Spatial and temporal contiguity effects do not differ significantly in mean magnitude¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The mean weighted effect size for temporal contiguity studies (d = 0.78) did not differ significantly from that for spatial contiguity studies (d = 0.72); equivalence was not tested. → 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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis comparing the 13 temporal contiguity effects with the 37 spatial contiguity effects in the meta-analysis. The article reports "zcontrast = 0.63, p = 0.526", a non-significant difference between the two types of contiguity.

"the mean weighted effect size for the temporal contiguity studies ( d = 0.78, 95% c onfidence interval 0.63 – 0.92) did not differ significantly from that for spatial contiguity effect studies (d = 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.61 – 0.82), zcontrast = 0.63, p = 0.526."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• Presenting related material contiguously in space and time yields large learning benefits — a broader claim this one bears on
• Split Attention Effect Degrades Learning — related
• 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 — related
• Cognitive Load Reduction Improves Learning — related
• Contiguity effects show no statistically reliable difference between static and dynamic presentation of visual information — related
• The learning benefit of increasing integration is substantially larger for high element interactivity (complex) materials than for low element interactivity materials — 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