Comparison of Two Cognitive Strategies for Learning from
Illustrated Texts
Sabine Schlag
1
and Rolf Ploetzner
2
1
School of Education, University of Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany
2
Institut of Media in Education, University of Education, Freiburg, Kunzenweg15, 79117 Freiburg, Germany
Keywords: Multimedia Learning, Text-picture-Combinations, Learning Strategies, Cognitive Ability, Think Aloud.
Abstract: Learning from illustrated text is often expected to be more beneficial than learning from text alone.
Nevertheless, learners often fail to adequately process text-picture-combinations. One option to support
learners and foster learning would be to provide them with strategies for learning from text-picture-
combinations. Up until now, however, such comprehensive strategies have not been available. We have
therefore conceptualized two strategies, based on current models of multimedia learning, for learning from
text-picture-combinations. Both strategies aim to enhance the same cognitive processes by encouraging
either internal, or internal and external learning activities. An experimental study was conducted to
investigate whether sixth-grade students with varying cognitive abilities (high vs. low ability) apply the two
strategies differently. Within both levels of ability, learning with the strategy that encourages internal and
external learning activities led to superior learning gains. An analysis of think aloud data revealed
differences in the quality of the students’ strategy use.
1 INTRODUCTION
Learning with the computer is typically equated with
multimedia learning, which Mayer (2005) defined
as: "presenting both words (such as spoken text and
printed text) and pictures (such as illustrations,
photos, animation, or video)" (p.2). On the basis of
this definition, text-picture-combinations can be
understood as a fundamental form of multimedia
learning. Therefore, research on text and picture can
also be revealing for learning with the computer in
general.
It is believed that adding pictures to a text fosters
learning. Furthermore, research shows that students
learn more from an illustrated text than from text
alone (e.g. Mayer, 2001). Learners, however, do not
automatically process texts and pictures appropri-
ately. They often have difficulty encoding complex
pictures or combining information provided in the
text and the picture (e.g. Ainsworth et al., 2002;
Levie and Lentz, 1982). How can learners therefore
be supported to successfully process text-picture-
combinations?
One approach to support learning is to improve
the design of the learning material. Over the past 15
years, various principles for improving the design of
text-picture-combinations have been proposed and
empirically evaluated (e.g. Mayer, 2005). Research
has demonstrated, however, that the principled
design of learning material alone does not guarantee
successful learning; even well designed material
does not necessarily lead to an active processing of
the representations (e.g. Bartholomé and Bromme,
2006; Dean and Kulhavy, 1981). An active
processing of the text and picture information is
essential to understanding the learning material
(Wittrock, 1990). Moreover, learners are often
confronted in daily life with materials that are not
“well” designed (cf. Mayer, 1993).
Research on text understanding has shown that
learning strategies which take a more learner-orien-
tated approach can effectively support learning (e.g.
Dansereau et al., 1979; Mandl and Friedrich, 2006).
According to our knowledge, there are currently no
comprehensive strategies available for learning from
text-picture-combinations, and only a few isolated
techniques for learning from pictures (e.g. Peeck,
1994; Seufert, 2003) have been proposed up until
now. Based upon previous strategic learning
research and current models of multimedia learning,
we have developed two learning strategies which
aim to systematically foster learning from illustrated
285
Schlag S. and Ploetzner R..
Comparison of Two Cognitive Strategies for Learning from Illustrated Texts.
DOI: 10.5220/0004324502850293
In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2013), pages 285-293
ISBN: 978-989-8565-53-2
Copyright
c
2013 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
texts. While one strategy encourages internal learn-
ing activities, the other strategy encourages internal
and external learning activities. An experimental
study was conducted to analyze whether learners
with varying cognitive abilities apply the two strate-
gies differently.
2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON
STRATEGIC LEARNING WITH
TEXT AND PICTURES
According to Streblow and Schiefele (2006), a
learning strategy is defined as “... a sequence of
efficient learning techniques, which are used in a
goal-orientated and flexible way, are increasingly
automatically processed, but remain consciously
applied” (p. 353; translation by the authors). Thus,
learning techniques, such as underlining important
statements in a text or annotating a text or picture,
are individual components of a strategy. Several
learning techniques combined together in a goal-
orientated way form a learning strategy.
Early research on learning strategies was mainly
oriented towards text. Models which describe rele-
vant processes for text understanding were formu-
lated on a theoretical level (e.g. Kintsch and van
Dijk, 1978). On an empirical level, Marton and Säljö
(1984) identified two approaches to learning. They
differentiated between a surface level approach and
a deep level approach. In the surface level approach,
learning focuses mainly on the repetition of infor-
mation in order to remember it. In the deep level
approach, elaborative activities lead to an under-
standing of the information. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated that text comprehension is improved
when learners utilize the deep level approach (see
also Dornisch et al. 2011; Schlag et al., 2007). On
the basis of these theoretical models and empirical
findings, different strategies which aim at fostering
relevant deep level processes have been developed
and evaluated. Examples are the PQ4R-Method
(Preview, Question, Read, Reflect, Recite, Review,
Thomas and Robinson, 1972) and the MURDER
strategy (Mood, Understanding, Recall, Digest,
Expanding, Review, Dansereau et al., 1979; for an
overview see Mandl and Friedrich, 2006).
Current learning materials, however, consist not
only of text but include large numbers of illustra-
tions as well. Mayer (1993) has already shown that
half of the space in an average science textbook is
reserved for pictures. This development was taken
into account at the theoretical level by conceptual-
izing processing models for learning with illustrated
texts (e.g. Mayer, 2001; Schnotz and Bannert, 2003).
These models describe processes which are consid-
ered to be essential for learning from illustrated
texts. Up until now, however, only a few approaches
which foster strategic learning from text-picture-
combinations have been proposed. In addition, a few
isolated techniques have been developed with
respect to facilitating learning from pictures, e.g.
learners were requested to pay attention to a picture
(Peeck, 1994) and to answer questions concerning a
picture (Peeck, 1994; Weidenmann, 1994).
3 CONCEPTUALIZATION AND
EVALUATION OF A LEARNING
STRATEGY
When developing strategies for learning from text-
picture-combinations, it is necessary to first identify
the processes relevant for learning. Various
processing models for learning from text-picture
combinations consider similar processes to be
important for learning (Mayer, 2001; Schnotz and
Bannert, 2003). For instance, in his model of multi-
media learning, Mayer (2001) emphasizes three
kinds of cognitive processes: selection, organization,
and integration of information. Furthermore, the
model assumes transformation processes.
Selection processes aim at selecting relevant
internal and external information. When learning
with text-picture-combinations, special attention
should be given so that the relevant information
from both sources is selected. Organisation
processes take place when the selected information
is correlated to each other. Integration processes
integrate information from the text and pictures, as
well as prior knowledge, into one coherent mental
model. Transformation processes occur when verbal
representations are transformed into pictorial
representations and vice versa. Since each of these
processes might take advantage of prior knowledge,
we do not consider elaborations to be a separate
process category. Rather, we assume that each of
these processes can fulfill elaborative functions.
Already existing models of multimedia learning
served as the foundation for developing a strategy
for learning from text-picture-combinations. For
each process mentioned above, learning techniques
that aim to induce the relevant processes were
formulated. While some techniques could be taken
directly from literature on learning from texts and
learning from pictures, other techniques had to be
CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
286
constructed by drawing an analogy to already exist-
ing techniques. For example, a common technique
which supports text comprehension is to identify and
underline relevant phrases. A possible analogous
technique to support picture comprehension could be
to identify and mark relevant entities within the
picture. The formulated techniques promote internal
as well as external learning activities (cf. Table 1);
the external learning activities (e.g. underlining)
thereby facilitate internal learning activities (e.g.
selection of phrases).
Table 1: Strategy to encourage internal and external
learning activities.
Cognitive
processes
Learning technique
Selection
and
organization
a) Get an overview: Shortly read the
text and look at the picture in order to
get an overview.
b) Identify relevant aspects in the
text and picture: Underline the
phrases in the text that are important
to you. Search for entities in the
picture that correspond to the phrases
and mark them. Now label the
marked entities with the underlined
phrases.
Integration
and
transformation
c) Establish relations between the
text and picture: Write a summary of
what is represented on the whole in
the text and picture.
d) Visualize important
information: Draw a sketch that
illustrates which information from the
text and picture is most important to
you.
An experimental study was conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy (Schlag and
Ploetzner, 2011). Overall, 133 sixth-grade students
from two different middle schools participated in the
study. Both groups learned from various text-
picture-combinations about honeybee dances. While
one group had to write a summary of what they
learned, the other group took advantage of the
learning strategy. Both groups worked on a pre- and
a post-test. The strategy group (M = 13.24, SD =
3.72) outperformed the summary group (M = 9.75,
SD = 3.68). The groups differed significantly in the
overall post-test results (F(1,130) = 24.55, p < .01,
η
2
p
= .16), as well as on the sub-tests with respect to
factual, conceptual, and transfer knowledge.
We also analyzed the worksheets from the
strategy group and evaluated the quality of the
markings, labels, underlines, summaries and visuali-
zations that were produced by the students. We
expected to see a positive relation between the
quality of the worksheets and the post-test results:
students who produced high-quality worksheets
were expected to gain higher scores on the post-test.
However, there was no significant correlation
between the quality of the worksheets and the post-
test results (r = .297, n.s.).
The study demonstrates that students who
utilized the strategy learned better than the students
who applied the common learning technique of
writing a summary, which is often taught and used
in school. In contrast to our expectations, however,
no significant correlation was found between the
quality of the worksheets and the post-test results.
This finding indicates that the cognitive processes
and externalizations produced during learning are
not the same. While some students with high post-
test results performed poorly on the worksheets,
other students did well on the worksheets but
nevertheless obtained poor results on the post-test.
Thus, the students seem to apply different cognitive
processes with varying quality when taking
advantage of the learning strategy.
A learner’s cognitive ability is an important
predictor of how they process information (e.g.
Kozma and Russel, 1997). Learners with high
cognitive abilities might be able to deeply process
the information after being given general
suggestions on how to approach the learning
material. These learners might not need support to
produce specific external representations in order to
understand the material; it could even be that such
specific guidance hinders learning (cf. the effects of
scaffolding and fading; e.g. Kirkley, 2006; Quintana
et al., 2006). In contrast, learners with lower
cognitive abilities might not profit from general
suggestions. They might require more specific
guidance on how to process the material.
A second strategy focusing on internal activities
rather than encouraging external activities was there-
fore formulated. Both strategies aim at inducing the
same cognitive processes by either encouraging
internal and external or only internal learning
activities (see Table 2).
The strategy that encourages internal learning
activities supports students “thinking” (e.g. selection
of phrases). The strategy that encourages internal
and external learning activities supports the same
cognitive processes through external activities (e.g.
underlining). The external activities should facilitate
the internal information processing. Peeck (1993)
assumes that instructional interventions which result
ComparisonofTwoCognitiveStrategiesforLearningfromIllustratedTexts
287
in “an external and controllable product” (p.234)
should be most successful.
Table 2: Two learning strategies.
cognitive
processes
Learning
techniques that
encourage internal
and external
activities
Learning
techniques that
encourage internal
activities
Selection
and
organization
a) Get an
overview: Shortly
read the text and
look at the picture
in order to get an
overview.
a) Get an
overview: Shortly
read the text and
look at the picture
in order to get an
overview.
b) Identify
relevant aspects in
the text and
picture: Underline
the phrases in the
text that are
important to you.
Search for entities
in the picture that
correspond to the
phrases and mark
them. Now label
the marked
entities with the
underlined
phrases.
b) Identify
relevant aspects in
the text and
picture: Clarify
the phrases in the
text that are
important to you.
Search for entities
in the picture that
correspond to the
phrases.
Integration
and
Transforma-
tion
c) Establish
relations between
the text and
picture: Write a
summary of what
is represented on
the whole in the
text and picture.
c) Establish
relations between
the text and
picture: What is
represented on the
whole in the text
and picture?
d) Visualize
important
information: Draw
a sketch that
illustrates which
information from
the text and
picture is most
important to you.
d) Visualize
important
information:
Imagine the
information from
the text and
picture that is
most important to
you.
4 STUDY
4.1 Research Question and Hypothesis
Do students with varying cognitive abilities profit
differently from the two learning strategies
described in Table 2? We hypothesized that students
with low cognitive abilities would profit more from
the strategy that encourages internal and external
learning activities, whereas students with high
cognitive abilities would profit more from the
strategy that encourages internal learning activities.
Different forms of support might be advanta-
geous to students with varying cognitive abilities.
Students with low cognitive abilities, for example,
could benefit more from the strategy with specific
guidance. Such a strategy helps to orientate students
by specifically instructing which activities are
supposed to be carried out. In contrast, a strategy
with less guidance might be more beneficial to
students with high cognitive abilities. These students
should be capable of independently generating the
appropriate learning activities by themselves.
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Design
Two factors were varied in a 2x2-design: a) learning
strategy (strategy that encourages internal and
external learning activities vs. strategy that encour-
ages internal learning activities) and b) cognitive
ability (high vs. low cognitive ability).
4.2.2 Participants
Overall, 24 sixth-graders (12 girls and 12 boys;
mean age: 11.79, SD = .66) from three schools in
South-West-Germany participated in the study.
There were 4 groups, each with six students. Both
sexes were evenly distributed across the groups. The
students were from three different types of German
secondary schools (Gymnasium, Gesamtschule, and
Realschule). Participation was voluntary and partici-
pants received financial compensation.
4.3 Material
4.3.1 Learning Material
The learning material dealt with the dances of the
honeybee. The students had to learn about the round
dance and the waggle dance and how bees use the
dances to communicate the distance of food sources
(see Figure 1). The material was composed of four
text-picture-combinations. The relevant information
was placed in both the text and the picture so that
students had to take both representations into
account in order to understand the bee dances.
CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
288
Figure 1: Example of the learning material (picture taken
from Microsoft Encarta 2002; screenshot reprinted with
friendly permission from the Microsoft Corporation).
4.3.2 Learning Strategies
The students in both groups were respectively given
worksheets which detailed either the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
or the strategy that encourages internal learning
activities (see Table 2). The students were requested
to make use of the worksheets during learning.
4.3.3 Pre- and Post-Test
In order to assess prior knowledge, participants were
given a pre-test consisting of eight items. The post-
test consisted of 24 items: eight on factual
knowledge, which were the same as on the pre-test,
eight on conceptual knowledge, and eight on transfer
knowledge.
4.3.4 Assessment of Cognitive Abilities
Cognitive ability was assessed with the Mannheim
Intelligence Test MIT-KJ (Mannheimer Intelligenz-
test für Kinder und Jugendliche; Conrad, Eberle,
Hornke, Kierdorf and Nagel, 1976). The test
measures general intelligence of children between
nine and fifteen years old by assessing three verbal,
one mathematical, and two visuospatial abilities.
The intelligence scale ranged from one to ten points.
Students scoring five points or less on the scale were
assigned to the low cognitive ability group, whereas
students scoring six points or more were assigned to
the high cognitive ability group.
5 PROCEDURE
All students were individually assessed. They were
initially tested by means of the MIT-KJ (Conrad et
al., 1976) in order to assign them to the low or high
cognitive ability group. The students were then
randomly assigned to one of the strategy groups.
Thereafter, all participants completed the pre-test. In
order to familiarize them with the think aloud
method, they took part in a training which included a
practice task of 15 minutes. The students in both
strategy groups received a short introduction on how
to take advantage of their learning strategy. During
the learning period, the students worked
independently and utilized the worksheets to learn
from the four text-picture-combinations about the
dances of the honeybee. For each text-picture-
combination, the students were given a new work-
sheet. The students were requested to continuously
think aloud during the learning period. Their
verbalizations were recorded. The learning time was
limited to 50 minutes. The students were free to
finish earlier. The post-test took place after the
learning phase.
6 RESULTS
6.1 Analysis of Pre- and Post-Test
Results
The students answered on average 1.38 (SD = .78)
of eight questions correctly on the pre-test. All four
groups performed nearly the same on the pre-test (M
between 1.50 and 1.33). There were no significant
differences between groups on the pre-test (F(3,20)
= .06, n.s.).
The learning time was on average 27.08 minutes
(SD = 13.87). Students using the strategy that
encourages internal and external activities learned
on average longer (M = 36.71, SD = 12.14) than
students using the strategy that encourages only
internal learning activities (M = 18.00, SD = 8.65).
Students with high cognitive abilities (M = 28.75,
SD = 14.42) learned on average longer than students
with low cognitive abilities (M = 25.42, SD =
13.72). The differences between groups in learning
time are significant (F(1,20) = 16.67, p < .01, η
2
p
=
.46). The learning time, however, did not signifi-
cantly correlate with the post-test results.
The post-test questions were scored by two inde-
pendent raters. Interrater reliability was ICC(3, k) =
ComparisonofTwoCognitiveStrategiesforLearningfromIllustratedTexts
289
0.95. Differences in the ratings were jointly settled
by the raters.
