Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Information Volume and Distribution on Cognitive Load and Recall: Implications for the Design of Mobile Marker-less Augmented Reality

  • Received : 2019.08.27
  • Accepted : 2019.09.16
  • Published : 2019.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the effects of information volume and distribution on learners' cognitive load and recall in a mobile augmented reality (AR) environment. Information volume refers to the degree of information users are provided in a learning task, while information distribution indicates the way in which information is distributed, either in a virtual or real format. Sixteen undergraduate students participated in the study, which employed a 2 × 3 randomized block factorial design with repeated measures. Information volume and distribution were independent variables, and factors in learners' cognitive load (mental effort, perceived ease of use, and perceived task difficulty) and recall test scores were the dependent variables. Information volume had significant main effects on perceived ease of use and task difficulty, and recall test scores, while information distribution had significant main effects on perceived task difficulty and test scores. A detailed discussion and implications are provided.

Keywords

References

  1. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 21(6), 34-47.
  2. Behzadan, A. H. & Kamat, V. R. (2007). Georeferenced registration of construction graphics in mobile outdoor augmented reality. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 21(4), 247-258.
  3. Botella, C., Breton-Lopez, J., Quero, S., Banos, R., Garcia-Palacios, A., Zaragoza, I., & Alcaniz, M. (2011). Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: A single case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 217-227.
  4. Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
  5. De Lucia, A., Francese, R., Passero, I., & Tortora, G. (2012). A collaborative augmented campus based on location-aware mobile technology. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 10(1), 55-73.
  6. DeLeeuw, K. E. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234.
  7. FitzGerald, E., Ferguson, R., Adams, A., Gaved, M., Mor, Y., & Thomas, R. (2013). Augmented reality and mobile learning: The state of the art. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(4), 43-58.
  8. Hsieh YC., Kuo CT., & Lin H. (2016). The effect of screen size of mobile devices on reading efficiency. In J. Zhou & G. Salvendy (Eds.), Human aspects of IT for the aged population. Design for aging. ITAP 2016. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol 9754. Springer, Cham.
  9. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371.
  10. Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectives-the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 203-228.
  11. Layar (2015) [Mobile application software]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  12. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68.
  13. Morrison, A., Oulasvirta, A., Peltonen, P., Lemmela, S., Jacucci, G., Reitmayr, G., Nasanen, G., & Juustila, A. (2009). Like bees around the hive: a comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1889-1898. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518991
  14. Oborne, D. J., & Holton, D. (1988). Reading from screen versus paper: there is no difference. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 28(1), 1-9.
  15. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
  16. Paas, F. G., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419-430.
  17. Pence, H. E. (2010). Smartphones, smart objects, and augmented reality. The Reference Librarian, 52(1-2), 136-145.
  18. Rasmusson, M. (2015). Reading Paper-Reading Screen-A Comparison of Reading Literacy in Two Different Modes. Nordic Studies in Education, 34(01), 3-19.
  19. Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., & Belanger, N. N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 834-839.
  20. Ryu, J. & Lim, T. (2014). The effects of E-book reading purposes and screen formats on reading performance and cognitive loads of college students. Nagoya Journal of Higher Education, 14, 197-214
  21. Schnotz, W. & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.
  22. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
  23. van Merrienboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13.
  24. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.