- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Written instruction that significantly promotes science learning

Yajun Wei*

  • *Contact author: weiyajun@gzhu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020141 – Published 5 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lhjv-rq13

Abstract

Science textbooks often include text and diagrams to aid learner understanding. Yet traditional written instructions in textbooks often separate them, which can increase cognitive load and hinder effective learning. This research proposes and tests a novel presentational format for written instruction that incorporates spatial contiguity, numbered reading sequences, and color matching, aiming to enhance science learning. The effectiveness of the novel format was assessed through two randomized experimental studies. The first study involved 349 high school students in a popular science context, and the second included 187 students in a complex physics course. The results revealed statistically significant improvements in students’ learning outcomes and self-perceived understanding when exposed to the novel instructional format. The improvements were particularly notable in the study focused on complex scientific laws in physics. Furthermore, students reported lower levels of mental effort with the novel format compared to traditional formats, particularly in contexts involving more challenging materials. These results align with cognitive load theory in multimedia learning. The novel presentational format can significantly enhance student learning outcomes and understanding level. It offers a practical and more efficient alternative for instructional material design.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (42)

  1. P. Chandler and J. Sweller, The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 62, 233 (1992).
  2. R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014), pp. 279–315.
  3. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia learning, Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 41, 85 (2002).
  4. A. Eitel, K. Scheiter, A. Schüler, M. Nyström, and K. Holmqvist, How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding, Learn. Instr. 28, 48 (2013).
  5. N. Ott, R. Brünken, M. Vogel, and S. Malone, Multiple symbolic representations: The combination of formula and text supports problem solving in the mathematical field of propositional logic, Learn. Instr. 58, 88 (2018).
  6. S. Malone, A. Susac, J. Kuhn, and S. Küchemann, Registered reports on the role of representational competencies in multimedia learning and learning with multiple representations, Front. Psychol. 14, 1260833 (2023).
  7. L. L. Pozzer and W. M. Roth, Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40, 1089 (2003).
  8. L. Unsworth, Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum: Changing Contexts of Text and Image in Classroom Practice (Open University Press, Buckingham, 2001).
  9. P. Ayres and J. Sweller, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014), pp. 206–226.
  10. P. Chandler and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction, Cognit. Instr. 8, 293 (1991).
  11. F. Paas, A. Renkl, and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments, Educ. Psychol. 38, 1 (2003).
  12. J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga, Cognitive Load Theory (Springer, New York, 2011).
  13. P. G. Hewitt, Conceptual Physics, 12th ed. (Pearson, Boston, 2015).
  14. Quora, How does a single-rotor helicopter work, https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-single-rotor-helicopter-work (2024) [Accessed 2024-04-01].
  15. S. W. Slough, E. M. McTigue, S. Kim, and S. K. Jennings, Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts, Read. Psychol. 31, 301 (2010).
  16. G. Rop, A. Schüler, P. P. Verkoeijen, K. Scheiter, and T. V. Gog, The effect of layout and pacing on learning from diagrams with unnecessary text, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 32, 610 (2018).
  17. K. Scheiter and A. Eitel, Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements, Learn. Instr. 36, 11 (2015).
  18. W. G. Cobourn and G. C. Lindauer, A flexible multimedia instructional module for introductory thermodynamics, J. Eng. Educ. 83, 271 (1994).
  19. J. L. Hilder, The impact of textual display strategies on learning from electronic presentations, Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, 2019.
  20. J. M. Luzón and E. Letón, Use of animated text to improve the learning of basic mathematics, Comput. Educ. 88, 119 (2015).
  21. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, F. Kirschner, and J. Zambrano R, From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory, Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 13, 213 (2018).
  22. J. Sweller, Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning, Cognit. Sci. 12, 257 (1988).
  23. J. J. Van Merriënboer and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 17, 147 (2005).
  24. J. Leppink and A. Van den Heuvel, The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education, Perspect. Med. Educ. 4, 119 (2015).
  25. J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merrienboer, and F. G. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251 (1998).
  26. J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merriënboer, and F. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 31, 261 (2019).
  27. M. Thees, S. Kapp, M. P. Strzys, F. Beil, P. Lukowicz, and J. Kuhn, Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses, Comput. Hum. Behav. 108, 106316 (2020).
  28. R. Mayer and C. Pilegard, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed., edited by R. Mayer (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014), pp. 316–344.
  29. N. L. Schroeder and A. T. Cenkci, Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 679 (2018).
  30. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, J. Educ. Psychol. 90, 312 (1998).
  31. R. E. Mayer, Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009).
  32. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educ. Psychol. 38, 43 (2003).
  33. P. Ginns, Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects, Learn. Instr. 16, 511 (2006).
  34. B. Çeken and N. Taşk𝚤n, Multimedia learning principles in different learning environments: A systematic review, Smart Learn. Environ. 9, 19 (2022).
  35. K. Jelicic, M. Planinic, and G. Planinsic, Analyzing high school students’ reasoning about electromagnetic induction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010112 (2017).
  36. A. Duffy, A pictorial approach to Lenz’s law, Phys. Teach. 56, 224 (2018).
  37. A. Maries, M. J. Brundage, and C. Singh, Using the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism to investigate progression in student understanding from introductory to advanced levels, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020114 (2022).
  38. Q. Peng, Physics Textbook for High School (People’s Education Press, Beijing, 2019).
  39. P. W. Zitzewitz, T. G. Elliott, D. G. Haase, K. A. Harper, M. R. Herzog, J. B. Nelson et al., Physics: Principles and Problems (The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., Columbus, OH, 2009).
  40. C. Hamper, Higher Level Physics: Developed Specifically for the IB Diploma (Pearson Education Limited, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2009).
  41. P. Potvin and A. Hasni, Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research, Stud. Sci. Educ. 50, 85 (2014).
  42. Y. Wei, Dataset from experiments on written presentation formats, Mendeley Data, V1, 2025, 10.17632/f5kn27rrnj.1.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020141– Published 5 November, 2025
  • Received 1 July 2025
  • Accepted 10 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation