Skip to main content
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 23
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Merkt, Martin and Schwan, Stephan 2018. Lernen mit Bildungstechnologien. p. 1.

    Mayer, Richard E. Howarth, Jeffrey T. Kaplan, Michelle and Hanna, Sara 2018. Applying the segmenting principle to online geography slideshow lessons. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 66, Issue. 3, p. 563.

    Schroeder, Noah L. 2018. Virtual and Augmented Reality. p. 1602.

    Nazari, T. Vlieger, E. J. Dankbaar, M. E. W. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. Lange, J. F. and Wiggers, T. 2018. Creation of a universal language for surgical procedures using the step-by-step framework. BJS Open, Vol. 2, Issue. 3, p. 151.

    Wang, Jiahui Dawson, Kara Saunders, Kendra Ritzhaupt, Albert D. Antonenko, Pavlo “Pasha” Lombardino, Linda Keil, Andreas Agacli-Dogan, Nihan Luo, Wenjing Cheng, Li and Davis, Robert O. 2018. Investigating the Effects of Modality and Multimedia on the Learning Performance of College Students With Dyslexia. Journal of Special Education Technology, Vol. 33, Issue. 3, p. 182.

    Lee, Hyunjeong and Mayer, Richard E. 2018. Fostering learning from instructional video in a second language. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

    van der Meij, Hans van der Meij, Jan Voerman, Tessa and Duipmans, Evert 2018. Supporting motivation, task performance and retention in video tutorials for software training. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 66, Issue. 3, p. 597.

    Park, Sanghoon 2018. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. p. 1.

    Nerdel, Claudia 2017. Grundlagen der Naturwissenschaftsdidaktik. p. 163.

    Schroeder, Noah L. and Craig, Scotty D. 2017. The Effect of Pacing on Learners’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Vol. 55, Issue. 7, p. 937.

    Zhang, Shenglan 2017. Applying research-based multimedia design principles in designing and teaching beginning CFL learners the ba construction online. Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報), Vol. 52, Issue. 3, p. 255.

    Singh, Anne-Marie Marcus, Nadine and Ayres, Paul 2017. Strategies to reduce the negative effects of spoken explanatory text on integrated tasks. Instructional Science, Vol. 45, Issue. 2, p. 239.

    Johnson, Cheryl I. Bailey, Shannon K. T. and Van Buskirk, Wendi L. 2017. Instructional Techniques to Facilitate Learning and Motivation of Serious Games. p. 119.

    Opfermann, Maria Schmeck, Annett and Fischer, Hans E. 2017. Multiple Representations in Physics Education. Vol. 10, Issue. , p. 1.

    2017. Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning. p. 65.

    Mayer, R.E. 2017. Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 33, Issue. 5, p. 403.

    van der Meij, Hans and van der Meij, Jan 2016. Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a video tutorial for software training. Instructional Science, Vol. 44, Issue. 6, p. 527.

    2016. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. p. 201.

    Singh, Anne-Marie and Kalyuga, Slava 2016. Handbook of Research on 3-D Virtual Environments and Hypermedia for Ubiquitous Learning. p. 387.

    2016. e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. p. 113.

  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: August 2014

13 - Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning: Segmenting, Pre-training, and Modality Principles

from Part II - Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
The split-attention principle states that in the design of instruction, including multimedia instruction, it is important to avoid materials that require learners to split their attention between, and mentally integrate, multiple sources of information. The sources of information should be both physically and temporally integrated in order to reduce unnecessary search for referents and so reduce extraneous cognitive load. Whether sources of information are intelligible in isolation, and whether the information is high in element interactivity, depends not only on the instructional material, but also on learner characteristics. Cognitive load theory, which gave rise to the split-attention principle, which is based on an understanding of human cognitive architecture, especially the relations between working and long term memory, provides theory-based and experimentally tested instructional guidelines. Those guidelines that are associated with the split-attention effect and that have been discussed in this chapter have the potential to substantially improve multimedia instruction.
Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
  • Online ISBN: 9781139547369
  • Book DOI:
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *


Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287–298.
Boucheix, J., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 369–388.
Boucheix, J., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 112–127.
Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–62.
Brunken, R., Seifert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cheon, J., Crooks, S., & Chung, S. (2013). Does segmenting principle counteract modality principle in instructional animation? British Journal of Educational Technology. Online first publication.
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15–24.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1063–1071.
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, 223–234.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451–461.
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 104–121.
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–332.
Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465–477.
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load, and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.
Hassanabadi, H., Robatjazi, E. S., & Savoji, A. P. (2011). Cognitive consequences of segmentation and modality methods in learning from instructional animations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1481–1487.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004a). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instructional Science, 32, 233–252.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004b). Information presentation and troubleshooting in electrical circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 239–256.
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185.
Kester, L., Lehnen, C., van Gerven, P. W. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Just-in-time, schematic supporting information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 93–112.
Khacharem, A., Spanjers, I. A. E., Zoudji, B., Kalyuga, S., & Ripoll, H. (2013). Using segmentation to support the learning from animated soccer scenes: An effect of prior knowledge. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 154–160.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 29–35.
Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418.
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951.
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.
Lindow, S., Fuchs, H. M., Fürstenberg, A., Kleber, J., Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2011). On the robustness of the modality effect: Attempting to replicate a basic finding. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(4), 231–243.
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 636–651.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640–652.
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2d ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (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.
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G., & Mayer, S. (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.
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (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.
Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
Mayrath, M. C., Nihalani, P. K., & Robinson, D. H. (2011). Varying tutorial modality and interface restriction to maximize transfer in a complex simulation environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 257–268.
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48, 69–92.
Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (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.
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.
O’Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K., & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In H. F. O’Neil & D. H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29–45.
Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–10.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.
Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the modality effect exist? And if so, which modality effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 1–32.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237.
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjects, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1590–1601.
Schüler, A, Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22, 92–102.
Singh, A., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 848–853.
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 411–423.
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Segmentation of worked examples: Effects on cognitive load and learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 352–358.
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., Wouters, P., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing. Computers & Education, 59(2), 274–280.
Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 46–52.
Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 184–203.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & can Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.
Witteman, M. J., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 132–142.
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449–457.
Wong, D. M. (2010). The Wall Street Journal guide to information graphics. New York: Norton.
Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 1–8.