Arrows did not guide initial reading behavior in matrix diagrams with two nominal headers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In diagrams with arrows pointing left to right, 51.2% of participants' initial reading sequence was left to right, and in diagrams with top-down arrows, 61.5% was top-down, a non-significant difference. → Jan van der Meij 2017

Evidence¶

Jan van der Meij 2017¶

Jan van der Meij, Marije van Amelsvoort, Anjo Anjewierden. (2017). How design guides learning from matrix diagrams. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9425-1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Eye-tracking analysis of initial body-cell sequences among 81 university students randomly assigned to four diagram conditions. The article reports the arrows "did not influence initial reading behavior" with χ²(1) = 1.31, p = 0.252, φ = 0.067.

"in the diagrams in which arrows pointed from left to right, 51.2% of all participants' initial reading sequence was also from left to right, and in the diagrams in which arrows pointed top–down, 61.5% of all participants' initial reading sequence was also top–down,v2(1) = 1.31, p = 0.252, k = 0.067."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading order in matrix diagrams followed the header content (types) rather than arrow orientation — related
• Post-test recall was better on type-focused than category-focused questions regardless of diagram condition — related
• Most participants self-reported studying the matrix diagram primarily by personality disorder types — related