Zusammenfassung
Das Lernen mit dynamischen (im Vergleich zu statischen) Visualisierungen stellt zusätzliche Verarbeitungsanforderungen an Lernende. Demnach sollte untersucht werden, ob eine Unterstützung der Anstrengungsregulation den Lernerfolg verbessert und zu stärkeren positiven Effekten führt, wenn mit dynamischen Visualisierungen gelernt wird, im Vergleich zum Lernen mit statischen Visualisierungen. Dazu wurden Studierende vor dem Lernen entweder mit einem Vorsatz (Wenn-Dann-Plan) zur Anstrengungsregulation oder einer entsprechenden Verhaltensaufforderung instruiert; Probanden in der Kontrollgruppe erhielten keine Unterstützung (Experiment 1; N = 219). Die Lernleistung wurde von den Unterstützungsmaßnahmen jedoch nicht positiv beeinflusst, Verhaltensaufforderungen führten sogar zu einer Leistungsabnahme. Auch Vorsätze, die die Anstrengung gezielt auf die Visualisierung oder auf den Text lenkten, beeinflussten die Lernleistung nicht (Experiment 2; N = 153). Dies war unabhängig davon, ob die Visualisierung in statischem oder dynamischem Format dargeboten wurde. Ob Anstrengungsregulation ein automatischer Prozess ist, der sich vorsätzlicher Kontrolle entzieht, bleibt zu klären.
Abstract
Learning with dynamic (compared to static) visualizations imposes additional processing requirements onto learners. Accordingly, it was investigated whether support of effort regulation improves learning outcome and leads to stronger positive effects when learning with dynamic visualizations compared to learning with static visualizations. Therefore, students were instructed before learning either with an implementation intention (if-then-plan) for effort regulation or with a corresponding prompt; participants in the control group were not supported (experiment 1; N = 219). However, learning performance was not positively influenced by the support measures, the prompt of conduct even led to a decline in learning performance. Also, implementation intentions that instructed learners to direct their effort towards either the visualization or the text did not influence the learning performance (experiment 2; N = 153). This was independent of presenting the visualization in static or dynamic format. Whether effort regulation is an automatic process that cannot be deliberately controlled remains to be clarified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Die Einstellung zu den relevanten naturwissenschaftlichen Themen (z. B. „Ich fühle mich wohl in Physik und mag sie gerne.“) wurde mit 10 Fragen auf einer 5‑Punkte-Likert Skala abgefragt, trifft überhaupt nicht zu bis trifft voll zu. Aufgrund eines Programmierfehlers wurden die Antworten auf die Einstellungsfragen fehlerhaft aufgezeichnet und konnten in beiden Experimenten nicht ausgewertet werden.
Literatur
Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A. P., & Midden, C. (1999). To plan or not to plan? Goal achievement or interrupting the performance of mundane behaviors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 971–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199912)29:8%3C971::aid-ejsp963%3E3.0.co;2-a.
Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Implementation intentions and shielding goal striving from unwanted thoughts and feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207311201.
Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.002.
Ajzen, I., Czasch, C., & Flood, M. G. (2009). From intentions to behavior: Implementation intention, commitment, and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1356–1372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00485.x.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1351.
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.139.
Bayer, U. C., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2007). Boosting scholastic test scores by willpower: The role of implementation intentions. Self and Identity, 6, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860600662056.
Bayer, U. C., Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2009). Responding to subliminal cues: Do if-then plans facilitate action preparation and initiation without conscious intent? Social Cognition, 27, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.183.
Berney, S., & Bétrancourt, M. (2016). Does animation enhance learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 101, 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.06.005.
Brandstätter, V., Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 946–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.946.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl. S. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2016). Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations. Computers & Education, 102, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.004.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018). Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: Don’t overplay the hand. Computers & Education, 116, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.011.
Chapman, J., Armitage, C. J., & Norman, P. (2009). Comparing implementation intention interventions in relation to young adults’ intake of fruit and vegetables. Psychology and Health, 24, 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440701864538.
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, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020.
Duckworth, A. L., Grant, H., Loew, B., Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). Self-regulation strategies improve self-discipline in adolescents: Benefits of mental contrasting and implementation intentions. Educational Psychology, 31, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.506003.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2009). The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9096-1.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schorr, T. (2003). Modeling processes of volitional action control in multiple-task performance: How to explain effects of goal competition and task difficulty on processing strategies and performance within ACT-R. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3, 355–400.
Glogger, I., Holzäpfel, L., Schwonke, R., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2009). Activation of learning strategies in writing learning journals: The specificity of prompts matters. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.95.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Das Rubikonmodell der Handlungsphasen. In J. Kuhl & H. Heckhausen (Hrsg.), Motivation, Volition und Handlung. Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Serie Motivation und Emotion, (Bd. 4, S. 531–582). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstätter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.186.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1.
Gollwitzer, A., Schwörer, B., Stern, C., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2017). Up and down regulation of a highly automatic process: Implementation intentions can both increase and decrease social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.12.006.
Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987.
Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1036.
Heise, E., Gerjets, P., & Westermann, R. (1997). The influence of a waiting intention on action performance: Efficiency impairment and volitional protection in tasks of varying difficulty. Acta Psychologica, 97, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(97)00027-9.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.
Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997.
Kombartzky, U., Plötzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning from animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.002.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011a). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.008.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Gemballa, S. (2011b). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 56, 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008.
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1.
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172967.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00018-X.
Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Animation principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl. S. 513–546). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl. S. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oettingen, G., Hönig, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2000). Effective self-regulation of goal attainment. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 705–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(00)00046-x.
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_1.
Parks-Stamm, E. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Action control by implementation intentions: Effective cue detection and efficient response initiation. Social Cognition, 25, 248–266. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.2.248.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Hrsg.), Handbook of self-regulation (S. 451–502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.
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 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00268.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Scheiter, K. (2011). The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.007.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M., & Wodzinski, R. (2009). Complex problem solving and worked examples: The role of prompting strategic behavior and fading-in solution steps. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.129.
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, 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1554.
Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl. S. 72–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504797.
Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441.
Stalbovs, K. (2016). Supporting cognitive processing in multimedia learning: The use of implementation intentions. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/67917/Stalbovs%20Dissertation%20DRUCK.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Dissertation, Universität Tübingen.
Stalbovs, K., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Implementation intentions during multimedia learning: Using if-then plans to facilitate cognitive processing. Learning and Instruction, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.002.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022193728205.
Thillmann, H., Künsting, J., Wirth, J., & Leutner, D. (2009). Is it merely a question of “what” to prompt or also “when” to prompt? The role of point of presentation time of prompts in self-regulated learning. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.105.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror neuron system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.
de Vet, E., Oenema, A., & Brug, J. (2011). More or better: Do the number and specificity of implementation intentions matter in increasing physical activity? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.008.
Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg, F. (2013). The role of motivation in knowledge acquisition. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Hrsg.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (S. 697–707). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5546-3_46.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2007). How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.001.
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Mechanisms of implementation intention effects: The role of goal intentions, self-efficacy, and accessibility of plan components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X267010.
Wieber, F., von Suchodoletz, A., Heikamp, T., Trommsdorff, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2011). If-then planning helps school-aged children to ignore attractive distractions. Social Psychology, 42, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000041.
Wirth, J. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23, 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.91.
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e‑learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004.
Förderung
Die Studie wurde von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft im Rahmen eines Projekts der Forschergruppe „Analyse und Förderung effektiver Lehr-Lernprozesse“ gefördert (SCHE683/5-2; Antragsteller: Katharina Scheiter und Peter Gerjets).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoch, E., Scheiter, K. & Gerjets, P. Hilft eine Unterstützung der Anstrengungsregulation, das Lernen mit statischen und dynamischen Visualisierungen zu verbessern?. Unterrichtswiss 47, 427–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-019-00045-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-019-00045-8