Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Meta-analysis of the Segmenting Effect

  • META-ANALYSIS
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The segmenting effect states that people learn better when multimedia instructions are presented in (meaningful and coherent) learner-paced segments, rather than as continuous units. This meta-analysis contains 56 investigations including 88 pairwise comparisons and reveals a significant segmenting effect with small to medium effects for retention and transfer performance. Segmentation also reduces the overall cognitive load and increases learning time. These four effects are confirmed for a system-paced segmentation. The meta-analysis tests different explanations for the segmenting effect that concern facilitating chunking and structuring due to segmenting the multimedia instruction by the instructional designer, providing more time for processing the instruction and allowing the learners to adapt the presentation pace to their individual needs. Moderation analyses indicate that learners with high prior knowledge benefitted more from segmenting instructional material than learners with no or low prior knowledge in terms of retention performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., & Van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational goals, handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Zhou, J., Wang, Y., Yu, K., Arshad, S. Z., Khawaji, A., & Conway, D. (2016). Robust multimodal cognitive load measurement. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, A. E., & Wei, W. (2017). Using eye movements to study reading processes: methodological considerations. In C. A. Was, F. J. Sansoit, & B. J. Morris (Eds.), Eye tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 27–47). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147–1160.

  • Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: a meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, F. E. (1969). Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, 11, 1–21.

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoaglin, D. C., Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. W. (Eds.). (1983). Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley.

  • IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (version 25.0). Armonk: IBM Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: a cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 402–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special issue. Instructional Science, 38(3), 209–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keehner, M., Hegarty, M., Cohen, C., Khooshabeh, P., & Montello, D. R. (2008). Spatial reasoning with external visualizations: what matters is what you see, not whether you interact. Cognitive Science, 32(7), 1099–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khooshabeh, P., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Inferring cross-sections: when internal visualizations are more important than properties of external visualizations. Human Computer Interaction, 25(2), 119–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25(2), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Applied social research methods series; vol. 49. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 316–344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 638–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mura, K., Petersen, N., Huff, M., & Ghose, T. (2013). IBES: a tool for creating instructions based on event segmentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(994). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00994

  • Oksa, A., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. (2010). Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text. Instructional Science, 38(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustenbach, S. J. (2003). Metaanalyse: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharinger, C., Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Pupil dilation and EEG alpha frequency band power reveal load on executive functions for link-selection processes during text reading. PLoS One, 10(6), e0130608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018a). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S., Wirzberger, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018b). The moderating role of arousal on the seductive detail effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3473.

  • Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. (2008). A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animations: research implications for design (pp. 304–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skuballa, I. T., Schwonke, R., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning from narrated animations with different support procedures: working memory capacity matters. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 840–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanjers, I. A. E., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students' learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, J. A., Becker, B. J., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75–98). West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2013). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-SMD1.php. Accessed 07/06/2018

  • Wilson, D. B. (2010). Meta-analysis macros for SAS, SPSS, and Stata. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html

  • Wirzberger, M., Herms, R., Esmaeili Bijarsari, S., Eibl, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Schema-related cognitive load influences performance, speech, and physiology in a dual-task setting: a continuous multi-measure approach. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 46. https://rdcu.be/bcXiM.

  • Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S., & Reynolds, J. R. (2007). Event perception: a mind–brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology of Learning with Digital Media, Institute for Media Research, Faculty of Humanities, Chemnitz University of Technology, Straße der Nationen 12, 09111, Chemnitz, Germany

    Günter Daniel Rey, Maik Beege, Steve Nebel & Sascha Schneider

  2. Max Planck Research Group “Rationality Enhancement”, Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Max-Planck-Ring 4, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Maria Wirzberger

  3. Department of Philosophy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Tobias H. Schmitt

Authors
  1. Günter Daniel Rey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maik Beege
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steve Nebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Wirzberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tobias H. Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sascha Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Günter Daniel Rey.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 21 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 21 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 21 kb)

ESM 4

(DOCX 21 kb)

ESM 5

(DOCX 19.5 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rey, G.D., Beege, M., Nebel, S. et al. A Meta-analysis of the Segmenting Effect. Educ Psychol Rev 31, 389–419 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9456-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9456-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation