Spatial Contiguity and Spatial Split-Attention Effects in Multimedia Learning Environments: a Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Spatial split-attention effects have been noted in the research literature, where, under split-attention conditions, integrating text and diagrams has been shown to be effective. From this literature grew the spatial contiguity principle (or spatial contiguity effect), which states that people learn more when related words and pictures are displayed spatially near one another. Research has shown both effects to influence learning; however, little is known about the conditions in which integrated designs are most effective. This meta-analysis examines the influence of integrated designs across numerous moderator variables in order to improve our understanding of under which conditions integrated designs influence learning. A random effects meta-analysis of 58 independent comparisons (n = 2426) produced an overall effect size of g = 0.63 (p < 0.001). Moderator analyses indicated that integrated designs have benefited learning across many intervention-related and context-related moderator variables. Practical and theoretical implications of the findings are provided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    In one study, there was not sufficient data to calculate an effect size estimate for the most delayed test. In this case, we used the next most delayed test.

  2. 2.

    In cases when it was not clear which test was the most delayed test, the average of the learning outcome tests was computed.

  3. 3.

    The redundancy variable for each study was coded by the first author during the manuscript revision process and is not included in this calculation.

  4. 4.

    Note that Ginns’ (2006) analysis examined both spatial and temporal contiguity effects together when reporting these effects.

  5. 5.

    While Sweller and Chandler (1994) outline procedures to estimate element interactivity, the procedure requires making assumptions about the individuals’ prior knowledge who were learning the material. Therefore, we coded the element interactivity as it was reported in the primary study.

  6. 6.

    It is important to note that in our analysis many of the coded studies were of relatively short durations, hence longer duration studies were coded as “more than 15 min” in length.

  7. 7.

    It should be noted that there are studies that used interactive, or self-guided, conditions included in this study (e.g., Gordon et al. 2016; Sithole et al. 2017); however, these specific conditions were not included in our analysis because they added a confounding variable that was eliminated by comparing other groups within the study.

References

*Indicates study included in the analysis

  1. Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. *Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: Handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers & Education, 64, 52–62.

  3. *Angeli, C., Valanides, N., & Kirschner, P. (2009). Field dependence-independence and instructional-design effects on learners’ performance with a computer-modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1355–1366.

  4. *Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1339–1354.

  5. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. *Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341.

  8. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. *Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15(4), 345–367.

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

  12. *Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246.

  13. *Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151–170.

  14. *Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.

  15. *Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3–14.

  16. *Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216–224.

  17. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. *Gordon, C., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2016). Learning from instructor-managed and self-managed split-attention materials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 1–9.

  20. *Harter, C. A., & Ku, H. Y. (2008). The effects of spatial contiguity within computer-based instruction of group personalized two-step mathematics word problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1668–1685.

  21. Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hozo, S. P., Djulbegovic, B., & Hozo, I. (2005). Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5(13), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. *Iserbyt, P., & Byra, M. (2013). The design of instructional tools affects secondary school students’ learning of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in reciprocal peer learning: A randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation, 84(11), 1591–1595.

  24. *Iserbyt, P., Mols, L., Elen, J., & Behets, D. (2012). Multimedia design principles in the psychomotor domain: The effect of multimedia and spatial contiguity on students learning of basic life support with task cards. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 31(2), 111–125.

  25. *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), 178–191.

  26. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of cognitive load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 247–262). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. *Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1–17.

  30. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. *Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 71–85.

  32. *Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(7), 857–875.

  33. Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. *Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Tsai, M. J., & Paas, F. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environments. Computers & Education, 58(1), 172–180.

  35. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. *Martin-Michiellot, S., & Mendelsohn, P. (2000). Cognitive load while learning with a graphical computer interface. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(4), 284–293.

  37. *May, P. (2005). Analysis of computer algebra system tutorials using cognitive load theory. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 11(4), 117–138.

  38. *Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240–246.

  39. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mayer, R. E., & 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 

  45. *Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31–41.

  46. McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. *Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.

  48. *Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173–199.

  49. *Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29–45.

  50. *Ozogul, G., Johnson, A. M., Moreno, R., & Reisslein, M. (2012). Technological literacy learning with cumulative and stepwise integration of equations into electrical circuit diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4), 480–487.

  51. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Paas, F., Van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. *Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20(5), 443–462.

  57. Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. *Roodenrys, K., Agostinho, S., Roodenrys, S., & Chandler, P. (2012). Managing one’s own cognitive load when evidence of split attention is present. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 878–886.

  60. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. *Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 226–237.

  62. *Sithole, S. T. M., Chandler, P., Abeysekera, I., & Paas, F. (2017). Benefits of guided self-management of attention on learning accounting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 220–232.

  63. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. *Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

  68. *Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176–192.

  69. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sweller, J., Ayers, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  72. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. *Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., Bokosmaty, S., Paas, F., & Chandler, P. (2015). Computer-based learning of geometry from integrated and split-attention worked examples: The power of self-management. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 89–99.

  74. Van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 263–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. *Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 1–39.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah L. Schroeder.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 488 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schroeder, N.L., Cenkci, A.T. Spatial Contiguity and Spatial Split-Attention Effects in Multimedia Learning Environments: a Meta-Analysis. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 679–701 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9435-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Spatial contiguity effect
  • Spatial contiguity principle
  • Split attention
  • Cognitive load
  • Meta-analysis