Does Personalisation Promote Learners’ Attention? An Eye-Tracking Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
The personalisation principle is a design recommendation and states that multimedia presentations using personalised language promote learning better than those using formal language (e.g., using ‘your’ instead of ‘the’). It is often assumed that this design recommendation affects motivation and therefore allocation of attention. To gain further insight into the processes underlying personalisation effects we conducted an eye tracking experiment with 37 German university students who were presented with either personalised or formal learning materials. We examined group differences in attention allocation parameters (fixation count, fixation duration, transition count). The eye-tracking data was combined with self-reports concerning motivation, cognitive load, and learning outcomes. Eye-tracking data revealed a significantly higher reading depth for the main picture areas of interest in the personalised condition. Additionally, participants found the personalised version more appealing and inviting. For learning outcomes, there was a significant positive effect of personalisation for retention, not for transfer. We discuss additional explanatory variables as well as methodological and practical implications for instructional design.
Article Details
FLR adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Common License (BY-NC-ND). That is, Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors with, however, first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
References
Ginns, P., & Fraser, J. (2010). Personalisation enhances learning anatomy terms. Medical Teacher, 32(9), 776–778.
Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Designing instructional text in a conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 445–472.
Holmqvist, K. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215–1226.
Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 297–325.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18(2), 178–191.
Kartal, G. (2010). Does language matter in multimedia learning? Personalisation principle revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 615.
Koch, B., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2008). One more expertise reversal effect in an instructional design to foster coherence formation. In J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert, & L. Kester (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence (pp. 207–215). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Kurt, A. A. (2011). Personalisation principle in multimedia learning: Conversational versus formal style in written word. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3), 185–192.
Mayer, R. E. Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389-395.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalisation, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 724.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 165–173. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/journals
Nakayama, M., Takahashi, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2002). The act of task difficulty and eye-movement frequency for the 'oculo-motor indices'. In Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications (pp. 37–42). New Orleans, Louisiana: ACM.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading: New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85(3), 618.
Reichelt, M., Kämmerer, F., Niegemann, H. M., & Zander, S. (2014). Talk to me personally: Personalisation of language style in computer-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 199–210.
Rey, G. D., & Steib, N. (2013). The personalisation effect in multimedia learning: The influence of dialect. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 2022–2028.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen [QCM: A questionnaire to assess current motivation in learning situations]. Diagnostica, 47(2), 57–66.
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 677–688.
Schworm, S., & Stiller, K. D. (2012). Does personalisation matter? The role of social cues in instructional explanations. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 6(2), 105–111.