You are here

A Review of Multimedia Learning Principles: Split-Attention, Modality, and Redundancy Effects

A Review of Multimedia Learning Principles: Split-Attention, Modality, and Redundancy Effects

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study aims to present a literature review on three principles of multimedia learning including split attention, modality, and redundancy effects with regard to their contribution to cognitive load theory. According to cognitive load theory, information should be presented by considering excessive load on working memory. The first principle states that attending to two distinct sources of information may impose a high cognitive load, and this process is referred to as the split-attention effect (Kalyuga, Chandler & Sweller, 1991, 1992). The second principle, Modality effect claims that on-screen text should be presented in an auditory form instead of visually when designing a multimedia environment (Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Using more than one sensory mode augments forceful working memory that produces progressive effects on learning. The third principle redundancy effect occurs when information presented repeatedly interferes with learning. This study provides guidance how to create more effective instruction with multimedia materials for instructional designers.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Multimedya ile Öğrenme İlkelerinin İncelenmesi: Biçem, Aşırılık, Dikkat Bölünmesi Etkileri. Bu çalışma üç temel multimedya tasarım prensibinin, dikkat bölünmesi (split-attention), biçem etkisi (modality effect) ve aşırlık etkisi (redundancy effect), bilişsel yük teorisine katkısı üzerine bir literatür taraması sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Bilişşel yük teorisine göre (cognitive load theory), bilgi, çalışan bellekteki (working memory) aşırı yüklenmeyi göz önünde bulundurularak sunulmalıdır. İlk prensibimiz, dikkat bölünmesi, bilgi birden fazla kaynaktan uzaysal olarak bağlantılı bir biçimde sunulmadığında ortaya çıkmaktadır (Kalyuga, Chadler, & Sweller, 1999). İkinci prensibimiz, biçem etkisi, çoklu ortam tasarımı yaparken, ekranda yazının görsel olarak sunulması yerine işitsel olarak sunulması gerekiğini savunmaktadır (Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Birden fazla duyusal kanal kullanımı çalışan bellekteki etkiyi arttıtmaktadır. Üçüncü prensibimiz aşırılık etkisi, bilgi aşırı halde sunulduğunda öğrenmeyi olumsuz yönde etkileyerek açığa çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bir ögretim tasarımcısının multimedia öğrenme ortamlarını daha etkili tasarlayabilmeleri için bir rehber sunulmaktadır.

REFERENCES

References: 

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and
Instruction 8(4), 293-332.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia
educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 428-434.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York:
Teachers College Press.
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for
separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100, (1), 223–234.
Erhel,S., & Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 22, 137-147.
Garner, S. (2002). Reducing the Cognitive Load on Novice Programmers. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky
(Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 578-583). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/10329.
Hooper & Reinartz (2002). Educational Multimedia. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey, (Eds.), Trends and
issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 307-318). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human
Factors, 40, 1-17.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia
instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 13(1): 351-371
Liu, T., Lin, Y., Tsai, M. & Paas, F. (2012) Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in
physical environment. Computer & Education 58 (1) 172-180.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia Learning: Are we asking the right question? Educational Psychologist
13, 1-19.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson C. I., (2008) Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, (2), 380–386.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design
principles. In N.H. Naryanan (Ed). Electronic proceedings of the CHI'98 workshop on hyped-media
to hyper-media: Toward theoretical foundations of design, use and evaluation. Retrieved on 25th
June, 2008 from www.eng.auburn.edu/~narayan/webdocs.html
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When
presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-
198.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for
processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999b), “Cognitive principles of multimedia design: The role of modality and
contiguity”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual
presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334.
Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive Load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28
(1), 29-45.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language
text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human
Behavior, 19(2), 221–243.
Pociask, F. & Morrison, G. (2004). The effects of split-attention and redundancy on cognitive load when
learning cognitive and psychomotor tasks. Annual meeting of the Association of Educational
Communication and Technology, Chicago, Il.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning &
Instruction,12(1), 61-86.
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., (1994). Why some materials is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction. 12,
185-233/
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.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design.
Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 424-436.
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal
of Applied Experimental Psychology, 3, 257-287.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting
learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training
efficiency. Learning & Instruction, 12(1), 11-37.
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1-
39.
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and
redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23,
1–21.
Yeung, A. S., Lee, C. F. K., Pena, I.M., & Ryde, J. (2000). Towards subjective mental workload measure.
Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Hong
Kong. January, 2000.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com