Anna Kienitz, Marie-Christin Krebs, Alexander Eitel
{"title":"Seductive details hamper learning even when they do not disrupt.","authors":"Anna Kienitz, Marie-Christin Krebs, Alexander Eitel","doi":"10.1007/s11251-023-09632-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research often revealed detrimental effects of seductive details on learning with multimedia instruction, but there are mixed findings regarding how to best explain these detrimental effects. We investigated whether the detrimental effects of seductive details are mainly mediated by the cognitive processes of diversion (deeper processing of seductive details rather than pertinent content) or disruption (unsuccessful attempts to integrate seductive details with pertinent content) by assessing the effects of instructional prompts. In an online learning experiment, participants (<i>N</i> = 247) learned either without seductive details (control condition) or with seductive details in one of three conditions: Participants received either a prompt informing them about the irrelevance of seductive details (irrelevance-prompt), a prompt to process seductive details and pertinent content separately (separation-prompt), or no prompt within their task instruction. We assessed recall and transfer of knowledge as dependent variables. Supporting the diversion hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition regarded seductive details as more relevant and consequently spent more time processing them compared to participants in the irrelevance-prompt condition, which negatively influenced their recall performance. Against the disruption hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition reported lower integration avoidance between seductive details and pertinent content compared to participants in the separation-prompt condition, but this led to better rather than worse transfer performance. Our results thus suggest diversion, and not disruption, to be the main process driving the seductive details effect. Reducing the details' diverting potential seems a good way to deal with seductive details in instruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":47990,"journal":{"name":"Instructional Science","volume":" ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10176302/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Instructional Science","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-023-09632-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Previous research often revealed detrimental effects of seductive details on learning with multimedia instruction, but there are mixed findings regarding how to best explain these detrimental effects. We investigated whether the detrimental effects of seductive details are mainly mediated by the cognitive processes of diversion (deeper processing of seductive details rather than pertinent content) or disruption (unsuccessful attempts to integrate seductive details with pertinent content) by assessing the effects of instructional prompts. In an online learning experiment, participants (N = 247) learned either without seductive details (control condition) or with seductive details in one of three conditions: Participants received either a prompt informing them about the irrelevance of seductive details (irrelevance-prompt), a prompt to process seductive details and pertinent content separately (separation-prompt), or no prompt within their task instruction. We assessed recall and transfer of knowledge as dependent variables. Supporting the diversion hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition regarded seductive details as more relevant and consequently spent more time processing them compared to participants in the irrelevance-prompt condition, which negatively influenced their recall performance. Against the disruption hypothesis, participants in the no-prompt condition reported lower integration avoidance between seductive details and pertinent content compared to participants in the separation-prompt condition, but this led to better rather than worse transfer performance. Our results thus suggest diversion, and not disruption, to be the main process driving the seductive details effect. Reducing the details' diverting potential seems a good way to deal with seductive details in instruction.
期刊介绍：
Instructional Science, An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of learning and of environments in which learning occurs. The journal’s conception of learning, as well as of instruction, is broad, recognizing that there are many ways to stimulate and support learning. The journal encourages submission of research papers, covering a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and learning, by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, in technologically rich or lean environments, and in informal and formal learning contexts. Emphasizing reports of original empirical research, the journal provides space for full and detailed reporting of major studies. Regardless of the topic, papers published in the journal all make an explicit contribution to the science of learning and instruction by drawing out the implications for the design and implementation of learning environments. We particularly encourage the submission of papers that highlight the interaction between learning processes and learning environments, focus on meaningful learning, and recognize the role of context. Papers are characterized by methodological variety that ranges, for example, from experimental studies in laboratory settings, to qualitative studies, to design-based research in authentic learning settings. The Editors will occasionally invite experts to write a review article on an important topic in the field. When review articles are considered for publication, they must deal with central issues in the domain of learning and learning environments. The journal accepts replication studies. Such a study should replicate an important and seminal finding in the field, from a study which was originally conducted by a different research group. Most years, Instructional Science publishes a guest-edited thematic special issue on a topic central to the journal''s scope. Proposals for special issues can be sent to the Editor-in-Chief. Proposals will be discussed in Spring and Fall of each year, and the proposers will be notified afterwards. To be considered for the Spring and Fall discussion, proposals should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief by March 1 and October 1, respectively. Please note that articles that are submitted for a special issue will follow the same review process as regular articles.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
