Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations-a meta-analytic review

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 245-269

  Höffler, Tim N ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

Author keywords

Animation; Meta analysis; Spatial ability; Static pictures; Visualization

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956441410     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-010-9126-7     Document Type: Review

References (102)

1. Ainsworth, S., & VanLabeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
2. Amthauer, R., Burkhard, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (1999). Intelligenz Struktur Test IST 2000 [Intelligence Structure Test 2000]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
3. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695-700.
4. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Interdisciplinary perspectives inspiring a new generation of cognitive load research. Educational Psychology Research, 21, 1-9.
5. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29-58.
6. Barrat, E. S. (1953). An analysis of verbal reports of solving spatial problems as an aid in defining spatial factors. Journal of Psychology, 36, 17-25.
7. Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (2002). Differential aptitude test (5th ed.). Paris, France: ECPA.
8. Bétrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users' performance: A review. Travail-Humain, 63, 311-329.
9. Blake, T. (1977). Motion in instructional media: Some subject-display mode interactions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 975-985.
10. Boucheix, J.-M., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19, 112-127.
11. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5-26.
12. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Diaz, D. D., & Sims, V. K. (2003). Augmenting virtual environments: The influence of spatial ability on learning from integrated displays. High Ability Studies, 14, 191-212.
16. D'Oliveira, T. C. (2004). Dynamic spatial ability: An exploratory analysis and a confirmatory study. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 19-38.
17. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
18. Eliot, J., & Hauptman, A. (1981). Different dimensions of spatial ability. Studies in Science Education, 8, 45-66.
19. Eliot, J., & Smith, I. M. (1983). An international directory of spatial tests. Windsor, England: NFER/Nelson.
20. Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. (1996). Using random rather than fixed effect models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275-306.
21. French, J. W. (1951). The description of aptitude and achievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometric Monographs, 5.
22. Garg, A. X., Norman, G., & Sperotable, L. (2001). How medical students learn spatial anatomy. The Lancet, 357, 363-364.
23. Gibson, J. J. (1947). Army air forces aviation psychology program, report no. 7: Motion picture testing and research. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
24. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313-331.
25. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26. Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1948). The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 24-34.
27. Hannafin, R. D., Truxaw, M. P., Vermillion, J. R., & Liu, Y. J. (2008). Effects of spatial ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 101, 148-156.
28. Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 139-155.
29. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.
30. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14, 343-351.
31. Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447-465). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32. Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Spatial abilities, working memory and mechanical reasoning. In J. Gero & B. Tversky (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design (pp. 221-241). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
33. Hegarty, M., & Kriz, S. (2008). Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In R. Lowe & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Learning with animation: Research implications for design (pp. 3-29). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
34. Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22, 411-430.
35. Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 19-24.
36. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175-191.
37. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121-169). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
39. Heller, K. A., & Perleth, C. (2000). Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4. bis 12. Klassen, Revision (KFT 4-12+R) [Cognitive Capability Test for grades 4 to 12; revision]. Göttingen: Beltz Testgesellschaft.
40. Höffler, T. N., Sumfleth, E., & Leutner, D. (2006). The role of spatial ability when learning from an instructional animation or a series of static pictures. In J. Plass (Ed.), Proceedings of the NYU Symposium on Technology and Learning, April 2006. New York: New York University.
41. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722-738.
42. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007b). Learning from an instructional animation vs. a series of static pictures: The role of spatial ability. In American Educational Research Association (Ed.), The World of Educational Quality. 2007 Annual Meeting. April 9-13. Chicago (p. 137). Washington, DC: AERA.
43. Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., & Nerdel, C. (2010). The influence of visual cognitive style when learning from instructional animations and static pictures. Learning and Individual Differences. doi: 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2010. 03. 001.
44. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
45. Horn, W. (1983). Leistungsprüfsystem [Performance test system]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
46. Huk, T. (2006). Who benefits from learning with 3d models? The case of spatial ability. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 22, 392-404.
47. Huk, T., & Steinke, M. (2007). Learning cell biology with close-up views or connecting lines: Evidence for the structure mapping effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1089-1104.
48. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis methods: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275-292.
50. Isaak, M. I., & Just, M. A. (1995). Constraints on the processing of rolling motion: The curtate cycloid illusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1391-1408.
51. Jaccard, J. (2006). Zumastat 4. 0. [Computer software]. Miami, FL: Applied Scientific Analysis.
52. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509-539.
54. Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 852-861.
55. Koroghlanian, C., & Klein, J. D. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 23-46.
56. Kozhevnikov, M., Motes, M., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Spatial visualization in physics problem solving. Cognitive Sciences, 31, 549-579.
57. Large, A., Beheshti, J., Breuleux, A., & Renaud, A. (1996). Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47, 437-448.
58. Lee, H. (2007). Instructional design of web-based simulations for learners with different levels of spatial ability. Instructional Science, 35, 467-479.
59. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
60. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Lohman, D. F. (1979). Spatial ability: review and re-analysis of the correlational literature. Tech. Rep. No. 8, Stanford University.
62. Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial ability as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
63. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147-158). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
64. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 321-335.
65. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
66. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
68. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
69. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726.
70. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. E. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256-265.
71. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Sources of sex differences. New York: Praeger.
72. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130, 621-640.
73. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
74. Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334.
75. Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 481-485.
76. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 279-315.
77. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157-159.
78. Paivio, A. (1978). A dual coding approach to perception and cognition. In H. L. Pick & E. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 39-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
79. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
80. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1989). Computer-controlled assessment of static and dynamic spatial reasoning. In R. F. Dillon & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 174-198). New York: Praeger.
81. Pellegrino, J. W., Alderton, D. L., & Shute, V. J. (1984). Understanding spatial ability. Educational Psychologist, 19, 239-253.
82. Plass, J. L., Chun, D., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 211-220.
83. Quintana, S. M., & Minami, T. (2006). Guidelines for meta-analyses of counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 839-877.
84. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
85. Roff, M. (1952). A factorial study of tests in the perceptual area. Psychometric Monograph No. 8.
86. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file-drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
87. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
88. Sanchez, C. A., & Branaghan, R. J. (2009). The interaction of map resolution and spatial abilities on map learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 475-481.
89. Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293-305.
90. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426-476). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
91. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
92. Stumpf, H., & Fay, E. (1983). Schlauchfiguren: Ein Test zur Beurteilung des räumlichen Vorstellungsvermögens [Tube figures: A test to assess spatial ability]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
93. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
94. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
95. Swezey, R. W. (1991). Effects of instructional strategy and motion presentation conditions on the acquisition and transfer of electromechanical troubleshooting skill. Human Factors, 33, 309-323.
96. Thurstone, L. L. (1950). Some primary abilities in visual thinking (Tech. Rep. No. 59). Chicago: University of Chicago.
97. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
98. Urhahne, D., Nick, S., & Schanze, S. (2009). The effect of three-dimensional simulations on the understanding of chemical structures and their properties. Research in Science Education, 39, 495-513.
99. van Merrienboer, J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.
100. Wender, K. F., & Mühlböck, J.-S. (2003). Animated diagrams in teaching statistics. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 255-258.
101. Westerman, S. J. (1997). Individual differences in the use of command line and menu computer interfaces. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 183-198.
102. Yang, E. M., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. Y. (2003). Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 329-349.