冗余文本和材料特性对多媒体学习及认知负荷的影响
The Effects of Redundant Text and Learning Materials on Multimedia Learning and Cognitive Load
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2015.53018, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 2,507  浏览: 9,059  国家科技经费支持
作者: 龚德英：四川师范大学教育科学学院，四川 成都；张大均：西南大学心理学部，重庆
关键词: 冗余文本；学习材料；认知负荷；多媒体学习；Redundant Text； Learning Material； Cognitive Load； Multimedia Learning
摘要: 采用2 (冗余文本：概括文本vs.全文文本) × 2 (材料特性：原理性vs.现象性)的混合设计，探讨两因素对多媒体学习中外部认知负荷和学习结果的影响。结果表明，原理性材料比现象性材料所导致的内部认知负荷更高；冗余文本和材料特性对外部认知负荷的主效应显著，交互作用显著。在原理性材料中，冗余文本的全文呈现比概括呈现导致更高的外部认知负荷，记忆和迁移测试成绩都更好。而在现象性材料中，冗余文本的概括呈现和全文呈现没有导致认知负荷和学习结果的显著差异。结果表明同样的教学设计在不同材料中导致的认知负荷并不一样，且认知负荷也不是决定学习成绩的唯一因素，还受到学习材料本身特性的影响。
Abstract: The study employed a 2 (redundant text: summarized vs. whole text) × 2 (learning material: theo-retical vs. phenomenal) mixed factor design, to study the effect of two factors on external cognitive load and learning outcome in multimedia learning. The results revealed that the theoretical ma-terial induced higher intrinsic cognitive load than descriptive material. Both redundant text and learning material had significant main effect and interactive effect on extraneous cognitive load. In the learning of theoretical material, participants with whole text got higher extraneous cognitive load, but outperformed both on retention and transfer test than those with summarized text. How-ever, the results didn’t duplicate when participants were learning descriptive material. The results indicated that same instructional design didn’t always induce same cognitive load, and cognitive load was not the only factor which influenced learning outcome; characters of learning material also had effect on learning outcome.
文章引用：龚德英, 张大均 (2015). 冗余文本和材料特性对多媒体学习及认知负荷的影响. 心理学进展, 5(3), 125-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AP.2015.53018

参考文献

[1] Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783.
[2] Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389-400.
[3] Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139- 146.
[4] Bodemer, D., & Faust, U. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple repre-sentations. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 27-42.
[5] Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115-132.
[6] Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning: Using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109-119.
[7] Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 629-640.
[8] Cierniak, G., Schneiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315-324.
[9] Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 733-754.
[10] Danielson, D. (2002). Web navigation and the behavioral effects of constantly visible site maps. Interacting with Computers, 14, 601-618.
[11] Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33-58.
[12] Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior know-ledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 852-861.
[13] Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.
[14] Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284-289.
[15] Li, R., & Liu, M. (2007). Understanding the effects of databases as cognitive tools in a problem-based multimedia learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 18, 345-363.
[16] Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139.
[17] Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380-386.
[18] Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 833-846.
[19] Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based mul-timedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-119.
[20] Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
[21] Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113.
[22] Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
[23] Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case of minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional message. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
[24] Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps lis-tening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156-163.
[25] Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, ref-lection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117-128.
[26] Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177-213.
[27] Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
[28] Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5-10.
[29] Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grobe, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.
[30] Scott, B. M., & Schwartz, N. H. (2007). Navigational spatial displays: The role of metacognition as cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 17, 89-105.
[31] Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
[32] Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424-436.
[33] van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on cognitive load transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 11-37.