This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
In 2 experiments, high- and low-spatial ability students viewed a computer-gener ated animation and listened simultaneously (concurrent group) or successively (successive group) to a narration that explained the workings either of a bicycle tire pump (Experiment 1) or of the human respiratory system (Experiment 2). The concurrent group generated more creative solutions to subsequent transfer problems than did the successive group; this contiguity effect was strong for high- but not for low-spatial ability students. Consistent with a dual-coding theory, spatial ability allows high-spatial learners to devote more cognitive resources to building referential connections between visual and verbal representations of the presented material, whereas low-spatial ability learners must devote more cognitive resources to building representation connections between visually presented material and its visual representation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mayer et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: