The learning benefit of increasing integration is substantially larger for high element interactivity (complex) materials than for low element interactivity materials¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2006 · checked against its sources 2026-10-14 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Meta-analytic moderation testing shows effects coded as high element interactivity materials (d = 0.78) significantly exceed those for low element interactivity materials (d = 0.28), zcontrast = 3.09, p = 0.002. → Ginns 2006

Evidence¶

Ginns 2006¶

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis within the meta-analysis of 50 effects, using the article's dichotomous coding of element interactivity (43 high vs 7 low element interactivity studies). The article reports "zcontrast = 3.09, p = 0.002" for the high-versus-low contrast.

"The mean weighted effect size was significantly larger for effects coded as using high element interactivity materials ( d = 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.69 – 0.87) than for low element interactivity materials (d = 0.28, 95% confidence interval –0.03 – 0.58), zcontrast = 3.09, p = 0.002."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

For which material, media and testing conditions is integration worth most? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 5 narrower claims that bear on it: 4 distinct studies (2 review, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 causal), q2–q3, 1 of 4 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¶

• Multimedia design principles improve learning by g = 0.38 on average across the 11 largest reviews, an effect the authors call moderate, with large differences between principles — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Split Attention Effect Degrades Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Design principle effects are larger in system-paced and in complex media, and learner prior knowledge was not a significant moderator (p = 0.14) — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Cognitive Overload Degrades Learning — related
• Cognitive Load Reduction Improves Learning — related
• Integrating spatially or temporally separated but related elements of instructional information produces a large average learning benefit for novices — a broader claim this one bears on
• Split-attention and redundancy effects occur for high element interactivity material but disappear for low element interactivity material — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The authors of one robot-projection study interpret co-located AI guidance as most useful when instructions and task share a spatial frame, as in drawing — related
• Contiguity effects are larger under one-on-one testing (d = .89) than under group testing (d = .65), but remain educationally significant in both — related
• Spatial and temporal contiguity effects do not differ significantly in mean magnitude — related
• Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — related
• Moderate levels of interactivity tend to be most beneficial for learning, with benefits depending on task integration and assessment format — related
• Expertise produced large main effects on test scores and interacted with element interactivity, with the expertise advantage much larger for high element interactivity material — related