Presenting related material contiguously in space and time yields large learning benefits¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-16 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Contiguous presentation of related materials produced large learning benefits overall (g = 0.74). → Noetel 2022 q3 i2 Spatial contiguity (g = 0.63) and temporal contiguity (g = 0.78) each showed large significant benefits. → Noetel 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Noetel 2022¶

Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Harris, N. R., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2022). Multimedia design for learning: An overview of reviews with meta-meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211052329

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Synthesis of three reviews of contiguity (integration); the pooled estimate from Ginns (2006) across 46 effect sizes showed large benefits of presenting materials contiguously (g = 0.74, CI [0.67, 0.82]).

"Overall, there were large benefits of having materials presented contiguously (g = 0.74, 95% CI [0.67, 0.82], k = 46; Ginns, 2006)"

Noetel 2022 (2)¶

Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Harris, N. R., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2022). Multimedia design for learning: An overview of reviews with meta-meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211052329

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

The larger review (Schroeder & Cenkci, 2018) found spatial contiguity significantly improved learning versus spatially distant designs (g = 0.63, k = 58); the article separately reports temporal contiguity moderation analyses showing strong benefits (g = 0.78, CI [0.64, 0.92], k = 13; Ginns, 2006).

"The larger of these reviews found that spatial contiguity led to significant improvements in learning compared to spatially distant designs (g = 0.63, 95% CI [0.55, 0.71], k = 58; Schroeder & Cenkci, 2018)"

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does placing words with the pictures they describe, in space and in time, improve learning, and by how much? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 7 narrower claims that bear on it: 7 distinct studies (3 quant-synthesis, 3 review, 1 causal), q2–q4, 4 of 7 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Split Attention Effect Degrades Learning — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Cognitive Load Reduction Improves Learning — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Contiguity principles: near placement and simultaneous presentation of corresponding words and pictures improve transfer — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• A narrative review cites one study in which simultaneous notes, worked example and explanation aided understanding, and another in which temporally contiguous instruction lowered perceived cognitive load — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Integrating spatially or temporally separated but related elements of instructional information produces a large average learning benefit for novices — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Spatial and temporal contiguity effects do not differ significantly in mean magnitude — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Contiguity effects are larger under one-on-one testing (d = .89) than under group testing (d = .65), but remain educationally significant in both — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• College students who study integrated annotated illustrations alongside science text generate approximately 50% more creative solutions on transfer problems than students who view the same illustrations separately after reading — a narrower finding that bears on this claim