Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:32:23.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning

from Part IV - Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Paul Ayres  and
John Sweller
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer  and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

The split-attention principle states that when designing instruction, including multimedia instruction, it is important to avoid materials that require learners to split their attention between multiple sources of information. Instead, materials should be formatted so that disparate sources of information are physically and temporally integrated, thus obviating the need for learners to engage in mental integration. By eliminating the need to mentally integrate multiple sources of information, extraneous cognitive load is reduced, freeing resources for learning (germane cognitive load). This chapter provides the theoretical rationale, based on cognitive load theory, for the split-attention principle, and describes the major experiments that establish the validity of the principle, identifies the conditions under which it is most likely to occur, and indicates the instructional design implications when dealing with multimedia materials.

Keywords

split-attention principleextraneous cognitive loadgermane cognitive loadcognitive load theorymultiple sources
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 199 - 211
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Bokosmaty, S. (2014). Adaptive diagrams: A research agenda to explore how learners can manipulate online diagrams to self-manage cognitive load. In Huang, W. (ed.). Human Centric Visualization: Theories, Methodologies and Case Studies (pp. 529–550). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: Handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers & Education, 64, 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmeyer, K., Kapp, S., Thees, M., Malone, S., Kuhn, J., & Brünken, R. (2020). The use of augmented reality to foster conceptual knowledge acquisition in STEM laboratory courses – Theoretical background and empirical results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 611–628.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. (2018). Subjective measures of cognitive load: What can they reliably measure? In Zheng, R. (ed.), Cognitive Load Measurement and Application: A Theoretical Framework for Meaningful Research and Practice (pp. 9–28). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. (2020). Something old, something new from cognitive load theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 113, 106503.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. & Paas, F. (2012). Some answers to the challenges of cognitive load theory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 827–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2013). The worked example effect. In Hattie, J. A. C., & Anderman, E. M. (eds.). International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 408–410). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 408–417.Google Scholar
Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2011). The effect of temporal distance on comparative visual search. Journal of Vision, 11, 1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze-switches and memory load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 863–871.Google Scholar
Beege, M., Wirzberger, M., Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Schmidt, N., & Rey, G. D. (2019). Spatial contiguity effect vs. spatial contiguity failure. Revising the effects of spatial proximity between related and unrelated representations. Frontiers in Education, 4, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bétrancourt, M., & Bisseret, A. (1998). Integrating textual and pictorial information via pop-up windows: An experimental study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bodemer, D., & Faust, U. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 27–42.Google Scholar
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341.Google Scholar
Cammeraat, S., Rop, G., & de Koning, B. B. (2020). The influence of spatial distance and signaling on the split-attention effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.Google Scholar
Chen, C.-M., & Wu, C.-H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108–121.Google Scholar
Chung, K. K. H. (2007). Presentation factors in the learning of Chinese characters: The order and position of Hanyu pinyin and English translations. Educational Psychology, 27, 1–20.Google Scholar
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, 53(1), 3–14.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020a). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106379.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020b). The self-management effect in learning from split-attention materials: Mental versus physical integration. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101873.Google Scholar
Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 137–147.Google Scholar
Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216–224.Google Scholar
Fraser, K. L., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simulation in Healthcare, 10, 295–307.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.Google Scholar
Gordon, C., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2016). Learning from instructor-managed and self-managed split-attention materials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsanova, J. (2014). Reception of multimodality: Applying eye tracking methodology in multimodal research. In Jewitt, C. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 285–296). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2015). Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 803–817.Google Scholar
Johnson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178–191.Google ScholarPubMed
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research: The good, the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273–283.Google Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2019). The centrality of element interactivity to cognitive load theory. In Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Sweller, J. (eds.), Advances in Cognitive Load Theory: Rethinking Teaching (pp. 221–232). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, C. H., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Effectiveness of different pinyin presentation formats in learning Chinese characters: A cognitive load perspective. Language Learning, 61, 1099–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.Google Scholar
Lin, J. J. H., Lee, Y. H., Wang, D. Y., & Lin, S. S. J. (2016). Reading subtitles and taking Enotes while learning scientific materials in a multimedia environment: Cognitive load perspectives on EFL students. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 47–58.Google Scholar
Macken, L., & Ginns, P. (2014). Pointing and tracing gestures may enhance anatomy and physiology learning. Medical Teacher, 36, 596–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction, 61, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2020a). Multimedia Learning (3rd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2020b). Designing multimedia instruction in anatomy: An evidence-based approach. Clinical Anatomy, 33, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R., & Anderson, R. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R., & Anderson, R. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (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.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research, & Development, 43, 31–43.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.Google Scholar
Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28, 29–45.Google Scholar
Paas, F. G., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27–45.Google Scholar
Pi, Z., Xu, K., Liu, C., & Yang, J. (2020). Instructor presence in video lectures: Eye gaze matters, but not body orientation. Computers & Education, 144, 103713.Google Scholar
Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouw, W., Rop, G., de Koning, B., & Paas, F. (2019). The cognitive basis for the split-attention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 2058–2075.Google Scholar
Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20, 443–462.Google Scholar
Roodenrys, K., Agostinho, S., Roodenrys, S., & Chandler, P. (2012). Managing one’s own cognitive load when evidence of split attention is present. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 878–886.Google Scholar
Rose, J. M., & Wolfe, C. J. (2000). The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 285–306.Google Scholar
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2019). Do measures of cognitive load explain the spatial split-attention principle in multimedia learning environments? A systematic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sithole, S. T. M., Chandler, P., Abeysekera, I., & Paas, F. (2017). Benefits of guided self-management of attention on learning accounting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strzys, M., Kapp, S., Thees, M., Klein, P., Lukowicz, P., Knierim, P., Schmidt, A., & Kuhn, J. (2018). Physics holo.lab learning experience: Using smartglasses for augmented reality labwork to foster the concepts of heat conduction. European Journal of Physics, 39, 035703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strzys, M. P., Thees, M., Kapp, S., & Kuhn, J. (2019). Smartglasses in STEM laboratory courses – the augmented thermal flux experiment. In Traxler, A., Cao, Y., & Wolf, S. (eds.), 2018 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 411–414). Washington, DC: American Association of Physics Teachers.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.Google Scholar
Tarmizi, R. & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.Google Scholar
Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106316.Google Scholar
van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Antonenko, P., & Dawson, K. (2020). Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 146, 103779.Google Scholar
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.Google Scholar
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1–21.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., & Simon, H. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137–166.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×