Conjoint Processing of Time-Compressed Narration in Multimedia Instruction: The Effects on Recall, but Not Recognition

Abstract

Although previous research shows verbal recall of time-compressed narration is significantly enhanced when it is accompanied by a representational adjunct picture , the reason for this increased performance remains unclear. One explanation, explored in the current study, is based on the Conjoint Retention Hypothesis (CRH), which posits that mentally stored visual information can serve as a secondary retrieval cue that boosts recall of related verbal material. Four groups of participants (N = 153) listened to a compressed audio narration at different rates of speed. The narration was accompanied by visuals, 50% of which were pictoriallyrelated and 50% of which were pictorially-unrelated. Results show the type of information significantly influenced the recall, but not the recognition performance. While CRH provides the most feasible explanation for the increased recall, the generative-recognize view best explains the differences between recognition and recall performance.

Examining the Accelerated Playback Hypothesis of Time-Compression in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Meta-Analysis Study

“…At speeds above 2.0x it was difficult for learners to understand and make sense of the content, which severely detracted from learning whether learners were presented with just narration or multimedia content in which simultaneous presentation of both narration and visuals were in the instructional message. Similar results have been repeated in multiple research studies on time-compression (Pastore, 2012; Ritzhaupt & Barron 2008; Ritzhaupt et al., 2011).…”

Investigating the Effects of Modality and Multimedia on the Learning Performance of College Students With Dyslexia

“…The current study utilized a multimedia presentation entitled Discovering Australia , which has been used and validated in previous studies of multimedia learning with typically developing individuals (Ritzhaupt et al, 2008, 2011, 2015). This study was a 2 multimedia (picture present vs. picture absent) × 2 modality (spoken text vs. on-screen text) factorial design with both multimedia and modality serving as between-subject conditions.…”

“…Test scores were calculated by assigning one point for the correct response and zero points for an incorrect response. The cued-recall items have been used and validated in previous studies (Ritzhaupt et al, 2008, 2011). Internal consistency reliability was calculated using Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (K-R 20) = .739 for the cued-recall items.…”

On the utility of pictorial feedback in computer-based learning environments

“…Unlike Experiment 1, the current study included a multiple-choice test as a dependent measure; conceivably learners might perform better on a recognition task as oppose to a recall task given the greater depth of processing required by the latter. Nevertheless, the availability of the adjunct picture might prove especially useful in this situation (Ritzhaupt, Barron, & Kealy, 2011).…”

“…The first two paragraphs of the story served as an introduction while the remaining ones contained the tested information, which was always located in the second sentence of a paragraph. The experimental text has been used in several studies of multimedia learning (Ritzhaupt and Barron, 2008;Ritzhaupt et al, 2011). An example of a typical paragraph follows:…”