Learning from screencast software tutorials: A comparison of cognitive load in dual and single‐monitor learning environments.

Background: Learning to use software using screencast videos with worked examples in the corresponding practice files presents a classic split‐attention problem that requires learners to mentally integrate information from the video with a target application. While there is evidence that splitting a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Vol. 40; no. 1; pp. 118 - 136
Autores principales: Kueker, Doug, Moore, Joi
Formato: pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2024
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=174818405&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 174818405
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        02664909
        6M1
      jtl: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
      issn: 02664909
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2024
      vid: 40
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        174818405
        171800904
        174818405
        174818405
        10.1111/jcal.12875
        174818405
      ppf: 118
      ppct: 18
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Learning from screencast software tutorials: A comparison of cognitive load in dual and single‐monitor learning environments.
      aug:
        au:
          Kueker, Doug
          Moore, Joi
        affil: School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, Columbia Missouri, , USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Cognition Evaluation
          Education, Non-Traditional
          Learning Environment
          User-Computer Interface
          Learning Methods
          Computer-Assisted Instruction
          Software
          Attention
          Human
          Female
          Male
          Young Adult
          Adult
          Middle Age
          Experimental Studies
          Memory
          Psychological Tests
          Random Sample
          Lifelong Learning
          Task Performance and Analysis
          Students, College
          Sample Size
          Effect Size
          Eye Movement Measurements
          Time Factors
          Interviews
          Student Orientation
          Reflex, Pupillary
          Chi Square Test
          Two-Way Analysis of Variance
          Analysis of Covariance
          Relative Risk
          Descriptive Statistics
          Adult: 19-44 years
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Female
          Male
      ab: Background: Learning to use software using screencast videos with worked examples in the corresponding practice files presents a classic split‐attention problem that requires learners to mentally integrate information from the video with a target application. While there is evidence that splitting attention either temporally or spatially adversely impacts learning, it is unclear if there is a meaningful difference in the load imposed by splitting attention in different ways. Furthermore, while much is known about effective screencast design, little is known about how learning environment features, such as the monitor configuration, influence learning from this form of instruction. Objective: An experiment was conducted with 42 novice learners to compare the effects of two common monitor configurations that divided attention differently on three physiological measures of cognitive load. Methods: Effects due to the monitor setup were assessed using a 2 × 2 study design that controlled for task order and working memory capacity. In one condition, subjects split attention temporally by toggling back and forth between the video and target application on one monitor. In contrast, the other condition required subjects to split attention spatially by shifting their gaze between the video and target application displayed on two side‐by‐side monitors. Results and Conclusions: Results indicated that cognitive load as measured through task‐evoked pupil response was significantly higher, p < 0.05, for groups with two monitors during both instruction and testing, even after controlling for working memory capacity. Lay Description: What is currently known about the subject matter: Splitting attention between information sources negatively impacts learningInstructional media that splits attention temporally or spatially increases cognitive loadEnvironmental factors such as monitor configuration also contribute to cognitive loadPrior research suggests integrating the mutually referring information sources What the paper adds: Compares cognitive load in two monitor configurations designed to split attention differently – temporally and spatiallyCognitive load increased when attention was split spatially across two monitors during an encoding phaseCognitive load also increased when attention was split spatially across two monitors during a retrieval phaseWorking memory capacity did not explain variances in cognitive load Implications for practice: To reduce cognitive load, learners should consider working on one monitor while engaging with screencast software tutorials and the related practice filesFocus on studying worked examples in the video before attempting to replicate them in the practice filesWhen designing instructional videos, structure opportunities to practice closest to the point where they are taught in the video to avoid added cognitive load
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        pictorial
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N