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

20
Taehyeong Lim Chonnam National University, South Korea ternational Cognitive Load Theory Conference 2010 The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Upload: florida-state-university

Post on 11-Feb-2017

124 views

Category:

Education


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 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

Page 2: 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

Page 3: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized 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

Page 4: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 5: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Keyhole mode Carousel mode

Presentation Format

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

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

Page 6: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Keyhole mode Carousel mode

Good to focus on one

page

Good to compare in-

formation on different

pages

Keyhole versus Carousel

Page 7: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 8: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅲ. METHODS

N=98Presentation Format

Keyhole Carousel

ReadingPurpose

Study 18 16

Enter-tain. 16 15

Control 18 17

Page 9: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅲ. METHODS

Keyhole mode Carousel modePresentation Format

Page 10: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅲ. METHODS

TrainingSession Treatment

CognitiveLoad

survey

Compre-hension

Test

Procedure

Page 11: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 12: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 13: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Reading for study is longer than other conditionsReading Time

Page 14: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 15: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Study x Carousel is the fastest

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Response Time

Page 16: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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

Page 17: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Ⅳ. RESULTS

Usability

Carousel mode is higher

Page 18: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

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.

Page 19: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

LIMITATION

FURTHER RESEARCH

The comprehension test was not transfer test

The materials consist of four pages

Image information

Eye-tracking

Page 20: The Relationship between Reading Purpose and Presentation Format for Optimized Cognitive Load

Thank you