the relationship between reading purpose and presentation format for optimized cognitive load

Taehyeong LimChonnam National University, South Korea

International Cognitive Load Theory Conference 2010

The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for

Optimized Cognitive Load

e-Learning and Multimedia Learning Readability on Computer Screen

Cognitive Load and Effective Screen Design

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION

≠

Multimedia Cognitive Load

Purpose of Study

Purpose of study was to investigatedthe effect of Reading Purpose

and Presentation Formaton Comprehension Test

and Cognitive Load Factors

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION

Reading Purpose and Cognitive Strate-gies

Reading for study Reading for Enter-tainment

Cognitive

Strate-

gies

Memorization

Paraphrasing

Rereading

Evaluating

Emotional re-

sponse

Associations

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Keyhole mode Carousel mode

Presentation Format

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

* Cited from Barrett, 2002 “Implementing RSVP as an Image Browser”

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Keyhole mode Carousel mode

Good to focus on one

page

Good to compare in-

formation on different

pages

Keyhole versus Carousel

Ⅲ. METHODS Participants 98 university students (37 males, 61 females)

Independent Vari-ables

Reading Purpose Presentation Format

Dependent Vari-ables

Compre-hension

TestReading

TimeResponse

TimeMental Ef -

fortTask Diffi-

culty Usability

Ⅲ. METHODS

N=98Presentation Format

Keyhole Carousel

ReadingPurpose

Study 18 16

Enter-tain. 16 15

Control 18 17

Ⅲ. METHODS

Keyhole mode Carousel modePresentation Format

Ⅲ. METHODS

TrainingSession Treatment

CognitiveLoad

survey

Compre-hension

Test

Procedure

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Comprehension Test

Reading Time

Response Time

Mental Effort

Task Difficulty

Usability

Main Effect at reading pur-

pose

Main Effect at pre-sentation format

Interaction

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Source SS df MS F p

Reading purpose (R) 53950.93 2 26975.47 3.54 .033*

Presentation formats (P) 108.37 1 108.37 .01 .905

R × P 1271.27 2 635.64 .08 .920

Error 700626.23 92 7615.50

Total 756456.31 97

*p < .05

Reading Time

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Reading for study is longer than other conditionsReading Time

Source SS df MS F p

Reading purpose (R) 2698.79 2 1349.40 .28 .754

Presentation formats (P) 378.21 1 378.21 .08 .779

R × P 33301.29 2 16650.65 3.50 .034*

Error 438180.15 92 4762.83

Total 473417.27 97

*p < .05

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Response Time

Study x Carousel is the fastest

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Response Time

Cognitive load factors (MEN,DIF,USE)

SourceDependent

Variable

Wilks’ LambdaF p ƞ2

Reading

purpose(R)

MEN.88

(p=.074)

2.82 .065 .058

DIF .52 .596 .011

USE 2.63 .077 .054

Presentation

format (P)

MEN.95

(p=.180)

.94 .335 .010

DIF .26 .609 .003

USE 4.61 .034* .048

R × P MEN.96

(p=.660)

.49 .614 .011

DIF .51 .605 .011

USE .55 .580 .012*p < .05

Ⅳ. RESULTS MEN : Mental EffortDIF : Task DifficultyUSE : Usability

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Usability

Carousel mode is higher

Comprehension Test

• Study purpose is longer.Reading Time

• Study X Carousel is the fastest.Response Time

Mental Effort

Task Difficulty

• Carousel mode is higher.Usability

Ⅴ. DISCUSSION

NSD

NSDNSD

SIG.

SIG.SIG.

LIMITATION

FURTHER RESEARCH

The comprehension test was not transfer test

The materials consist of four pages

Image information

Eye-tracking

Thank you