Instructional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 557–581 | Cite as

Effects of detailed illustrations on science learning: an eye-tracking study

  • Yu Ying Lin
  • Kenneth Holmqvist
  • Kiyofumi Miyoshi
  • Hiroshi Ashida


The eye-tracking method was used to assess the influence of detailed, colorful illustrations on reading behaviors and learning outcomes. Based on participants’ subjective ratings in a pre-study, we selected eight one-page human anatomy lessons. In the main study, participants learned these eight human anatomy lessons; four were accompanied by detailed illustrations, and the other four were accompanied by simplified illustrations. Participants completed a comprehension test and an evaluation questionnaire after reading each lesson. The results showed that detailed and simplified illustrations were equally effective in terms of learning outcomes. Eye-tracking data indicated that the detailed illustrations attracted attention in the initial learning stage and received more visual attention during the overall learning process. Notably, correlation analysis revealed that spending a greater proportion of time re-inspecting the simplified illustration was associated with higher test performances. By contrast, greater proportion of time spent re-inspecting the detailed illustration was not significantly correlated with learning outcomes. The results suggest that detailed illustrations could influence the learning process, and may support learning differently compared with simplified illustrations.


Detailed illustrations Cognitive load theory Motivation Eye-tracking 



This study was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI S22220003).

Supplementary material

11251_2017_9417_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (107 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 107 kb)


  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–4.
  2. Belenky, D. M., & Schalk, L. (2014). The effects of idealized and grounded materials on learning, transfer, and interest: An organizing framework for categorizing external knowledge representations. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brucker, B., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Learning with dynamic and static visualizations: Realistic details only benefit learners with high visuospatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvo, M. G., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Gaze patterns when looking at emotional pictures: Motivationally biased attention. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, Y., & Choi, S. (2014). Effects of seductive details evidenced by gaze duration. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 109, 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Dwyer, F. M. (1970). Exploratory studies in the effectiveness of visual illustrations. Audiovisual Communication Review, 39, 36–41.Google Scholar
  11. Dwyer, F. M. (1971). Color as an instructional variable. Audiovisual Communication Review, 19(4), 399–416.Google Scholar
  12. Dwyer, F. M. (1976). The effect of IQ level on the instructional effectiveness of black and white and colour illustrations. Audio Visual Communications Review, 24, 49–62.Google Scholar
  13. Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1055–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feist, G. J., & Rosenberg, E. L. (2011). Psychology: Perspectives and connections (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Fukaya, T. (2013). Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition and Learning, 8(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gog, V. T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 69–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and graphics: On the distinction between emotional and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition & Instruction, 21(4), 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Prior knowledge and online inquiry-based science reading: Evidence from eye-tracking. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 525–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: the role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34, 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 178–191.Google Scholar
  28. Joseph, J. H., & Dwyer, F. M. (1984). The effects of prior knowledge, presentation mode, and visual realism on student achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koch, B., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2008). One more expertise reversal effect in an instructional design to foster coherence formation. In J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, & L. Kester (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence. Meaningful computer-based learning environments (pp. 207–215). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0–11.
  32. Lenzner, A., Schnotz, W., & Müller, A. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41(5), 811–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levie, H. W., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar
  34. Magner, U. I., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction, 33, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Calvo, M. G. (2006). Eye-movement assessment of selective attentional capture by emotional pictures. Emotion, 6, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Olympiou, G., Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ozcelik, E., Karakus, T., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 53, 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015a). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, B., Knörzer, L., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2015b). Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: An eyetracking study on the use of antropomorphisms. Computers & Education, 86, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. J. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pruken, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tortora, G. J., Derrickson, B. H., Saeki, Y., Hosoya, Y., Takahashi, K., & Kuwaki, T. (2011). Introduction to the Human Body (9th ed.). Tokyo: Maruzen publishing. [in Japanese].Google Scholar
  58. Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2011). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Amelsvoort, M. A. A., Van der Meji, J., Anjewierden, A., & Van der Meij, H. (2013). The importance of design in learning from node-link diagrams. Instructional Science, 41(5), 833–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Gendt, K., & Verhagen, P. (2001). Visual testing. Searching for guidelines. In Paper presented at the 24th National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of LettersKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Humanities Lab of Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations