Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of organizational pictures and modality as a feedback strategy on learner comprehension and satisfaction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the strongest instructional interventions documented in educational literature is the use of feedback to influence learning outcomes. However, there is lack of empirical research specifically pertaining to the use of multimedia in the feedback message. The purpose of this research was to test whether organizational pictures and modality as a feedback strategy had an effect on learner comprehension and satisfaction. The research design was a 2 Multimedia (Picture Present vs. Picture Absent) × 2 Modality (Narration vs. On-screen Text) × Trial (Trial 1 vs. Trial 2) with Multimedia and Modality serving as between-subject conditions and Trial serving as a repeated measure. One-hundred fifteen university students participated in the study. Findings show statistically significant increases in comprehension scores from Trial 1 to Trial 2 assessments for all four treatment conditions. Learners in the Picture present conditions were statistically more satisfied with the learning experience. Additionally, we used eye-tracking to verify the extent to which the pictures were used in the feedback message. A discussion and recommendations for future research and feedback design are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational psychology review, 14(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, P. A., & Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2), 75–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., Crooks, S., Inan, F., Flores, R., & Ari, F. (2011). Exploring the instructional conditions for a reverse modality effect in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20(2), 117–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications for instructional design. Educational Technology, 25(1), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, F. M. (1965). An experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of selected visual illustrations in teaching science concepts to college freshmen. Unpublished Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

  • Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. Learning Services, Box 784, State College, PA.

  • Dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. (1983). The instructional effect of coding (color and black and white) in facilitating students’ information acquisition and retrieval. Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 31, 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., & Roberts, J. S. (1982). How long does the modality effect persist? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 19(6), 343–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J., & Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 223–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. M., Weeks, P. A., Jr., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 210–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrlinger, S., Höffler, T. N., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2016). When do pictures help learning from expository text? Multimedia and modality effects in primary schools. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9525-y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C, & Priest, H. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 449–463). 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, W. A., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2010). Assessment certitude as a feedback strategy for learners’ constructed responses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollöffel, B., & de Jong, T. (2015). Can performance feedback during instruction boost knowledge acquisition? Contrasting criterion-based and social comparison feedback. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016535.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. The Psychology of Illustration, 1, 51–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 167–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 2, 745–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3, 125–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S. H. S., & Baker, E. L. (2010). Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem solving. In Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge (pp. 261–279). New York: Springer.

  • Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, R. S. (2010). The effects of diagrams and time-compressed instruction on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 485–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastore, R. (2012). The effects of time-compressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Computers & Education, 58(1), 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17(4), 398–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. (2008). Effects of time-compressed narration and representational adjunct images on cued-recall, content recognition, and learner satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kealy, W. A. (2011). Conjoint processing of time-compressed narration in multimedia instruction: The effects on recall, but not recognition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kealy, W. A. (2015). On the utility of pictorial feedback in computer-based learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 525–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schallert, D. L. (1980). The role of illustrations in reading comprehension. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 503–524).

  • Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Heise, E. (2014). Distraction during learning with hypermedia: Difficult tasks help to keep task goals on track. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, M. H., Thomson, J. M., Sonnert, G., Pomplun, M., Chen, C., & Heffner-Wong, A. (2013). Shorter lines facilitate reading in those who struggle. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. (1990). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wager, W., & Wager, S. (1985). Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing feedback in CAI. Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2017). Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded by any grants or contracts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Albert D. Ritzhaupt

  2. University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA

    Raymond Pastore

  3. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Jiahui Wang

  4. English Literature and Language Technology Department, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea

    Robert O. Davis

Authors
  1. Albert D. Ritzhaupt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Pastore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiahui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert O. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert D. Ritzhaupt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ritzhaupt, A.D., Pastore, R., Wang, J. et al. Effects of organizational pictures and modality as a feedback strategy on learner comprehension and satisfaction. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1069–1086 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9575-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9575-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation