Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 3645–3667 | Cite as

Investigating multimedia effects on concept map building: Impact on map quality, information processing and learning outcome

  • M. SanchizEmail author
  • J. Lemarié
  • A. Chevalier
  • J. Cegarra
  • P. V. Paubel
  • L. Salmerón
  • F. Amadieu
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Two experimental studies were carried out to investigate whether adding multimedia features in a concept mapping task would improve the quality of the map built by students and promote more effective learning with expository hypertexts. Ninety-Nine undergraduates built a concept map to learn about a topic (water cycle or nitrogen cycle) either with a text-based or with a multimedia presentation of concepts (i.e. concepts were presented as textual labels illustrated with relevant pictures). Multimedia presentation of concepts was expected to foster the construction of a more elaborate concept map, to increase information processing and to improve learning outcome. Results of the two experiments were consistent by showing that multimedia presentation led learners to spend more time building the concept map and to build more coherent maps (i.e. text-based inter-connected concepts). In addition, experiment 2 showed that the multimedia presentation of concepts in concept mapping could also foster deeper exploration of the hypertext. However, learning outcomes were not affected by the learning conditions.

Keywords

Concept mapping Multimedia effect Hypertext Information processing Navigation Learning 

Notes

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpert, S., & Grueneberg, K. (2001). Multimedia in Concept Maps: A Design Rationale and Web-Based Application. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 31–36). Norfolk: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  3. Amadieu, F., & Salmerón, L. (2014). Concept maps for comprehension and navigation of hypertexts. In R. Hanewald & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Digital knowledge maps in education (pp. 41–59). New-York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amadieu, F., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 376–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amadieu, F., Salmerón, L., Cegarra, J., Paubel, P., Lemarié, J., & Chevalier, A. (2015). Learning from concept-mapping and hypertext : An eye tracking study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 100–112. Retrieved on September 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410141_Learning_from_Concept_Mapping_and_Hypertext_An_Eye_Tracking_Study.
  6. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The Split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 206–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bezdan, E., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). The influence of node sequence and extraneous load induced by graphical overviews on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 870–880.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, S. F. (2001). Learning through computer-based concept mapping with scaffolding aid. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 21–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2001.00156.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018a). How does adding versus self-generating a hierarchical outline while learning from a multimedia document influence students' performances? Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 354–361.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018b). Does self-generating a graphic organizer while reading improve students' learning? Computers & Education, 126, 13–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dogusoy-Taylan, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Cognitive analysis of experts’ and novices’ concept mapping processes: An eye tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2009). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science, 38(4), 417–433.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9090-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 353–374.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kühl, T., Navratil, S. D., & Münzer, S. (2018). Animations and static pictures: The influence of prompting and time of testing. Learning and Instruction, 58, 201–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lechuga, M. T., Ortega-Tudela, J. M., & Gómez-Ariza, C. J. (2015). Further evidence that concept mapping is not better than repeated retrieval as a tool for learning from texts. Learning and Instruction, 40, 61–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., & Müller, A. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41(5), 811–831.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9256-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 223–241). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morfidi, E., Mikropoulos, A., & Rogdaki, A. (2018). Using concept mapping to improve poor readers’ understanding of expository text. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 271–286.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9600-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O'donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86.  https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076003413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Ifenthaler, D. (2011). Reading guided by automated graphical representations: How model-based text visualizations facilitate learning in reading comprehension tasks. Instructional Science, 39(6), 901–919.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9153-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Redford, J. S., Thiede, K. W., Wiley, J., & Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22(4), 262–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roessger, K. M., Daley, B. J., & Hafez, D. A. (2018). Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing. Learning and Instruction, 54, 11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. Text relevance and learning from text. In McCrudden, Magliano & Schraw (Ed). Toward an integrated view of relevance in text comprehension, 19–52.Google Scholar
  29. Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1157–1171.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education, 53(4), 1308–1319.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary: Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013136727916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schroeder, N. L., Nesbit, J. C., Anguiano, C. J., & Adesope, O. O. (2017). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 431–455.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9403-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schüler, A. (2017). Investigating gaze behavior during processing of inconsistent text-picture information: Evidence for text-picture integration. Learning and Instruction, 49, 218–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schüler, A., Arndt, J., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Processing multimedia material: Does integration of text and pictures result in a single or two interconnected mental representations? Learning and Instruction, 35, 62–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698–711.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Amelsvoort, M., van der Meij, J., Anjewierden, A., & van der Meij, H. (2013). The importance of design in learning from node-link diagrams. Instructional Science, 41(5), 833–847.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9258-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vázquez-Cano, E., López Meneses, E., & Sánchez-Serrano, J. L. S. (2015). Analysis of social worker and Educator's areas of intervention through multimedia concept maps and online discussion forums in higher education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(5), 333–346.Google Scholar
  41. Vörös, Z., Rouet, J. F., & Pléh, C. (2011). Effect of high-level content organizers on hypertext learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 2047–2055.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CeRCA LabUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.CLLE LabUniversity of ToulouseToulouseFrance
  3. 3.SCOTE LabUniversity of AlbiAlbiFrance
  4. 4.Reading Research UnitUniveristy of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations