Individual differences in visuospatial working memory capacity influence the modality effect.
The cognitive theory of multimedia learning postulates learning information in a dual‐modality design is more effective than in a single modality, which is known as the modality effect. Research has found that the modality effect supports problem‐solving learning, but not retention‐based learning. T...
| Published in: | Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Vol. 37; no. 3; pp. 735 - 745 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | research tables/charts Journal Article |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Jun2021
|
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=150251497&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 150251497 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 02664909 6M1 jtl: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning issn: 02664909 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Jun2021 vid: 37 iid: 3 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 150251497 147692795 150251497 150251497 10.1111/jcal.12519 150251497 ppf: 735 ppct: 10 formats: tig: atl: Individual differences in visuospatial working memory capacity influence the modality effect. aug: au: Greenberg, Kevin Zheng, Robert Gardner, Michael Orr, Matthew affil: Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Utah, USA sug: subj: Learning Methods Memory, Short Term Problem Solving Funding Source Human Female Male Adult Multimedia Questionnaires Mediation Analysis Data Analysis Software Descriptive Statistics Adult: 19-44 years Female Male ab: The cognitive theory of multimedia learning postulates learning information in a dual‐modality design is more effective than in a single modality, which is known as the modality effect. Research has found that the modality effect supports problem‐solving learning, but not retention‐based learning. This divergence in findings can be explained by the mediating effects of individual differences in visuospatial working memory. The current study confirmed the modality effect, showing superiority of dual‐modality over single modality. Results revealed a significant interaction between visuospatial working memory and modality by retention, but no such interaction was obtained for problem solving. It was found that learners with low visuospatial working memory scored higher on retention in dual modality than these in single modality. Interestingly, no differences were found for learners with high visuospatial working memory on retention in both single‐ and dual‐modality conditions. The findings may explain for whom the modality effect works in relation to retention. Finally, the analysis showed no association between modality conditions and subtypes of cognitive load, that is, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Learning material that is presented together in audio and visual instructional design (dual‐modality) is more effective than learning in a single modality (only audio or only visual). This is known as the modality effect.The modality effect is mainly beneficial for promoting learning for more difficult learning tasks, like problem‐solving tests, but the modality effect is not as supportive for easier learning tasks, such as retention.The modality effect is influenced by individual differences in prior knowledge, but little is known about the relationship between the modality effect and individual differences in cognitive processing capacities. What this paper adds: Individual differences in working memory capacity influence the instructional support of the modality effect, within the cognitive theory of multimedia learning.Learners with low working memory capacity benefit from a dual‐modality design for retention learning, but struggle on retention tests when learning in a single modality.Learners with high working memory capacity need a dual‐modality design for problem‐solving learning but do not need the same instructional support for retention learning. Implications for practice and/or policy: The findings are important for refining the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, which provides evidence‐based guidelines for instructional learning. However, it should be noted that the current study lacks ecological validity as the research was conducted under a controlled, laboratory setting that may not generalize directly to current pedagogy. With that in mind, the findings can help instructional designers create learning material that is more personalized for learners by accounting for individual differences in working memory capacity. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|