Seductive details

Last updated

Seductive details are often used in textbooks, lectures, slideshows, and other forms of educational content to make a course more interesting or interactive. Seductive details can take the form of text, animations, photos, illustrations, sounds or music and are by definition: (1) interesting and (2) not directed toward the learning objectives of a lesson. [1] John Dewey, in 1913, first referred to this as "fictitious inducements to attention." [2] While illustrated text can enhance comprehension, illustrations that are not relevant can lead to poor learning outcomes. [3] Since the late 1980s, many studies in the field of educational psychology have shown that the addition of seductive details results in poorer retention of information and transfer of learning. [4] [5] Thalheimer conducted a meta-analysis that found, overall, a negative impact for the inclusion of seductive details such as text, photos or illustrations, and sounds or music in learning content. [6] More recently, a 2020 paper found a similar effect for decorative animations [7] This reduction to learning is called the seductive details effect. There have been criticisms of this theory. Critics cite unconvincing and contradictory evidence to argue that seductive details do not always impede understanding and that seductive details can sometimes be motivating for learners. [8] [9]

Contents

The research

Example of an image that is relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration-2009-10-07.svg
Example of an image that is relevant to the topic of carbon sequestration.
Example of a seductive detail. This image of a fossil fuel power plant is tangentially related to carbon sequestration. Centrale Saint-Denis.jpg
Example of a seductive detail. This image of a fossil fuel power plant is tangentially related to carbon sequestration.

Most studies are conducted through experiments that compare the learning results between two scenarios: an explanation with seductive details and an explanation with no seductive details. The explanation format can vary in form from text-based, video, web-based or presentation style. The seductive details in these experiments includes extraneous details, irrelevant images, irrelevant video and decorative animations. [7] Learning outcomes of participants are determined through a variety of tests that include both recall abilities and problem-solving abilities. This is known as transfer performance.

Early research showed that adding seductive details did not have the intended effect of improving learning; instead the seductive details tended to be detrimental to the learner's recall. Adding interesting but unimportant sentences to expository texts hindered the learning of the main points of the text and learners would remember the seductive details better than the main text.

An example of a seductive detail in a training context might be a training class that includes cartoons on slides containing tips for effective supervision. Although not necessarily relevant to the topic, the cartoons are designed to make the training material more interesting, but the results of multiple studies suggest that their inclusion will harm recall from the primary training content.

Harp and Mayer [10] conducted an experiment using a lesson about lightning strikes. The effect of lightning strikes on airplanes was added as a seductive detail. In six out of six experiments, learners who studied the base lesson without the seductive details about the strikes on airplanes demonstrated they were three times more likely to recall the structurally important details. They also performed much better on a problem-solving task than learners whose lessons included the seductive details. Harper and Mayer suggested seductive details do their damage when learners are consolidating and organizing new information by forming knowledge structures ill-suited for later recall. [10]

The psychology

Researchers focus on various aspects of cognitive theory to explain the seductive details effect. Seductive details impose an extraneous cognitive load during learning by enticing students to spend their limited resources in processing materials that distract from, or disrupt, the construction of a coherent mental model in the learning process. Most studies use seductive details in science text to demonstrate the extraneous cognitive load. However, there are contrasting studies done with non-scientific texts that did not produce the same results. These results may suggest that seductive details can only interfere with learning within a high load learning process that requires managing the available cognitive resources. In learning situations that are associated with low working memory activity, seductive details did not have a detrimental effect. They can even lead to higher performance because there are the required cognitive resources available for the motivating function. [1]

Metacognition

Jaeger and Wiley, in 2015, looked at readers' ability to monitor their own comprehension. Their study used a science text as the base of a lesson and decorative images as the seductive details. They found that readers were less able to monitor their own comprehension of the text when the text was sprinkled with decorative images. [11]

Activating inappropriate prior knowledge

A 1998 study by Harp and Mayer determined that it was likely that the seductive details effect created an inappropriate diversion for the learner "by activating an inappropriate base of prior knowledge in the learner". Further, they found that when seductive details were placed at the beginning of a lesson, a learner's performance would be particularly hindered. However, when seductive details were put at the end of a lesson, a student's performance was similar to a student who had not experienced seductive details in their lesson. [10]

Cognitive Load and Working Memory

Seductive details can act as a source of extraneous cognitive load, occupying some of the limited working space in working memory. [7] A study by Sanchez and Wiley compared people's ability to control their attention to scientific text that contained either seductive images, relevant images, or no images. The study showed that people with low working memory capacity were especially vulnerable to the seductive details effect. Sanchez and Wiley also did an experiment where eye-tracking was monitored to evaluate how people were reading the same seductively illustrated scientific text. The results showed that people with low working memory looked at the seductive illustrations more often and for longer than those with high working memory capacity. [3] It could be argued that differences in performance between high- and low- working memory capacity individuals is really due to general reading ability, an attribute that has been correlated with working memory capacity in other studies. [12]

This vulnerability as it relates to low working memory capacity individuals and seductive details within textual information can also be seen as a difference between children and adult learners. Because adults, on average, having a higher working memory capacity than children, adults are less affected by seductive details than children. [5]

Transfer of learning

The seductive details effect has primarily been demonstrated at the point of knowledge acquisition (initial learning); its impact on transfer performance has not been clearly shown. Theory in text comprehension suggests that seductive details might be detrimental for recall but advantageous for transfer performance because of the schematic representation of information that trainees form during instruction. [13] Researchers have described the seductive details effect as having a damaging effect on recall because it distracts trainees from learning and they tend to form inappropriate schemas to organize information. [10] However, when learners are applying knowledge, empirical studies suggest that the distortion of the macro structure or schema of the instructional material is beneficial. [14] [15]

In another study, students who read less-organized material performed better that students given organized material on tasks that required an application of the knowledge to problem-solving. This suggests that the inclusion of seductive details might be beneficial for transfer performance but detrimental when trainees are recalling information. Interference from seductive details creates confusion of what the core material is and, therefore, the recall will not be as good and more errors will occur. This distortion can lead to a richer understanding of the material and facilitate transfer performance because trainees are required to form a macro structure of the instructional material. Research using the dual-coding paradigm also suggests that interesting and engaging information promotes image-based thoughts and leads to deeper processing of information because it allows storage of material in both verbal and nonverbal systems. [16] [17] [18] When information is made easier to comprehend, material is processed less deeply, thus leading to poorer acquisition of information.

Criticisms

Classic learning theories and the modern dual-coding theory support the introduction of interesting, tangential details to learning content. There is evidence that interesting and engaging information promotes image-based thoughts and is better remembered because it allows storage of material in both verbal and nonverbal systems. [16] [17] [18] This suggests that interesting material, even if tangential to the topic, does not detract from learning and can promote recall of vague or uninteresting material. [16] [19] [20]

Several recent studies have shown that adding seductive details does not have a significant impact on learner outcomes. Park et al. (2011) [1] looked at cognitive load theory to explain these controversial results. The experiment asked high school students to learn about biology using a multimedia environment (one with seductive details and one without). The experiment also varied the cognitive load for the students. The results showed that students performed significantly higher when seductive details were present in a low cognitive load environment as compared with all other conditions. [1] Another study by Park et al. (2015) showed that while seductive details were detrimental to learning in high cognitive load text conditions, seductive details actually improved motivation and learning outcomes in narration conditions where the cognitive load was low. This means that slideshows or webcasts with well-prepared narration that use motivating bits of information increase learner motivation. [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

Educational psychology Branch of psychology concerned with the scientific study of human learning

Educational psychology is the branch of psychology concerned with the scientific study of human learning. The study of learning processes, from both cognitive and behavioral perspectives, allows researchers to understand individual differences in intelligence, cognitive development, affect, motivation, self-regulation, and self-concept, as well as their role in learning. The field of educational psychology relies heavily on quantitative methods, including testing and measurement, to enhance educational activities related to instructional design, classroom management, and assessment, which serve to facilitate learning processes in various educational settings across the lifespan.

Learning theory (education) Theory that describes how students receive, process, and retain knowledge during learning

Learning theory describes how students receive, process, and retain knowledge during learning. Cognitive, emotional, and environmental influences, as well as prior experience, all play a part in how understanding, or a world view, is acquired or changed and knowledge and skills retained.

Instructional scaffolding is the support given to a student by an instructor throughout the learning process. This support is specifically tailored to each student; this instructional approach allows students to experience student-centered learning, which tends to facilitate more efficient learning than teacher-centered learning. This learning process promotes a deeper level of learning than many other common teaching strategies.

Cognitivism (psychology) Theoretical framework for understanding the mind

In psychology, cognitivism is a theoretical framework for understanding the mind that gained credence in the 1950s. The movement was a response to behaviorism, which cognitivists said neglected to explain cognition. Cognitive psychology derived its name from the Latin cognoscere, referring to knowing and information, thus cognitive psychology is an information-processing psychology derived in part from earlier traditions of the investigation of thought and problem solving.

Picture superiority effect

The picture superiority effect refers to the phenomenon in which pictures and images are more likely to be remembered than are words. This effect has been demonstrated in numerous experiments using different methods. It is based on the notion that "human memory is extremely sensitive to the symbolic modality of presentation of event information". Explanations for the picture superiority effect are not concrete and are still being debated.

Testing effect

The testing effect suggests long-term memory is increased when some of the learning period is devoted to retrieving information from memory. It is different from more general practice effect, defined in the APA Dictionary of Psychology as "any change or improvement that results from practice or repetition of task items or activities."

Situated cognition is a theory that posits that knowing is inseparable from doing by arguing that all knowledge is situated in activity bound to social, cultural and physical contexts.

Constructivism (philosophy of education) Philosophical viewpoint about the nature of knowledge; theory of knowledge

Constructivism is a theory in education that recognizes learners construct new understandings and knowledge, integrating with what they already know. This includes knowledge gained prior to entering school. It is associated with various philosophical positions, particularly in epistemology as well as ontology, politics, and ethics. The origin of the theory is also linked to Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

In cognitive psychology, cognitive load refers to the used amount of working memory resources. There are three types of cognitive load: intrinsic cognitive load is the effort associated with a specific topic; extraneous cognitive load refers to the way information or tasks are presented to a learner; and germane cognitive load refers to the work put into creating a permanent store of knowledge.

Reading comprehension Ability to read single words, sentences and whole texts fluently and to understand them in context

Reading comprehension is the ability to process text, understand its meaning, and to integrate with what the reader already knows. Fundamental skills required in efficient reading comprehension are knowing meaning of words, ability to understand meaning of a word from discourse context, ability to follow organization of passage and to identify antecedents and references in it, ability to draw inferences from a passage about its contents, ability to identify the main thought of a passage, ability to answer questions answered in a passage, ability to recognize the literary devices or propositional structures used in a passage and determine its tone, to understand the situational mood conveyed for assertions, questioning, commanding, refraining etc. and finally ability to determine writer's purpose, intent and point of view, and draw inferences about the writer (discourse-semantics).

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is one of the domains of self-regulation, and is aligned most closely with educational aims. Broadly speaking, it refers to learning that is guided by metacognition, strategic action, and motivation to learn. A self-regulated learner "monitors, directs, and regulates actions toward goals of information acquisition, expanding expertise, and self-improvement”. In particular, self-regulated learners are cognizant of their academic strengths and weaknesses, and they have a repertoire of strategies they appropriately apply to tackle the day-to-day challenges of academic tasks. These learners hold incremental beliefs about intelligence and attribute their successes or failures to factors within their control.

Ann Lesley Brown (1943–1999) was an educational psychologist who developed methods for teaching children to be better learners. Her interest in the human memory brought Brown to focus on active memory strategies that would help enhance human memory and developmental differences in memory tasks. Her realization that children's learning difficulties often stem from an inability to use metacognitive strategies such as summarizing led to profound advances in educational psychology theory and teaching practices.

Discovery learning technique of inquiry-based learning and is considered a constructivist based approach to education

Discovery learning is a technique of inquiry-based learning and is considered a constructivist based approach to education. It is also referred to as problem-based learning, experiential learning and 21st century learning. It is supported by the work of learning theorists and psychologists Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, and Seymour Papert.

E-learning theory describes the cognitive science principles of effective multimedia learning using electronic educational technology.

The split-attention effect is a learning effect inherent within some poorly designed instructional materials. It is apparent when the same modality is used for various types of information within the same display. Users must split their attention between the materials, for example, an image and text, to understand the information being conveyed. The split-attention effect can occur physically through visual and auditory splits and temporally when time distances two pieces of information that should be connected.

The worked-example effect is a learning effect predicted by cognitive load theory. Specifically, it refers to the learning effect observed when worked examples are used as part of instruction, compared to other instructional techniques such as problem-solving and discovery learning. According to Sweller: "The worked example effect is the best known and most widely studied of the cognitive load effects".

The modality effect is a term used in experimental psychology, most often in the fields dealing with memory and learning, to refer to how learner performance depends on the presentation mode of studied items.

