Realism effects on learning depend on knowledge type: advantages for surface learning, disadvantages for abstract content¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Studies of surfaces and shapes as main learning content tend to use retention tests and often find an advantage for more realistic visualizations. → Skulmowski 2022 q2 i? Learning abstract calculations or comprehending abstract content appears to be hindered by concrete details, judging from the literature summarized in Table 2. → Skulmowski 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Skulmowski 2022¶

Skulmowski, A., Nebel, S., Remmele, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). Is a Preference for Realism Really Naive After All? A Cognitive Model of Learning with Realistic Visualizations. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09638-1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's own categorization of prior studies in Table 2 by knowledge type (surface, process, abstract) and GSR dimensions. It notes a research gap on geometry complexity and on transfer tasks in this category. No pooled effect size printed.

"Studies in which surfaces and shapes are the main learning content tend to use retention tests to measure performance, often finding an advantage for more realistic visualizations."

Skulmowski 2022 (2)¶

Skulmowski, A., Nebel, S., Remmele, M., & Rey, G. D. (2022). Is a Preference for Realism Really Naive After All? A Cognitive Model of Learning with Realistic Visualizations. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09638-1

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's synthesis of Table 2 studies (e.g., Kaminski and Sloutsky 2013; McNeil et al. 2009; Sloutsky et al. 2005), which mostly used drastic realism differences, leaving subtle variations unexplored. No pooled effect size printed.

"learning to perform abstract calculations or comprehending abstract content appears to be hindered by concrete details, at least judging from the literature summarized in Table 2."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Test type determines realism benefits: realistic detail aids retention as retrieval cues, schematic visuals aid transfer — related
• Realistic visual detail can raise retention despite higher extraneous load ratings (the realism paradox), with benefits tied to test objectives — related
• A systematic review argues that concrete materials aid mathematics and science learning when they are explicitly and gradually connected to the abstract symbols they represent — related
• Stereoscopic display of realistic visualizations may support spatial perception and transfer-oriented learning — related
• The naive realism perspective cannot fully explain conflicting realism effects; vague definitions of realism are a root problem — related
• Increased perceptual fidelity fails to reliably improve serious game learning outcomes (the fidelity fallacy) — related
• Realism can serve as signaling when a drastic contrast in shading and rendering highlights relevant parts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim