Abstract
There are basically two formats used in instructional visualizations, namely, static pictures and dynamic visualizations (e.g., animations and videos). Both can be engaging and fun for university students in the fields of health and natural sciences. However, engagement by itself is not always conducive to learning. Consequently, teachers, lecturers, and instructional designers need to utilize the cognitive processing advantages of visualizations as well as engagement to achieve full instructional effectiveness. A cognitive processing focus has outlined many ways in which instructional visualization can be optimized. Specifically, cognitive load theory and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning are two research paradigms that provide several methods for directing the design of visualizations by considering how learners process visuospatial information. In this chapter, we describe five methods based on these cognitive theories: (a) the split attention effect and spatial contiguity principle, (b) the modality effect, (c) the redundancy effect and coherence principle, (d) the signaling principle, and (e) the transient information effect. For each of these effects, examples of applications for education in health and natural sciences are provided, where the influence of visuospatial processing is also considered. We end this chapter by discussing instructional implications for science education and providing future directions for research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aldahmash, A. H., & Abraham, M. R. (2009). Kinetic versus static visuals for facilitating college students’ understanding of organic reaction mechanisms in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(12), 1442–1446. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p1442.
Amadieu, F., Mariné, C., & Laimay, C. (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.009.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007a). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1351.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007b). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1343.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011.
Ayres, P., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, M., Marcus, N., & Paas, F. (2019). Factors that impact on the effectiveness of instructional animations. In S. Tindall-Ford, S. Agostinho, & J. Sweller (Eds.), Advances in cognitive load theory: Rethinking teaching (pp. 180–193). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283895-15.
Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze switches and memory load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2887.
Berney, S., Bétrancourt, M., Molinari, G., & Hoyek, N. (2015). How spatial abilities and dynamic visualizations interplay when learning functional anatomy with 3D anatomical models. Anatomical Sciences Education, 8(5), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1524.
Biard, N., Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.002.
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(38), 14325–14329. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803390105.
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.010.
Calkins, M. W. (1898). Short studies in memory and in association from the Wellesly College Psychological Laboratory. Psychological Review, 5(5), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071176.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Atit, K. (this volume). Different abilities controlled by visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 23–51). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_2.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Fiorella, L. (this volume). Interactive science multimedia and visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 145–173). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_6.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Uttal, D. H. (this volume). Science education and visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 53–79). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_3.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014a). Dynamic visualisations and motor skills. In W. Huang (Ed.), Handbook of human centric visualization (pp. 551–580). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_22.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014b). Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks. Learning and Instruction, 34, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.005.
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., & Paas, F. (2018a). Computerized and adaptable tests to measure visuospatial abilities in STEM students. In T. Andre (Ed.), Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences: Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Human Factors in Training, Education, and Learning Sciences (pp. 337–349). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60018-5_33.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018b). 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.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2019a). Visuospatial tests and multimedia learning: The importance of employing relevant instruments. In S. Tindall-Ford, S. Agostinho, & J. Sweller (Eds.), Advances in cognitive load theory: Rethinking teaching (pp. 89–99). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429283895-8.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Wong, M., Adesope, O. O., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2019b). Gender imbalance in instructional dynamic versus static visualizations: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09469-1.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (this volume-a). VAR: A battery of computer-based instruments to measure visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 207–229). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_8.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Ginns, P. (this volume-b). Embodied cognition, science education, and visuospatial processing. In J. C. Castro-Alonso (Ed.), Visuospatial processing for education in health and natural sciences (pp. 175–205). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_7.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2018). Extending cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion: Evidence from the spacing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 483–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9426-2.
Cheon, J., Crooks, S., & Chung, S. (2014). Does segmenting principle counteract modality principle in instructional animation? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12021.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020.
Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01320076.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations. Computers & Education, 55(2), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.027.
Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.002.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002.
Eitel, A., Bender, L., & Renkl, A. (2019). Are seductive details seductive only when you think they are relevant? An experimental test of the moderating role of perceived relevance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3479.
Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00165.x.
Fenesi, B., Kramer, E., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Split-attention and coherence principles in multimedia instruction can rescue performance for learners with lower working memory capacity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3244.
Fraser, K. L., Huffman, J., Ma, I., Sobczak, M., McIlwrick, J., Wright, B., et al. (2014). The emotional and cognitive impact of unexpected simulated patient death: A randomized controlled trial. Chest, 145(5), 958–963. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0987.
Fraser, K. L., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simulation in Healthcare, 10(5), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000097.
Garg, A. X., Norman, G., Spero, L., & Taylor, I. (1999). Learning anatomy: Do new computer models improve spatial understanding? Medical Teacher, 21(5), 519–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979239.
Geary, D. C. (2002). Principles of evolutionary educational psychology. Learning and Individual Differences, 12(4), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1041-6080(02)00046-8.
Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Geary, D. C., & Berch, D. B. (2016). Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development. In D. C. Geary & D. B. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 217–249). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_9.
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001.
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92.
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(3), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414.
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1345.
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x.
Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1716–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012.
Hosler, J., Boomer, K. B., & Kalumuck, K. (2011). Are comic books an effective way to engage nonmajors in learning and appreciating science? CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-07-0090.
Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 61(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004.
Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2011). Integrating information from two pictorial animations: Complexity and cognitive prerequisites influence performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1762.
Huff, M., Bauhoff, V., & Schwan, S. (2012). Effects of split attention revisited: A new display technology for troubleshooting tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1254–1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.008.
Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., Edelmann, J., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning about locomotion patterns: Effective use of multiple pictures and motion-indicating arrows. Computers & Education, 65, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.01.017.
Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, E., Mayer, R. E., et al. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45(8), 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03988.x.
Jaffar, A. A. (2012). YouTube: An emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(3), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1268.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.013.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371.
Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2016). Learner characteristics and information processing in multimedia learning: A moderated mediation of the seductive details effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.030.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.008.
Kühl, T., Stebner, F., Navratil, S. C., Fehringer, B. C. O. F., & Münzer, S. (2018). Text information and spatial abilities in learning with different visualizations formats. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000226.
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208(4450), 1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335.
Lee, D. Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2011). Effects of spatial ability and richness of motion cue on learning in mechanically complex domain. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.005.
Lee, D. Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2012). An empirical evaluation of multi-media based learning of a procedural task. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.014.
Levinson, A. J., Weaver, B., Garside, S., McGinn, H., & Norman, G. R. (2007). Virtual reality and brain anatomy: A randomised trial of e-learning instructional designs. Medical Education, 41(5), 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02694.x.
Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007.
Loftus, J. J., Jacobsen, M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). The relationship between spatial ability, cerebral blood flow and learning with dynamic images: A transcranial Doppler ultrasonography study. Medical Teacher, 40(2), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1395401.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.012.
Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390(6657), 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/36846.
Mahmud, W., Hyder, O., Butt, J., & Aftab, A. (2011). Dissection videos do not improve anatomy examination scores. Anatomical Sciences Education, 4(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.194.
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction, 61, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.001.
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.240.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Research-based principles for learning with animation. In R. K. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 30–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014b). 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715.
Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013835.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358.
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319.
Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 481–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.001.
Nguyen, N., Nelson, A. J., & Wilson, T. D. (2012). Computer visualizations: Factors that influence spatial anatomy comprehension. Anatomical Sciences Education, 5(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1258.
Oberauer, K., & Eichenberger, S. (2013). Visual working memory declines when more features must be remembered for each object. Memory & Cognition, 41(8), 1212–1227. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0333-6.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.004.
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17(4), 398–422. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202613.
Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20(5), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00116358.
Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003.
Rey, G. D., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Wirzberger, M., Schmitt, T. H., & Schneider, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 389–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9456-4.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.003.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011.
Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001.
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9435-9.
Seufert, T., Schütze, M., & Brünken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.01.002.
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7.
Singh, A.-M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885.
Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Realistic details in visualizations require color cues to foster retention. Computers & Education, 122, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.012.
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9135-6.
Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 184–203. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1149.
Stull, A. T., Gainer, M. J., & Hegarty, M. (2018). Learning by enacting: The role of embodiment in chemistry education. Learning and Instruction, 55, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.09.008.
Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned, and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569570.
Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive load theory, evolutionary educational psychology, and instructional design. In D. C. Geary & D. B. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 291–306). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0_12.
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.
Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424.
Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9243-1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.014.
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 261–312. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016064429161.
Wiegmann, D. A., Dansereau, D. F., McCagg, E. C., Rewey, K. L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90055-4.
Wilson, T. D. (2015). Role of image and cognitive load in anatomical multimedia. In L. K. Chan & W. Pawlina (Eds.), Teaching anatomy: A practical guide (pp. 237–246). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_27.
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004.
Xie, H., Wang, F., Hao, Y., Chen, J., An, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2017). The more total cognitive load is reduced by cues, the better retention and transfer of multimedia learning: A meta-analysis and two meta-regression analyses. PLoS One, 12(8), e0183884. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183884.
Youssef, A., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Using general problem-solving strategies to generate ideas in order to solve geography problems. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 872–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2888.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially supported by funds from PIA–CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence, Project FB0003, and by a 2018 research grant from the School of Education, University of New South Wales. The first author is thankful to Mariana Poblete for her assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Castro-Alonso, J.C., Ayres, P., Sweller, J. (2019). Instructional Visualizations, Cognitive Load Theory, and Visuospatial Processing. In: Castro-Alonso, J. (eds) Visuospatial Processing for Education in Health and Natural Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20969-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20968-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20969-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)