This study investigated the effects of open- and closed-book learning conditions either accompanied by visual aids or without on learners’ attention, drawing accuracy, and learning performance. Participants were 127 undergraduate learners randomly assigned to view either an open- or closed-book prompt, who then watched either a video lecture accompanied by visual aids or one without (i.e. visuals provided vs. no visuals). The results showed that for learners who were provided with visual aids, compared to the open-book condition, those in the closed-book condition demonstrated higher eye blink rate as well as improved immediate and delayed test scores. However, this advantage was not observed in the condition with no visual materials. Mediation analysis showed that increased immediate test scores in the visuals provided condition was due partly to improved drawing accuracy. Multiple mediation analyses showed that the open-book with visuals provided condition led to lower eye blink rate, increased fixation count, and improved drawing accuracy, which collectively resulted in decreased immediate test performance. These findings have implications for educators and instructional designers regarding how to tailor effective learning strategies; specifically, educators could consider using closed-book learning conditions with visual aids to enhance learners’ attention and improve their learning performance.
AdesopeO. O.TrevisanD. A.SundararajanN. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
2.
AgarwalP. K.RoedigerH. L.III. (2011). Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory, 19(8), 836–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.613840
ButcherK. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182
6.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
7.
ChangH. Y.QuintanaC.KrajcikJ. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94.
8.
ChenS.EppsJ. (2014). Using task-induced pupil diameter and blink rate to infer cognitive load. Human–Computer Interaction, 29(4), 390–413.
9.
ChermahiniS. A.HommelB. (2010). The (b) link between creativity and dopamine: spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115(3), 458–465.
10.
ChunM. M.GolombJ. D.Turk-BrowneN. B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73–101.
11.
ClarkR. C.MayerR. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
EitelA.ScheiterK.SchülerA.NyströmM.HolmqvistK. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002
14.
FiorellaL. (2022a). Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(5), 1142–1149.
15.
FiorellaL. (2022b). Multimedia learning with instructional video (pp. 487–497). Cambridge University Press.
FiorellaL.KuhlmannS. (2020). Creating drawings enhances learning by teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000392
18.
FiorellaL.ZhangQ. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1115–1137.
19.
FisherR.HarrisM. (1974). Effect of note taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(6), 922–929.
20.
GharibA.PhillipsW.MathewN. (2012). Cheat sheet or open-book? A comparison of the effects of exam types on performance, retention, and anxiety. Online Submission, 2(8), 469–478.
21.
GloverJ. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.392
22.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
23.
HellenbrandJ.MayerR. E.OpfermannM.SchmeckA.LeutnerD. (2019). How generative drawing affects the learning process: An eye-tracking analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 1147–1164.
24.
HillerS.RumannS.BertholdK.RoelleJ. (2020). Example-based learning: Should learners receive closed-book or open-book self-explanation prompts?Instructional Science, 48(6), 623–649.
KarpickeJ. D.BluntJ. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
27.
KarpickeJ. D.BluntJ. R.SmithM. A.KarpickeS. S. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: The need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.07.008
28.
KohA. W. L.LeeS. C.LimS. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401–410.
LeopoldC.SumflethE.LeutnerD. (2013). Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003
31.
LuX.LiuX. W.ZhangW. (2020). Diversities of learners’ interactions in different MOOC courses: How these diversities affects communication in learning. Computers & Education, 151, 103873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103873
32.
MaffeiA.AngrilliA. (2019). Spontaneous blink rate as an index of attention and emotion during film clips viewing. Physiology & Behavior, 204, 256–263.
33.
MagliacanoA.FiorenzaS.EstraneoA.TrojanoL. (2020). Eye blink rate increases as a function of cognitive load during an auditory oddball paradigm. Neuroscience Letters, 736, 135293.
34.
MayerR. E. (2022). The multimedia principle. In MayerR. E.FiorellaL. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 145–157). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.015
35.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.
36.
PaasF.RenklA.SwellerJ. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
37.
PaukerJ. D. (1974). Effect of open book examinations on test performance in an undergraduate child psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 1(2), 71–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862837400100205
38.
PiZ.ZhangY.ShiD.GuoX.YangJ. (2022). Is self-explanation better than explaining to a fictitious student when learning from video lectures?British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 2012–2028. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13230
39.
PloetznerR.FillischB. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 47, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.002
40.
PycM. A.RawsonK. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory?Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
41.
RenklA.ScheiterK. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4
42.
RoedigerH. L.III.ButlerA. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
RowlandC. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
45.
ScheiterK.FillischB.KrebsM. C.LeberJ.PloetznerR.RenklA.ZimmermannG. (2017). How to design adaptive information environments to support self-regulated learning with multimedia. In BuderJ.HesseF. (Eds.), Informational environments (pp. 203–223). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64274-1_9
46.
SchleinschokK.EitelA.ScheiterK. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text?Learning and Instruction, 51, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002
47.
SchmidgallS. P.EitelA.ScheiterK. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.006
48.
SchwambornA.MayerR. E.ThillmannH.LeopoldC.LeutnerD. (2010). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019640
49.
SerraM. J.DunloskyJ. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441
50.
SibleyL.FiorellaL.LachnerA. (2022). It’s better when I see it: Students benefit more from open-book than closed-book teaching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36, 1347–1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4017
51.
StieffM. (2017). Drawing for promoting learning and engagement with dynamic visualizations. In LoweR.PloetznerR. (Eds.), Learning from dynamic visualization: Innovations in research and application (pp. 333–356). Springer.
52.
SzpunarK. K.JingH. G.SchacterD. L. (2014). Overcoming overconfidence in learning from video-recorded lectures: Implications of interpolated testing for online education. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.02.001
53.
Van MeterP.AleksicM.SchwartzA.GarnerJ. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(2), 142–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001
54.
Van MeterP.GarnerJ. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3
55.
WammesJ. D.SmilekD. (2017). Examining the influence of lecture format on degree of mind wandering. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.015
56.
WenzelK.SchweppeJ.RummerR. (2022). Are open-book tests still as effective as closed-book tests even after a delay of 2 weeks?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 699–707.
57.
WileyJ.SarmentoD.GriffinT. D.HinzeS. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 463–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319655
58.
WongA.LeahyW.MarcusN.SwellerJ. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004
59.
WuS. P.Van VeenB.RauM. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 723–742.
60.
ZhangD.ZhouL.BriggsR. O.NunamakerJ. F.Jr. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004
61.
ZhangY.XuK.PanY.PiZ.YangJ. (2025). The effects of segmentation design and drawing on video learning: A mediation analysis. Active Learning in Higher Education, 26(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231180601
62.
ZhangY.LiuC.XingY.PiZ.YangJ. (2024). How does drawing influence the effectiveness of oral self‐explanation versus instructional explanation in video learning?British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1189–1208.
