Tilburg University
Contents and Graphics in Line
Westerbeek, H.G.W.; van Amelsvoort, M.A.A.; Maes, Alfons; Swerts, M.G.J.
Published in:
Building bridges
Publication date:
2014
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal
Citation for published version (APA):
Westerbeek, H. G. W., van Amelsvoort, M. A. A., Maes, A., & Swerts, M. G. J. (2014). Contents and Graphics in Line: When is it Beneficial to Schematize Pictures in Expository Prose? In H. Tabbers, B. de Koning, M. van Amelsvoort, J. van der Meij, N. Jacobson, & E. de Vries (Eds.), Building bridges: Improving our understanding of learning from text and graphics by making the connection EARLI SIG.
http://www.eur.nl/fsw/psychologie/research/onderzoekswebsites/earli_sig2/home/
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Contents and Graphics in Line: When is it Beneficial to
Schematize Pictures in Expository Prose?
Hans Westerbeek, Marije van Amelsvoort, Alfons Maes, & Marc Swerts Tilburg center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC), Tilburg University, The Netherlands
{h.g.w.westerbeek, m.a.a.vanamelsvoort, maes, m.g.j.swerts}@tilburguniversity.edu
Abstract. Learners generally benefit from representational pictures that are added to expository text. But what determines whether it is better to design such pictures as schematized drawings or as detailed photographs? In some studies learning outcomes are positively affected by schematized pictures, but in other studies null effects are reported. We argue that learners' ability to identify key concepts in pictures is an important predictor of effec-tiveness of representational pictures, and that this ability can be facilitated by using schematized pictures. We present results of a pilot study (N=36), which indicate that the aforementioned ability correlates with learning outcomes. We are planning to test our hypotheses in a full-scale experiment, and to present results of this exper-iment at the conference.
Keywords: Connecting text and pictures; Schematization; Visual detail.
Introduction
Adding relevant representational pictures to expository text is generally found to positively affect learning outcomes (e.g., Mayer, 2005). One important function of such pictures is representing key concepts in a pictorial modality, to help learners to encode the educational materials into memory. A prerequisite for serving this function is that learners are able to identify these concepts in the pictures (i.e., link key concepts in the text to corresponding picture elements; e.g., Mayer & Gallini, 1990).
In this study we investigate whether using schematized rather than detailed pictures can aid lear-ners find these key elements. Schematized pictures are for example line drawings with little detail, that discard irrelevant details and highlight important concepts. Detailed pictures, like photographs or other detailed graphics that often resemble reality to a high degree, show many visual features. Because in schematized pictures irrelevant details are omitted (and therefore attention is guided towards what is important) finding visual referents to key concepts in the pictures may be easier and more efficient compared to when detailed pictures are used. This idea is in line with proposed principles of good in-structional design: schematization reduces irrelevant details that may distract attention away from what is important (e.g., Harp & Mayer, 1998); and by highlighting key concepts in graphics schema-tization can be said to act as visual cues that direct learners attention (e.g., De Koning, Tabbers, Ri-kers, & Paas, 2010).
Studies that directly compare learning with schematic pictures versus detailed pictures have yielded differing results, however. Some studies show that schematic graphics lead to better learning outcomes than detailed ones (e.g., Butcher, 2006; Joseph & Dwyer, 1984), both for animations and for static pic-tures, but other studies present null effects concerning this distinction (e.g., Imhof et al., 2011; Rein-wein & Huberdeau, 1998). Although these varying results can easily be ascribed to methodological differences between experiments (e.g., different topics, different learners, different tasks, static vs. animated graphics), the extent to which learners are able to identify key concepts in the pictures may be an overarching factor that discerns pictures that are helpful for learners from less helpful ones. To our knowledge, no studies have yet focused on this proposed relationship between the extent to which learners can make connections between text and pictures and whether pictures are schematic or detai-led. The ability to make connections is expected to be an important predictor of the effectiveness of schematization in pictures with expository prose, and to be related to pictures being schematic or de-tailed.
Pilot study Method
Participants. Sixteen men and twenty women (age M=19.3, SD=1.0 yrs) volunteered for the study. All
did their final secondary school exam between 2009 and 2013. They estimated their biology grade on average as 6.7 out of 10, as a course measure of prior knowledge. They were randomly assigned to one of two equal-sized groups, which did not differ in the exam year nor in the biology grade (p's>.7).
Materials and procedure. Each individual participant received a paper booklet, that started with
de-mographic questions and questions about the final exam and biology grade. Then, the participant was given five minutes to study a 315-word text about mitosis (i.e., the biological process of cell reproduc-tion), broken up into six parts corresponding to the six phases of mitosis. Each part was accompanied by a static picture depicting a cell in the respective phase. Crucially, this picture was either a micro-scopic photograph or a schematized line drawing . See Figure 1 for examples. 1
Following the study phase, questions were asked about the difficulty of the task and the perceived added value of the pictures (results are not reported due to space constraints). Then, a multiple choice test was administered (four-choice questions: six questions about functions of cell parts, six about de-finitions of parts, and five about stage-specific dynamics of mitosis). Subsequently, a sorting task re-quired participants to put the six mitosis pictures in the correct order, and to name the phases.
