the Himalayas push each other, folding up and forming mountains. The sinking plate in the Andes pushes the continental one, lifting it and forming cracks through which magma emerges in the form of volcanoes.


23

Table 2 Performances of All Conditions in All Variables Control Condition

Prompting Condition

Signaling Condition

Questioning Condition

Prior Knowledge

1.43 (1.74)

1.96 (1.39)

2.58 (2.10)

2.44 (2.20)

Retention

4.59 (4.91)

6.73 (5.53)

8.88 (4.93)

14.11 (5.99)

Transfer

5.83 (3.36)

8.01 (6.45)

12.00 (5.65)

15.81 (4.57)

Notes. Values in columns represent means. Standard deviations are shown in brackets. Maximum scores were 24 in the prior knowledge test, 18 in the retention test, and 24 in the transfer test.