Article Review #1 - Tiene

Chris Wills

Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory mode and "information load": examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing. International Journal of Instructional Media , 27 (2), 183-198.

What was/were the research question(s) in the article?

Tiene introduces a number of issues he considers critical to “the development of multimedia materials for instructional purposes” (p. 1).  These issues focus on the impact of either the sensory mode used or the timing of information presentation on subjects’ learning.  Questions cited included:

·         Does providing pictures of items which you want students to learn help them memorize those items?

·         Does the sensory mode on which information is presented affect test results?

·         Is using two different sensory modes more instructionally effective than the use of a single sensory mode?

·         When two different pieces of information are presented, is it instructionally advantageous to present them simultaneously or sequentially?

The primary research question, though, deals with the interaction between the timing of information presentation and the sensory mode utilized.  Tiene states his focus as follows:  “When learners attempt to process two pieces of information in two different sensory modes, can they more effectively do so when these materials are presented simultaneously?  Or, because the ‘information load’ may be too great, is it better for them to process the materials sequentially?”

Was the literature review relevant to the research question(s)?

The literature review was relevant to the research question.  Tiene cited numerous studies comparing visual versus auditory processing of linguistic information and on different types of tasks; while studies generally confirmed the superiority of reading text as opposed to listening to text passages, other studies examining the effect of processing method on specific exercises has not been definitive.  Tiene also covers the exploration of the effect of timing of information presentation, drawing primarily from Mayer’s recent work.

Tiene devotes the majority of the literature review to studies involving dual coding theory, which makes sense given his primary research question.  Since the study focuses on the effectiveness of learners’ processing of iconic and linguistic information under varied presentation sequences, this literature seems most relevant to the study at hand.

What was the methodology used and was it sound?

The sample for this study consisted of 236 undergraduate education majors at a Midwestern university, from 14 different sections of an introductory course in instructional technology.   The subjects were similar in age, educational background and choice of college major.  Prior knowledge about the topic chosen was not a factor in this study given that the information involved was fictitious.

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of six treatment groups: reading the passage entitled “The Island of Ako” with accompanying map, reading the passage with map afterward, reading the passage with no map, hearing the passage with accompanying map, hearing the passage with map afterward, and hearing the passage with no map.   Treatment groups were physically segregated from one another into two rooms based on whether they were reading or listening to the passage, but differences in the timing of the map presentation (simultaneous, sequential, or none) occurred within each of the rooms.  After treatment, subjects were immediately given the Ako Island Test to complete.

Overall, the approach appears to be sound.  I would question whether students within each of the two rooms were aware that there were different treatment subgroups within the room; if I knew that I was getting a map to review after reading/listening to the passage, would I attempt to view the map of someone who had it presented simultaneously?  Might it have been better to assure the validity of the results to have had students broken out into six rooms, one for each of the treatments?

What were the results?

For the research questions of whether providing specific visual icons of items which you want students to learn helps them memorize those items and whether the group which visually processed the passage by reading it remembered it better than the group that listened to the passage, Tiene completed a 2x3 ANOVA using the independent variables of sensory mode and map presentation.  The results of that ANOVA are depicted below.

Tiene found that the differences mean scores between groups who were presented the map differently were significant, with α = 0.004.  The nearly identical scores of the two groups who saw the map at different times were significantly higher than the group that did not see the map, which corroborates the studies cited in the literature review.

For the research questions of whether using two separate sensory modes was superior to one, whether subjects who listened to the passage and saw the map scored better on the test than the subjects who used only their eyes to read the passage and look at the map, whether the timing with which the map was given to subjects affected test scores, and whether timing interacted with sensory mode to affect learning, Tiene dropped the control group that had not seen the map.  Doing so thus resulted in a 2x2 ANOVA using the independent variables of sensory mode and map presentation, the results of which are depicted below.

Tiene’s research demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the mean scores based on whether subjects used one or two sensory modes to process the passage and map, and he states that “there was no apparent advantage to processing with the two senses of sight and hearing, over processing with sight alone.”  Similarly, the almost identical scores between subjects who had the map available simultaneously with the passage and those who had it after the passage shows that the timing of map presentation appears to have little effect on subjects’ learning.

The primary focus of this study – if timing interacted with sensory mode to affect learning – is addressed through the ANOVA, which shows that there is a statistically significant interaction between sensory mode and timing of map presentation for the group that had the map presented simultaneously.  With α = 0.03, this result indicates that dual channel processing was superior to single channel processing when the passage and map were presented simultaneously.    

Were the conclusions consistent with the methodology and results?

The conclusions appear to be consistent with the methodology and results, and as presented in the study logically build upon one another to support the primary research question: having a map is statistically superior to not having a map, single channel processing versus dual channel processing is immaterial, timing of map presentation and passage delivery mode combine to create a significant effect when delivery mode is considered.  Results are also consistent with prior research.

What interested you most about the article? What questions did it raise?

I liked this article because it reinforces the theory of the instructional superiority of providing both verbal and visual materials in a lesson.  My experience to date has only been with reading a few of Mayer and Paivio’s works rather than seeing the theory in practice, and knowing that a KSU professor has corroborated their findings brings it a little bit closer to me.

I’d like to know if Dr. Tiene thought there was any possibility of “cross-contamination” between map presentation subgroups?  If subjects were allowed to leave after completing the Ako Island Test, were there some who lingered because they were among the first ones to complete the test but didn’t want to leave because they saw others remaining?