You are here:

Change Blindness in Multimedia Learning Environment

, Istanbul University, Turkey

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 28, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

This study investigates the change blindness that may occur in multimedia learning environments. For this purpose, a multimedia animation which had some changes was designed. The eye movements were examined during the process of detecting the changes in multimedia via eye tracking technics. The research model was defined as a controlled experiment method. Fifteen ungraduated students participated in the experiment. Attention levels of participants were determined by d2 Attention Test. Change detection numbers of participants were analyzed according to their attention level and their gender. The appearance of a major object on the scene was the most detected change and the change on the detail object was detected less. According to findings about the attention level and change detection, the participants at high attention level were more successful at detecting change in multimedia. Females were more successful in detecting change than males.

Citation

Mutlu-Bayraktar, D. (2019). Change Blindness in Multimedia Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 28(1), 75-97. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 15, 2024 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aginsky, V. & Tarr, M.J. (2000). How are different properties of a scene encoded in visual memory? Visual Cognition, 7, 147–162.
  2. Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers& Education, 64, 52–62.
  3. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
  4. Akın, B. & Kocoglu, D. (2017). Randomized Controlled Trials. Hacettepe University Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 73-92.
  5. Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2005). The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia. Ed. RE Mayer, The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning,
  6. Ball, F., Bernasconi, F., & Busch, N.A. (2015). Semantic relations between visual objects can be unconsciously processed but not reported under change blindness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 2253–2268.
  7. Bergman, K.V. (2015). Individual differences in change blindness, PhD Thesis, The Faculty of Behavioural and Cultural Studies, Heidelberg University.
  8. Brickenkamp, R. (1962). Test d2, Aufmerksamkeits-belastungs test. Goettigen: Hogrefe.
  9. Brickenkamp, R., Zillmer, E. (1998). D2 test of attention, Goettigen: Hogrefe.
  10. Cater, K., Chalmers, A., & Ledda, P. (2002). Selective quality rendering by exploiting human inattentional blindness: looking but not seeing, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium On Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 17-24,
  11. Chuang, Y.R. (1999). Teaching in a multimedia computer environment: a study of the effects of learning style, gender, and math achievement. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 94
  12. Caglar, E. & Koruc, Z. (2006). D2 dikkat testinin sporcularda güvenirligći ve geçerlig ̆i, Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 17 (2), 58-80.
  13. Ertan, O. (2015). Effect of automatic attention on change detection performance in the context of facial attractiveness. Master Thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
  14. Fletcher-Watson, S., Collis, J.M., Findlay, J.M., & Leekam, S.R. (2009). The development of change blindness: Children’s attentional priorities whilst viewing naturalistic scenes. Developmental Science, 12(3), 438–445.
  15. Heller, M.A., Jones, M.L., Walk, A.M., Schnarr, R., Hasara, A., & Litwiller, B. (2009). Sex differences in the haptic change task. The Journal of General Psychology: Experimental, Psychological, and Comparative Psychology, 137(1), 49-62.
  16. Henderson, J.M. (1997). Transsaccadic memory and integration during realworld object perception. Psychological Science, 8(1), 51–55.
  17. Henderson J.M. (2003). Human gaze control in real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 498–504.
  18. Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J.M. (2000). Semantic informativeness mediates the detection of changes in natural scenes. Visual Cognition, 7(13), 213–235.
  19. Hui-Yu, Y. (2016). The effects of attention cueing on visualizers’ multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 19(1), 249-262.
  20. James, T., & Kimura, D. (1997). Sex differences in remembering the locations of objects in an array: Location-shifts versus location-exchanges. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(3), 155–163.
  21. Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47-53.
  22. Jonassen, D.H., & Reeves, T.C. (1996). Learning with technology: using computers as cognitive tools. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 693–719). New York, NY:
  23. Lin, L., Atkinson, R.K., Savenye, W.C., & Nelson, B.C. (2016). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments.
  24. Liu, T., Lin, Y., Tsai, M. & Paas, F. (2012) Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environment. Computers& Education, 58(1), 172-180.
