Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY
- Introduction
- PART ONE THEORY
- PART TWO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
- 5 Learning from Worked-Out Examples and Problem Solving
- 6 Instructional Control of Cognitive Load in the Design of Complex Learning Environments
- 7 Techniques That Reduce Extraneous Cognitive Load and Manage Intrinsic Cognitive Load during Multimedia Learning
- 8 Techniques That Increase Generative Processing in Multimedia Learning: Open Questions for Cognitive Load Research
- PART THREE DISCUSSION
- Index
- References
7 - Techniques That Reduce Extraneous Cognitive Load and Manage Intrinsic Cognitive Load during Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY
- Introduction
- PART ONE THEORY
- PART TWO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
- 5 Learning from Worked-Out Examples and Problem Solving
- 6 Instructional Control of Cognitive Load in the Design of Complex Learning Environments
- 7 Techniques That Reduce Extraneous Cognitive Load and Manage Intrinsic Cognitive Load during Multimedia Learning
- 8 Techniques That Increase Generative Processing in Multimedia Learning: Open Questions for Cognitive Load Research
- PART THREE DISCUSSION
- Index
- References
Summary
WHAT IS MULTIMEDIA LEARNING?
Suppose you open an online multimedia encyclopedia and click on the entry for “pumps.” Then, the computer presents a narrated animation describing how a pump works. Alternatively, suppose you are playing an educational science game on your computer in which you fly to a new planet and must design a plant that would survive there. An on-screen character guides you and explains how the characteristics of the roots, stem, and leaves relate to various environmental conditions. Both of these examples – multimedia lessons and agent-based simulation games – are forms of computer-based multimedia learning environments. They are multimedia learning environments because they involve words (e.g., printed or spoken words) and pictures (e.g., animation, video, illustrations, or photos). They are computer-based learning environments because they are presented via computer. Our goal in this chapter is to explore research-based principles for improving the instructional design of computer-based multimedia learning.
We begin with the premise that research on multimedia learning should be theory based, educationally relevant, and scientifically rigorous. By calling for theory-based research, we mean that research on multimedia learning should be grounded in a cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In this chapter, we build on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2001, 2005a, 2005b; Mayer & Moreno, 2003), which is adapted from Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1999, 2005). By calling for educationally relevant research, we mean that research on multimedia learning should be concerned with authentic learning situations and materials.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 131 - 152Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
, & (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
, , & (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005a). Principles for managing essential cognitive processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005b). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , & (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13–18.Google ScholarPubMed
, , & (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.Google ScholarPubMed
, , & (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (in press). Promoting awareness of learner diversity in prospective teachers: Signaling individual and group differences within virtual classroom cases. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
, & (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2002a). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2002b). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , & (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In & (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
, , & (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1997). When two sensory modalities are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar
(1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64
- Cited by