Volume 9, Issue 4 (volume9, Issue 4 2022)
CPJ 2022, 9(4): 70-87 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
torabi E, keramati H, kavosian J, rastegarpoor H, alibakhshi G. The effects of segmentation and redundancy methods on cognitive load and vocabulary learning and comprehension of English lessons in a multimedia learning environment. CPJ 2022; 9 (4) : 80
URL: http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3459-en.html
URL: http://jcp.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3459-en.html
kharazmi University , dr.hadikeramati@gmail.com
Abstract: (4717 Views)
The present study was conducted with the aim of the effects of segmentation and redundancy methods on cognitive load and vocabulary learning and comprehension of English lessons in a multimedia learning environment.The purpose of this study is an applied research and a real experimental study. The statistical population of the present study includes all people aged 14 to 16 who are enrolled in language schools in Damghan. The subject of the educational content was to explain the activity of volcanoes in the form of PowerPoint software in a maximum of 10 slides (based on the type of group) to 90 subjects who were randomly divided into six groups (15 people in each group). High segmentation / Audio presentation, High segmentation / Visual presentation, High segmentation / Redundant, Low segmentation / Audio presentation, Low segmentation / Visual presentation, Low segmentation / Redundant were assigned. The research was completely experimental (a completely random 2×3 factor design). Researcher-made test of vocabulary and comprehension learning, prior knowledge assessment and Pass Cognitive Load Scale (1992) were used to collect data. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the data.The results of analysis of variance showed that the interaction between segmentation method and redundancy method on cognitive load and learning was significant. The results of post hoc test also showed that the High segmentation / Visual presentation group reported significantly lower cognitive load and higher vocabulary and comprehension compared to other groups. According to the obtained results, it can be said that segmentation and redundancy methods are effective in reducing cognitive load and promoting English language learning in a multimedia learning environment.
Article number: 80
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
psychology of human behavior
Received: 2021/07/19 | Accepted: 2021/09/12 | Published: 2022/02/6
Received: 2021/07/19 | Accepted: 2021/09/12 | Published: 2022/02/6
References
1. Acha, J. (2009). The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children's vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 23-31. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00800.x]
2. Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287-298. [DOI:10.1002/acp.1245]
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556e559. [DOI:10.1126/science.1736359]
4. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332. [DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2]
5. Chen, C. Y., & Yen, P. R. (2021). Learner control, segmenting, and modality effects in animated demonstrations used as the before-class instructions in the flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15 [DOI:10.1080/10494820.2019.1572627]
6. Debuse, J. C. W., Hede, A. & Lawley, M. (2009). Learning efficacy of simultaneous audio and on screen text in online lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 748-762. [DOI:10.14742/ajet.1119]
7. Diao, Y. & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 78-88. [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.007]
8. Fischer, R., & Farris, M. (1995). Instructional basis ofLibra. IALL Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 28(1), 29-90. [DOI:10.17161/iallt.v28i1.9577]
9. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713-729. [DOI:10.1002/acp.1345]
10. Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 88-103.
11. Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558. [DOI:10.1111/0023-8333.00164]
12. Jamet, E. & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 588-598. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.07.001]
13. Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The modern language journal, 86(4), 546-561 [DOI:10.1111/1540-4781.00160]
14. Kingsley, K. V., & Boone, R. (2008). Effects of multimedia software on achievement of middle school students in an American history class. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 203-221. [DOI:10.1080/15391523.2008.10782529]
15. Kirschner, P. A., Park, B., Malone, S., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). Toward a cognitive theory of multimedia assessment (CTMMA). Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy, 1-23 [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_53-1]
16. Lawless, K. & Brown, S. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117-131. [DOI:10.1023/A:1002919531780]
17. Lewandowski, L. J., & Kobus, D. A. (1993). The effects of redundancy in imodal word processing. Human Performance, 6, 229 -239 [DOI:10.1207/s15327043hup0603_3]
18. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
19. Mayer, R. (Ed) (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511816819]
20. Mayer, R.E. (2008) Applying the science of learning: Evidence - based principles for the design of multimedia Instruction. American Psychologist, 650-769 [DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760]
21. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Meaningful learning from working memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8, 234-238.
22. Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423. [DOI:10.1111/jcal.12197]
23. Mayer, R. & Chandler, P. (2001).When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 2,390-397. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.390]
24. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T. &Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: what works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 4, 806-813. [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806]
25. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous cognitive processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial continuity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd edn; pp. 279-315). New York: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.015]
26. Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. [DOI:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6]
27. Mendelsohn, D. J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-101. [DOI:10.1017/S0267190500003494]
28. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35-45. [DOI:10.1007/BF02504796]
29. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
30. Pawley, D., Ayres, P., Cooper, M. & Sweller, J. (2005). Translating words into equations: A cognitive load theory approach. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 75-97. [DOI:10.1080/0144341042000294903]
31. Sakar, A. & Ercetin, G. (2005). Effectiveness of hypermedia annotations for foreign language reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(1), 28-38. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00108.x]
32. Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective.Modern Language Journal, 85, 39-56. [DOI:10.1111/0026-7902.00096]
33. Sanchez, E., & Garcia-Rodicio, H. (2008). The use of modality in the design of verbal aids in computer-based learning environments. Interacting With Computers, 10, 1016. [DOI:10.1016/j.intcom.2008.08.001]
34. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2009). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 1-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011]
35. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1590-1601. [DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.047]
36. Singh, A. M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 848-853. [DOI:10.1002/acp.2885]
37. Soicher, R. N., & Becker‐Blease, K. A. (2020). Testing the segmentation effect of multimedia learning in a biological system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 825-837. [DOI:10.1111/jcal.12485]
38. Sorden, S.D.(2005).A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning.Journal of Informing Science,8,265-279. [DOI:10.28945/498]
39. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312. [DOI:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5]
40. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.003]
41. Sweller, J. (2005b). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159-167). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.011]
42. Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merrie¨nboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81. [DOI:10.1348/000709904322848824]
43. Topolovcan,T.,Toplak,T.&Matijevic,M.(2013)Ownership and use of new media teachers in Rural and Urban areas of Croatia,International confence on Research and Education,1.
44. Villalon, P.P.S., Ortega, M. &Villalon, A.S. (2010) Multimedia integration for language e- learning: content, context and the e- dossier. Educational Review, 7(81), 1-10.
45. Yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