  25. Liu, H.C., Lai, M.L. & Chuang, H.H. (2011). Using eye-tracking technology to investigate the redundant effect of multimedia web pages on viewers’ cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2410–2417.
  26. Mautone, P.D., & Mayer, R.E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377.
  27. Mayer, R.E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 43-72.
  28. Mayer R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Moos, D.C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 265 – 276.
  30. Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: historical development and relation to other theories. In J.L. Plass, R. Moreno& R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9-28). New York, NY: Cambridge University
  31. Noë, A., Pessoa, L., & Thompson, E. (2000). Beyond the grand illusion: what change blindness really teaches us about vision. Visual Cognition, 7(1-3), 93-106.
  32. Owens, J.W., Chaparro, B.S., & Palmer, E.M. (2011). Text advertising blindness: the new banner blindness? Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), 172 – 197.
  33. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110-117.
  34. Passig, D., & Levin, H. (1999). Gender interest differences with multimedia learning interfaces. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(2), 173-183.
  35. Plass, J.L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E.O., Homer, B.D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. Doi:10.1016/J.learninstruc.2013.02.006
  36. Plass, J.L., Moreno, R. & Brünken, R. (Eds.) (2010). Cognitive load theory, New York: Cambridge.
  37. Rensink, R.A. (2009). Attention: Change blindness and inattentional blindness. In W. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Consciousness, Vol 1 (pp. 47-59). (New
  38. Riding, R., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender and learning from multi-media materials in 11 year-old children. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 43-56.
  39. Rusanganwa, J. (2013). Multimedia as a means to enhance teaching technical vocabulary to physics undergraduates in Rwanda. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1), 36-44.
  40. Sareen, P., Ehinger, K.A., & Wolfe, J.M. (2015). Through the looking glass: Objects in mirrors are less real. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 22(4), 980-986.
  41. Saiki, J., & Holcombe, A.O. (2012). Blindness to a simultaneous change of all elements in a scene, unless there is a change in summary statistics. Journal of Vision, 12(3), 2.
  42. Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 72–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  43. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1590–1601.
  44. Silverman, I., & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: evolutionary theory and data. In Portions of this paper were presented at the meetings of the International Society for Human Ethology in Binghamton, NY,
  45. Simons, D.J., & Ambinder, M.S. (2005). Change blindness theory and consequences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 44-48.
  46. Simons, D.J. & Rensink, R. (2005) Change blindness: Past, present and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1),16–20.
  47. Simons, D.J., & Levin, D.T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 5(4), 644-649.
  48. Smith T.J., & Henderson J.M. (2008). Edit blindness: The relationship between attention and global change blindness in dynamic scenes. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 2(2), 1–17.
  49. Soemer, A. (2016). The multicomponent working memory model, attention, and long-term memory in multimedia learning: A comment on schweppe and rummer. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 197-200.
  50. Sorden, S.D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science Journal, 8.
  51. Spreen O., & Strauss E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York, Oxford University Press. Mutlu-Bayraktar cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.
  52. Širanović, Z. (2007). Guidelines for designing multimedia learning materials. Varaždin: University of Zagreb.
  53. Tatler, B.W., Kirtley, C., Macdonald, R.G., Mitchell, K.M.A., & Savage, S.W. (2014). The active eye: perspectives on eye movement research. In M. Horsley, M. Eliot, B. Knight& R. Reilly (Eds.), Current trends in eye tracking research (pp. 3-16). New York: Springer.
  54. Tchoubar, T. (2014). Effective use of multimedia explanations in open e-learning environment fosters student success. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), 63.
  55. Toker, M.Z. (1988). Standardization of the visual attention test d2 on a Turkish sample. Master Thesis. Bogazici University, Istanbul.
  56. Toker, M.Z. (1990). D2 dikkat testinin uyarlama çalısşması. V. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi. İzmir: Psikoloji-Seminer Dergisi Özel Sayısı, 8, 627-635.
  57. Wang, F., Duan, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Attention guidance in multimedia learning: The role of cueing. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(8), 14301440.
  58. White, C.B., & Caird, J.K. (2010). The blind date: The effects of change blindness, passenger conversation and gender on looked-but-failed-to-see (LBFTS) errors. Accident Analysis& Prevention, 42(6), 1822-1830.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections