Difference between revisions of "Contiguity"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Empirical evidence (and examples) come from the work by Mayer and colleagues. Typically, these studies involve task where subjects study a declarative presentation of a particular mechanism (e.g., the process that causes lightning or a brake system), both with a diagram and a textual explanation. | Empirical evidence (and examples) come from the work by Mayer and colleagues. Typically, these studies involve task where subjects study a declarative presentation of a particular mechanism (e.g., the process that causes lightning or a brake system), both with a diagram and a textual explanation. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Definitions from the [http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Multimedia_animation EdTech Wiki] | Definitions from the [http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Multimedia_animation EdTech Wiki] | ||
| Line 13: | Line 11: | ||
The effect of contiguity has often been explained in terms of Cognitive Load Theory. | The effect of contiguity has often been explained in terms of Cognitive Load Theory. | ||
| − | Some researchers use the term "split-attention effect" for the detrimental learning outcomes caused by non-contiguous representations (e.g., Mwangi & Sweller | + | Some researchers use the term "split-attention effect" for the detrimental learning outcomes caused by non-contiguous representations (e.g., Mwangi & Sweller, 1998). |
| + | |||
| + | Mayer, R. (2001). ''Multi-media Learning.'' Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. | ||
| + | Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of | ||
| + | example format and generating self-explanations. ''Cognition and Instruction, 16,'' 173-199. | ||
[[Category:Glossary]] | [[Category:Glossary]] | ||
[[Category:PSLC General]] | [[Category:PSLC General]] | ||
[[Category:Coordinative Learning]] | [[Category:Coordinative Learning]] | ||
Revision as of 18:21, 27 November 2006
In multimedia learning, the Contiguity Principle states that students learn more effectively when text and graphics are tightly integrated, rather than presented separately. The integration can be achieved for example by attaching specific pieces of text to specific parts of an image or diagram by means of call-outs or text balloons (spatial contiguity). insert image example here
give real example of temporal dimension
Empirical evidence (and examples) come from the work by Mayer and colleagues. Typically, these studies involve task where subjects study a declarative presentation of a particular mechanism (e.g., the process that causes lightning or a brake system), both with a diagram and a textual explanation.
Definitions from the EdTech Wiki
- Spatial contiguity principle: Deeper learning when corresponding text and animation are presented near rather than far from each other on the screen
- Temporal contiguity principle: Deeper learning when corresponding narration and animation are presented simultaneously rather than successively
The effect of contiguity has often been explained in terms of Cognitive Load Theory.
Some researchers use the term "split-attention effect" for the detrimental learning outcomes caused by non-contiguous representations (e.g., Mwangi & Sweller, 1998).
Mayer, R. (2001). Multi-media Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173-199.