Figure 2: Overall post-test results.
The post-test results showed that the students with
high cognitive abilities (M = 16.75, SD = 2.93)
performed better than the students with low
cognitive abilities (M = 11.33, SD = 3.11). Further-
more, students who made use of the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
(M = 15.00, SD = 3.93) learned more than the
students using the strategy that encourages only
internal learning activities (M = 13.08, SD = 4.10).
When the strategy groups are compared to each
other at each level of cognitive ability, the students
learning with the strategy that encourages internal
and external learning activities outperformed the
other group (see Figure 2). Similar results are found
with respect to factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, and transfer knowledge (see Table 3).
In order to determine significant differences
between the groups on the post-test, a multivariate
two-way analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted with the factor strategy (internal and
external activities vs. internal activities) and
cognitive abilitiy (low vs. high cognitive ability) as
independent variables, and the three types of
knowledge as dependent variables. The small sample
sizes should be kept in mind when interpreting the
data.
The analysis showed significant group differ-
ences for the factor cognitive abilities with respect to
conceptual knowledge (F(3,20) = 14.81, p < .01, η
2
p
= .42) and transfer knowledge (F(3,20) = 8.42, p <
.01, η
2
p
= .30). No significant differences for the
factor strategy were found (F(3,20) = 2.48, p = .13).
The effect for transfer knowledge is marginally
significant (F(3,20) = 3.90, p = .06).
Table 3: The means (M) and the standard deviations (SD)
on the post-test (The maximum score with respect to each
type of knowledge was eight).
Strategy
which encourages
internal and external learning
activities
which encourages
internal learning activities
Cognitive
abilities
high low high low
Type of
knowledge
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Factual
5.33 1.51 5.00 2.76 6.17 1.17 4.33 1.21
Concept
5.67 1.03 3.67 1.50 5.33 1.97 2.83 1.17
Transfer
6.50 1.76 3.83 2.32 4.50 .84 3.00 1.78
Overall
17.5 2.88 12.5 3.27 16.0 3.03 10.1 2.71
6.2 Analysis of the Think Aloud
Protocols
In order to qualitatively determine how the students
applied the strategy, the think aloud data was
analyzed. The think aloud data was first transcribed
and segmented into phrases. Thereafter, the phrases
were associated with the corresponding learning
technique. It was then analyzed to see if the
technique was in fact applied. If the technique was
applied, it was then judged as to whether the
application took place at a surface level (e.g.
selection of almost all words in the text) or at a deep
level (e.g. selection of only important words in the
text). All protocols were analyzed by two
independent raters. Interrater reliability was ICC(3,
k) = .92. Disagreements were resolved in discussion.
Deep level processing was more frequently
exhibited by students with high cognitive abilities
than those with low cognitive abilities. Students with
low cognitive abilities processed 75% of the learning
techniques at a surface level or not at all (see Table
4).
Table 4: Observed frequencies of deep and surface level
processing with respect to the factors strategy and
cognitive abilities.
Strategy
that
encourages
internal
and
external
learning
activities
Strategy
that
encourages
internal
learning
activities
High
cognitive
ability
Low
cognitive
ability
Deep
processing
94 39 90 43
Surface
processing
90 67 70 87
No
processing
8 70 32 46
Overall
192 176 192 176
Low cognitive
High cognitive
Strategy that encourages
internal and external
learning activities
Strategy that encourages
internal learning
activities
CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
290
Differences can also be found with respect to the
strategy groups (see Table 4). The students who
learned with the strategy that encourages internal
and external learning activities processed more
techniques at a deep level than the students who
learned with the other strategy. In 40% of the cases,
the students who learned with the strategy that
encourages internal learning activities did not make
use of any learning technique. In sharp contrast, the
students who learned with the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
almost always applied the complete strategy. Thus,
promoting external learning activities seems to result
in a more comprehensive use of the strategy.
At a descriptive level, the quality of the students’
strategy use and the post-test results show a similar
pattern. The students with high cognitive abilities
outperformed the students with low cognitive
abilities and the students who used the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
learned more successfully than the students who
used the strategy that encourages only internal
learning activities. Furthermore, the quality of the
students’ strategy use correlated significantly with
the post-tests results (r = .41, p < .05).
