Static and dynamic seductive illustration effects on text‐and‐graphic learning processes, perceptions, and outcomes: Evidence from eye tracking

Abstract

SummaryThis study aimed to examine how different forms (still pictures vs. animations) of seductive illustrations impact text‐and‐graphic learning processes, perceptions, and outcomes. An eye‐tracking experiment of three groups (static, dynamic, and control) was conducted with 60 college and graduate students while learning with PowerPoint slides about infant motor development milestones. Prior knowledge, learning performance, learning perception, and visual attention were assessed by achievement tests, self‐rated scales, and eye‐tracking measures. Analysis of variance and t test results showed that, under a low task‐load condition, no seductive details effect was found for learning achievement but was found for learning process and perception. Decreased attention was found in the relevant pictures in both experimental groups. With more deeply and intensively processing on the seductive animations, the dynamic group perceived more distractions than the static group. Lag sequential analysis results revealed different visual transitional patterns for the groups, providing deep understandings about the process of seductive details effects.

To Add or Not to Add Game Elements? Exploring the Effects of Different Cognitive Task Designs Using Eye Tracking

“…This might indicate that participants' attention was distracted away from task relevant features more often in the game condition. This is not particularly surprising as more task irrelevant features were present in this condition and is in line with previous studies investigating seductive details [93], [94]. Importantly, however, this did not affect performance indicating users' ability to pay attention to both relevant and rather irrelevant task elements.…”

“…Although there were no performance differences between game and no-game condition, we observed differential eye movement patterns. Overall, participants made more fixations in the game condition than in the no-game condition, which is in line with other studies investigating user interface attractiveness [92] or seductive details [93], [94]. However, task relevant AOIs (AOI1, AOI2, AOI3 reflecting the number line, and AOI5 representing the to-be-solved fraction) were fixated less often in the game condition as compared to the non-game condition.…”

Expository multimedia comprehension in E‐learning: Presentation format, verbal ability and working memory capacity

“…Eitel et al (2019) found negative effects of seductive details on learning outcomes in a condition in which students were not informed about the irrelevance of seductive details, compared to students warned about it, arguing that the irrelevant information distract attention from relevant information. Studies with eye‐tracking (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018; Korbach et al, 2017; Park et al, 2015; Tsai et al, 2019) have supported the attentional explanation. For example, Tsai et al (2019) compared the effects of static seductive illustrations (e.g., pictures rated high in emotional interest but irrelevant for learning) and dynamic seductive illustrations (e.g., the same pictures, animated as GIFs) on eye fixation patterns when studying the material, and on learning performance.…”

“…Studies with eye‐tracking (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018; Korbach et al, 2017; Park et al, 2015; Tsai et al, 2019) have supported the attentional explanation. For example, Tsai et al (2019) compared the effects of static seductive illustrations (e.g., pictures rated high in emotional interest but irrelevant for learning) and dynamic seductive illustrations (e.g., the same pictures, animated as GIFs) on eye fixation patterns when studying the material, and on learning performance. They found that participants watching the presentation with the dynamic illustrations paid more attention to and processed more deeply and more persistently these seductive items than did those in the static group.…”

“…The same text content was implemented in three formats: digital text (written expository texts, navigated in seven screens explaining a particular subtopic), presentation video (audio explanation, with written keywords), and presentation video with decorative images (audio explanation, written keywords and dynamic decorative, irrelevant images). The main difference in the third condition is that both the number of images, their position and their rapid change (dynamic images) have been shown induce attention capture (Tsai et al, 2019). In another face‐to‐face session, participants completed verbal ability and working memory tests.…”