The expertise reversal effect refers to the reversal of the effectiveness of instructional techniques on learners with differing levels of prior knowledge. The primary recommendation that stems from the expertise reversal effect is that instructional design methods need to be adjusted as learners acquire more knowledge in a specific domain. Expertise is described as "the ability to perform fluently in a specific class of tasks."

Pedagogical agent

A pedagogical agent is a concept borrowed from computer science and artificial intelligence and applied to education, usually as part of an intelligent tutoring system (ITS). It is a simulated human-like interface between the learner and the content, in an educational environment. A pedagogical agent is designed to model the type of interactions between a student and another person. Mabanza and de Wet define it as "a character enacted by a computer that interacts with the user in a socially engaging manner". A pedagogical agent can be assigned different roles in the learning environment, such as tutor or co-learner, depending on the desired purpose of the agent. "A tutor agent plays the role of a teacher, while a co-learner agent plays the role of a learning companion".

Danielle S. McNamara is an educational researcher known for her theoretical and empirical work with reading comprehension and the development of game-based literacy technologies. She is Professor of Psychology and Senior Research Scientist at Arizona State University. She has previously held positions at University of Memphis, Old Dominion University, and University of Colorado, Boulder.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Park, B.; Moreno, R.; Seufert, T.; Bruken, R. (January 2011). "Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study". Computers in Human Behavior. 27 (1): 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.006.
  2. ↑ Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 112.
  3. 1 2 Sanchez, C. A.; Wiley, J. (2006). "An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity". Memory and Cognition. 34 (2): 344–355. doi: 10.3758/bf03193412 . PMID   16752598.
  4. ↑ Rey, G. (Dec 2012). "A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect". Educational Research Review. 7 (3): 216–237. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003.
  5. 1 2 Garner, R.; Gillingham, M. G.; White, C. S. (1989). "Effects of "seductive details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children". Cognition and Instruction. 6 (1): 41–57. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2. JSTOR   3233462.
  6. ↑ Thalheimer, W. "Bells, whistles, neon, and purple prose: When interesting words, sounds, and visuals hurt learning and performance – A review of the seductive-augmentation research". Work Learning. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
  7. 1 2 3 Pink, Newton (2020). "Decorative animations impair recall and are a source of extraneous cognitive load". Advances in Physiology Education. 44 (3): 376–382. doi: 10.1152/advan.00102.2019 . PMID   32628527.
  8. ↑ Goetz, E. T.; Sadoski, M. (July 1995). "Commentary: The perils of seduction: distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions?". Reading Research Quarterly. 30 (3): 500–511. doi:10.2307/747628. JSTOR   747628.
  9. ↑ Ozdemir, D.; Doolittle, P. (June 2015). "Revisiting the seductive details effect in multimedia learning: Context-dependency of seductive details". Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia. 24 (2): 101–119.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Harp, S.; Mayer, R. (1998). "How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning". Journal of Educational Psychology. 90 (3): 414–434. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.461.2910 . doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414.
  11. ↑ Jaeger, A.; Wiley, J. (Dec 2014). "Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy?". Learning & Instruction. 34: 58–73. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002.
  12. ↑ Daneman, M.; Carpenter, P. A. (1980). "Individual differences in working memory and reading". Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 19 (4): 450–466. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6.
  13. ↑ van Dijk, T. A.; Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.
  14. ↑ Mannes, S.; Kintsch, W. (1987). "Knowledge organization and text organization". Cognition and Instruction. 4 (2): 91–115. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0402_2.
  15. ↑ McNamara, D. S.; Kintsch, W.; Songer, N. B. (1996). "Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text". Cognition and Instruction. 14: 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.
  16. 1 2 3 Paivio, A (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  17. 1 2 Sadoski, M; Goetz, E. T.; Fritz, J. B. (1993). "Impact of concreteness, interest, and memory for text implications for dual coding theory and text design". Journal of Educational Psychology. 85 (2): 291–304. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.291.
  18. 1 2 Sadoski, M; Goetz, E. T.; Rodriguez, M. (2000). "Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types". Journal of Educational Psychology. 92: 85–95. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85.
  19. ↑ Sadoski, M.; Paivio, A. (2001). "Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing". Reading and Writing. 16 (3): 259–262. doi:10.1023/A:1022830720347. S2CID   141393008.
  20. ↑ Mayer, R. E.; Anderson, R. B. (1991). "Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis". Journal of Educational Psychology. 83 (4): 484–490. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.484.
  21. ↑ Park, B.; Flowerday, T.; Brunken, R. (March 2015). "Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning". Computers in Human Behavior. 44: 267–278. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.