The procedure ended with a linking task, to test the extent to which learners make connections between text and pic-tures. In this task, participants were in-structed to draw arrows between 21 key concepts in the text and the accompany-ing pictures. In both the sortaccompany-ing and the linking task, pictures were in the same condition as in the study phase.
Results
In the linking task, the schematic group drew more correct arrows (M=13.6, SD=3.7) than the detailed group did (M=9.2, SD=2.5), F(1,35)=17.95, p<.001,
ηp²=0.345. Importantly, performance on this task
corre-lated significantly with performance on the multiple choice test, Pearson r=.51, n=36, p<.005, as shown in Figure 2.
As a consequence, the number of correctly answe-red questions was higher in the schematic group (M=9.4, SD=3.3) than the detailed group (M=6.8, SD=3.5), F(1,35)=5.04, p<.05, ηp²=0.129. Scores on
the linking task also correlated significantly with scores on the sorting task, r=.50, n=36, p<.005. In the sorting task, the schematic group numbered and named more phases correctly (M=3.4 SD=1.8) than the detai-led group (M=1.6, SD=1.7), F(1,35)=10.01, p<.005,
ηp²=0.227.
Figure 1: Examples of a text part (in Dutch) with a
sche-matic picture (left) or a detailed picture (right), as used in the pilot study.
Metafase!
Een cel die zich in de metafase bevindt is te herkennen aan een spoellichaam met twee uiteinden, en in het midden het equatoriaalvlak. In het equatoriaalvlak liggen alle chromosomen naast elkaar op een lijn. De metafase duurt ongeveer twintig minuten, en is de langste fase van het celdelingsproces. Score on mc test 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Score on linking task
3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Schematic Detailed
Figure 2: Score on the link task (horizontal
axis) and the number of correctly answered mc questions (vertical axis).
The photographs were selected from the internet. The line drawings were taken from Scheiter et al., 2009.
Discussion and future work
The results of our pilot study support the hypothesis that students' ability to con-nect key concepts in expository text to relevant parts of pictures is an important predictor of the pictures' effectiveness for learning, and that this ability is sup-ported best by schematic pictures, when compared to detailed ones. We also found a main effect of schematization on two learning outcomes (a multiple choice questionnaire and a sorting task), replicating results that Scheiter et al. (2009) report for similar materials. Crucially however, we found that scores on a linking task (i.e., drawing arrows from key concepts in the text to corresponding parts of pictures) are strongly correlated with learning outcomes.
A relatively small and diverse group of participants took part in this pilot stu-dy, and these results clearly need to be replicated in another sample of students. Preferably, this sample consists of high school students all following the same
study curriculum, with more uniform prior knowledge. Also, the control measures gathered in this pi-lot (e.g., self-reports of biology grades) should be improved to increase their reliability. We plan to present the results of this experiment at the conference.
Although the correlation between the link test and the questionnaire suggests that the ability to link key concepts in a multimodal instruction mediates learning outcomes, further empirical work should be carried out to disentangle the potential effects of leaving out detail in pictures on the one hand, from effects of highlighting what it is important on the other hand. Therefore, we include a third con-dition, with abundant visual detail but where important parts are highlighted (see Figure 3).
Further studies should aim at investigating other topics relevant to secondary education. Because students are not familiar with looking at biological cells (i.e., they have no phenomenal experience with seeing chromosomes etc.), recognizing important parts in photographs may be especially diffi-cult. Therefore, benefits of schematization compared to detailed photographs may be less conspicuous when the photographs show concepts with which students actually do have phenomenal experience, such that they are readily able to identify key concepts in the pictures. Not every task or domain requi-res the same connections to be made between text and picture, but when it is important, schematizati-on may be a good aid for learners to make these cschematizati-onnectischematizati-ons.
References
Butcher, K. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182−197.
De Koning, B., Tabbers, H., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20, 111−122.
Harp, S. & Mayer, R. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414−434.
Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2011). Learning about locomotion patterns from visualizations: Effects of presentation format and realism. Computers and Education, 57(3), 1961−1970.
Joseph, J. & Dwyer, F. (1984). The effects of prior knowledge, presentation mode, and visual realism on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 110−121.
Mayer, R. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: CUP.
Mayer, R. & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715−726.
Reinwein, J. & Huberdeau, L. (1998). A second look at Dwyer's studies by means of meta-analysis: The effects of pictorial realism on text comprehension and vocabulary. ERIC Document 407 671. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning
with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481−494.
Figure 3: Example