7 DISCUSSION
Two strategies for learning from texts and pictures
were conceptualized and empirically evaluated in
this paper. Both strategies were formed on the basis
of current models of multimedia learning with the
objective to foster the cognitive processes of
information selection, organization, transformation,
and integration.
In an experimental study, the two factors strategy
(internal and external learning activities vs. internal
learning activities) and cognitive ability (high vs.
low) were investigated. The groups did not differ
regarding age, sex, and prior knowledge. Even
though the groups varied in learning time, there was
no correlation between learning time and learning
results. Students with high cognitive abilities per-
formed better on the post-test than did students with
low cognitive abilities. Within each ability group,
students using the strategy that encourages internal
and external learning activities outperformed those
using the strategy that encourages internal learning
activities.
In addition, the analysis of the think aloud data
revealed that the quality of the students’ strategy use
was higher when employing the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities.
Students with high cognitive abilities, however,
profited from both strategies; nevertheless, the best
learning results were obtained when using the
strategy that encourages internal and external learn-
ing activities. Students with low cognitive abilities,
on the other hand, only learned satisfactorily when
using the strategy that encourages internal and
external learning activities. This strategy seems to
compensate low cognitive ability, whereas the
strategy that encourages internal learning activities
is only advantageous under the condition of high
cognitive ability.
Contrary to our expectations, the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
did not impede the learning of students with high
cognitive abilities. Even if the external activities of
the students with high cognitive abilities were not
more productive than those of the students with low
cognitive abilities (analysis of the worksheets), the
additional external activity instructions led to
beneficial internal learning activities (analysis of the
think aloud data). This might explain why students
with high cognitive abilities also profited from the
strategy that encourages internal and external learn-
ing activities.
Due to the think aloud assessment, the sample
size was kept small in this study. This needs to be
taken into account when interpreting the data. It was
necessary, however, to acquire the process data in
order to get a deeper insight into the processes that
foster learning. The present study has demonstrated
that the analysis of think aloud data is a promising
approach to better understanding strategic infor-
mation processing.
The study demonstrated that the strategy that
encourages internal and external learning activities
is adequate for sixth-grade students regardless of
their cognitive abilities. Two other studies have
demonstrated that similar strategies were also
beneficial to sixth grade students learning from
animation (Kombartzky et al., 2010) and text-
picture-combinations (Metz and Wichert, 2009).
Further research is needed to show if the proposed
strategies would be advantageous for other groups of
learners, as well as for other types of learning
material. It would also be fruitful if future research
on strategic learning would clarify the contributions
of the individual learning techniques to the overall
learning outcome, as well as how different
combinations of learning techniques affect learning
(cf. Klauer, 2010).
ComparisonofTwoCognitiveStrategiesforLearningfromIllustratedTexts
291
When thinking of learning with the computer
most researchers would aspire to more complex
learning environments than the text-picture-
combinations described in this article. Nevertheless,
many computer supported learning environments are
still “just” made up of texts and pictures. Even with
these “simple“ multimedia materials students need a
strategy to process the information adequate. If the
learning environment gets more complex, effective
learning strategies become even more important.
Students need to be taught how to process multime-
dia materials just as they are taught how to under-
stand written text. Several studies demonstrated that
strategic instructions can foster learning from
multimedia (e.g. Kombartzky et al., 2010; Metz and
Wichert, 2009; Schlag and Ploetzner, 2011).
When developing computerized learning
environments not only usability and design aspects
should be taken into account, but also strategic
support which helps the learners to process the
presented information effectively and effeciently.
This study showed that especially techniques that
encourage internal and external learning activities
are beneficial for the learners. Multimedia learning
environments can support the use of these learning
activities by providing strategic learning prompts to
the learners that are integrated into the learning
environment (Ruf and Ploetzner, 2012). In
particular, external learning activities can be
supported by providing interactive tools that allow
learners e.g. to draw sketches and to take notes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the Virtual
Graduate Program “Knowledge Acquisition and
Knowledge Exchange with New Media”. We thank
Uwe Kombartzky for sharing the learning material
as well as the pre- and post-tests.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P., & Wood, D. (2002). Examining
the effects of different multiple representational
systems in learning primary mathematics. The Journal
of the Learning Sciences, 11, 25-61.
