| 
User login
Presentation modality and comprehension of a factually dense educational text: The role of cognitive load and metacognitive calibration
2 National Research University of Electronic Technology
3 Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education «Moscow State Linguistic University»
4 Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (National Research University)
5 Moscow State University of Psychology & Education
Introduction. The article addresses the scientific problem of whether a more vivid and engaging presentation modality necessarily supports more accurate comprehension of the same educational content. This problem is especially important for factually dense educational texts that require learners to retain proper names, chronological order, cultural references and causal relations. The aim of the study is to determine how written text, audio and video presentation of one and the same educational stimulus are associated with objective comprehension, productive recall, subjective cognitive load, evaluative perception and metacognitive calibration.
Materials and Methods. The study was conducted as an original between-subjects psycholinguistic experiment. A total of 456 participants worked with the stimulus “The History of Ice Cream” in one of three presentation conditions: written text (n = 146), audio (n = 167) or video (n = 143). The methodological framework combined the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, cognitive load theory, discourse-comprehension models and research on metacognitive calibration. The instruments included 14 objective comprehension items, an open summary scored with a 0–10 rubric, a semantic differential, and subjective ratings of material difficulty, task difficulty, confidence, self-rated comprehension, memory accessibility and interest. Subjective perception was measured with a 12-scale semantic differential and six additional ratings: difficulty of the material, difficulty of the tasks, confidence, self-rated comprehension, memory accessibility and interest. The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis tests, Mann–Whitney tests with Holm correction, effect sizes, Spearman correlations, regression and exploratory mediation analysis.
Results. Written text produced the highest objective comprehension score, followed by video and audio. The written-text advantage was most pronounced for exact factual attribution, proper names and chronological reconstruction. Video was evaluated as more dynamic, interesting and visually rich, but this affective advantage did not result in the highest factual comprehension. Cognitive load was the strongest negative predictor of objective performance, whereas imagery/detail contributed positively and engagement did not show an independent direct effect after cognitive load was taken into account.
Conclusions. The main result of the study is an experimental confirmation of the dissociation between subjective engagement and precise comprehension in multimodal educational input. For factually dense material, the effectiveness of a modality should be evaluated not by its attractiveness alone, but by the balance between external cognitive support, experienced cognitive load, productive recall and metacognitive calibration.
presentation modality; educational text comprehension; cognitive load; written text; audio learning; educational video; productive recall; metacognitive calibration; semantic differential.
- Mayer R. E., Moreno R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 2003, vol. 38 (1), pp. 43-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
- Mayer R. E. The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 2024, vol. 36, pp. 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
- Mayer R. E. Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2017, vol. 33 (5), pp. 403-423. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197
- Sweller J., van Merriënboer J. J. G., Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 2019, vol. 31 (2), pp. 261-292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
- Baddeley A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2003, vol. 4 (10), pp. 829-839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
- Noetel M., Griffith S., Delaney O., Sanders T., Parker P., del Pozo Cruz B., Lonsdale C. Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 2021, vol. 91 (2), pp. 204-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713
- Fyfield M., Henderson M., Phillips M. Improving instructional video design: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2022, vol. 38 (3), pp. 155-183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7296
- Skulmowski A., Xu K. M. Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 2022, vol. 34 (1), pp. 171-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
- Liu D. The effects of segmentation on cognitive load, vocabulary learning and retention, and reading comprehension in a multimedia learning environment. BMC Psychology, 2024, vol. 12, pp. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01489-5
10. Clinton-Lisell V. Listening ears or reading eyes: A meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons. Review of Educational Research, 2022, vol. 92 (4), pp. 543-582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211060871
11. Clinton V. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 2019, vol. 42 (2), pp. 288-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
12. Delgado P., Vargas C., Ackerman R., Salmeron L. Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 2018, vol. 25, pp. 23-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
13. Evenko E. V., Glivenkova O. A., Morozova O. N. The blended learning model from the perspective of cognitive load theory. Vestnik Majkopskogo Gosudarstvennogo Tehnologiceskogo Universiteta, 2022, vol. 14 (3), pp. 58-65. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/xeagdl DOI: https://doi.org/10.47370/2078-1024-2022-14-3-58-65
14. Pushkarev Y. V., Pushkareva E. A. Reflexive principles of personal development in the changing information content. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9 (2), pp. 52-66. (In Russian) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.04
15. Leppink J., Paas F., van der Vleuten C. P. M., van Gog T., van Merriënboer J. J. G. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 2013, vol. 45 (4), pp. 1058-1072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
16. Paas F. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992, vol. 84 (4), pp. 429-434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
17. Krieglstein F., Beege M., Rey G. D., Ginns P., Krell M., Schneider S. A systematic meta-analysis of the reliability and validity of subjective cognitive load questionnaires in experimental multimedia learning research. Educational Psychology Review, 2022, vol. 34 (4), pp. 2485-2541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09683-4
18. Zwaan R. A., Radvansky G. A. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1998, vol. 123 (2), pp. 162-185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162
19. Graesser A. C., Singer M., Trabasso T. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 1994, vol. 101 (3), pp. 371-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
20. Koriat A., Bjork R. A. Illusions of competence in monitoring one’s knowledge during study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2005, vol. 31 (2), pp. 187-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.187
21. Bjork R. A., Dunlosky J., Kornell N. Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 2013, vol. 64, pp. 417-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
22. Dunlosky J., Rawson K. A., Marsh E. J., Nathan M. J., Willingham D. T. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013, vol. 14 (1), pp. 4-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
23. Koriat A., Bjork R. A. Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test. Memory & Cognition, 2006, vol. 34 (5), pp. 959-972. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193244
24. Adesope O. O., Nesbit J. C. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2012, vol. 104 (1), pp. 250-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026147
25. Brame C. J. Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 2016, vol. 15 (4), pp. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
26. Fiorella L., Mayer R. E. Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 2016, vol. 28 (4), pp. 717-741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
27. Höffler T. N., Leutner D. Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 2007, vol. 17 (6), pp. 722-738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013
