Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 31
  • Print publication year: 2014
  • Online publication date: August 2014

10 - The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning

from Part II - Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning



The redundancy principle (or redundancy effect) suggests that redundant material interferes with rather than facilitates learning. Redundancy occurs when the same information is presented concurrently in multiple forms or is unnecessarily elaborated. According to cognitive load theory, coordinating redundant information with essential information increases working memory load, which may interfere with learning. Eliminating such redundant information removes the requirement to coordinate multiple sources of information. Accordingly, instructional designs that eliminate redundant material can be superior to those that include redundancy. This chapter summarizes research and theory concerned with the effect of processing redundant information in multimedia learning, a history of research in instructional redundancy, the conditions of applicability of this principle, and its instructional implications.


Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carroll, J. M., Smith-Kerker, P., Ford, J., & Mazur-Rimetz, S. (1987). The minimal manual. Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 123–153.
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.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.
Craig, S., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.
Diao, Y., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2007). The effect of written text on comprehension of spoken English as a foreign language. American Journal of Psychology, 120, 237–262.
Diao, Y., & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction, 17, 78–88.
Furnham, A., de Siena, B., & Gunter, B. (2002). Children’s and adults’ recall of children’s news stories in both print and audio-visual presentation modalities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 203–212.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360–370.
Holliday, W. G. (1976). Teaching verbal chains using flow diagrams and texts. AV Communication Review, 24, 63–78.
Jamet, E., & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 588–598.
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.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46, 567–581.
Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth a thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–69.
Lazonder, A., & van der Meij, H. (1993). The minimal manual: Is less really more? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 729–752.
Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 41–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayer, R., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.
Mayer, R., 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.
Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
Miller, W. (1937). The picture crutch in reading. Elementary English Review, 14, 263–264.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002a). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002b). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.
Moussa-Inaty, J., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load and the impact of spoken English on learning English as a foreign language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 63, 391–402.
Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 379–399.
Reder, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121–134.
Reder, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for main points of a text. Memory & Cognition, 10, 97–102.
Saunders, R., & Solman, R. (1984). The effect of pictures on the acquisition of a small vocabulary of similar sight-words. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 265–275.
Schooler, J., & Engstler-Schooler, T. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71.
Solman, R., Singh, N., & Kehoe, E. J. (1992). Pictures block the learning of sight words. Educational Psychology, 12, 143–153.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351–362.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994) Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 185–233.
Torcasio, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load theory approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 659–672.