Bartholomé, T., & Bromme, R. (2006). Instructional
support in learning from text and pictures: Risks and
benefits. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding
simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in
studying and designing (computer-based) powerful
learning environments (pp. 47-56). Rotterdam: Sense.
Conrad, W., Eberle, G., Hornke, L., Kierdorf, B., & Nagel,
B. (1976). Mannheimer Intelligenztest für Kinder und
Jugendliche (MIT-KJ) [Mannheimer intelligence scale
for children and teenagers]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Dansereau, D. F., Collins, K. W., McDonald, B. A.,
Holley, C. D., Garland, J. C., Diekhoff, G., & Evans,
S. H. (1979). Development and evaluation of a
learning strategy training program. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 64-73.
Dean, R. S., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Influence of spatial
organization on prose learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 73, 57-64.
Dornisch, M., Sperling, R. A., & Zeruth, J. A. (2011). The
effects of levels of elaboration on learners' strategic
processing of text. Instructional Science, 39, 1-26.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing
split-attention and redundancy in multimedia
instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-
371.
Kirkley, J. R. (2006). An exploratory study on designing
expert and novice scaffolds to support decision
making and learning in a set of simulation vignettes.
Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of
text comprehension and production. Psychological
Review, 85(5), 363-394.
Klauer, K. J. (2010). Schädliche Interferenzen beim
Training hochkomplexer Lernstrategien? [Detrimental
interferences during the training of highly complex
learning strategies?] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische
Psychologie, 24, 235-239.
Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B.
(2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for
learning from animation. Learning and Instruction, 20,
424-433.
Kozma, R.B., & Russel, J. (1997). Multimedia and
understanding: Expert and novice responses to
different representations in chemical phenomena.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949-968.
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text
illustrations: A review of research. Educational
Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195-232.
Mandl, H., & Friedrich, H. F. (Hrsg.). (2006). Handbuch
Lernstrategien [Handbook of learning strategies].
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In
F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The
experience of learning
(pp. 39-58). Edinburgh:
Scottish Academic Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R.
Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology
(Vol. 4, pp. 253-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
CSEDU2013-5thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
292
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Metz, B., & Wichert, A. (2009). Lernen mit illustrierten
Texten [Learning with illustrated texts]. In R.
Ploetzner, T. Leuders & A. Wichert (Hrsg.),
Lernchance Computer – Strategien für das Lernen mit
digitalen Medienverbünden [The computer as learning
opportunity – Strategies for learning with digital
multimedia] (S. 141-161). Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Microsoft® Encarta® Professional (2002). Microsoft
Corporation.
Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning
from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227-
238.
Peeck, J. (1994). Wissenserwerb mit darstellenden Bildern
[Knowledge acquisition with illustrated pictures]. In
B. Weidenmann (Hg.), Wissenserwerb mit Bildern
[Knowledge acquisition with pictures] (S. 59-94).
Bern: Huber Verlag.
Quintana, C., Shin, N., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2006).
Learner-centered design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.
119-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ruf, T., & Ploetzner, R. (2012). Interaction design for
self-regulated learning with multimedia:
Conceptualization and empirical tests. In T. Amiel &
B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of the World
Conference on Educational Media and Technology
(pp. 1390-1395). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education.
Schlag, S., Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2007). The use of
learning strategies in learning from text and pictures.
In T. Hirashima, H.U. Hoppe & S. Shwu-Ching
Young (Eds.), Supporting learning flow through
integrative technologies: Proceedings of the 15th
international conference of computers in education
(pp. 331-338). Amsterdam: IOS.
Schlag, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2011). Supporting learning
from illustrated texts: Conceptualizing and evaluating
a learning strategy. Instructional Science, 39, 921-937.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and
interference in learning from multiple representations.
Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in
learning from multiple representations. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 227-237.
Streblow, L., & Schiefele, U. (2006). Lernstrategien im
Studium [Learning strategies in academic studies]. In
H. Mandl & H. F. Friedrich (Hrsg.), Handbuch
Lernstrategien [Handbook of learning strategies] (S.
352-364). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag.
Thomas, E. L., & Robinson, H. A. (1972). Improving
reading in every class: A source-book for teachers.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Weidenmann, B. (1994). Wissenserwerb mit Bildern
[Knowledge acquisition with pictures]. Göttingen:
Huber.
Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of
comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-
376.
ComparisonofTwoCognitiveStrategiesforLearningfromIllustratedTexts
293
