Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-zlvph Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-23T01:58:37.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Techniques That Increase Generative Processing in Multimedia Learning: Open Questions for Cognitive Load Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Roxana Moreno  and
Richard E. Mayer
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Get access

Summary

In Chapter 7, we defined multimedia learning, described how people learn from verbal and pictorial information according to the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML; Mayer, 2005), and examined the relationship between CTML and cognitive load theory (CLT; Sweller, 1999). Specifically, we offered a triarchic theory of cognitive load according to which there are three kinds of cognitive processing demands during learning: extraneous, essential, and generative. We defined extraneous processing as the cognitive processes that are not necessary for making sense of the new information, essential processing as the cognitive processes that are required to mentally select the new information that is represented in working memory, and generative processing as the processes of mentally organizing the new information into a coherent structure and integrating the new knowledge representations with prior knowledge.

As explained in the previous chapter, the different nature of the three cognitive demands suggests three goals for the design of multimedia learning environments, namely, to reduce extraneous cognitive processing, to help students manage essential cognitive processing, and to foster generative processing. In the present chapter, we focus on the third of these goals by reviewing techniques that are aimed at increasing generative processing in multimedia learning. As in Chapter 7, the methods reviewed in the present chapter have been distilled from the research program of the authors, which is aimed at better understanding how aspects of media design correspond to the cognitive processes that affect knowledge acquisition.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 153 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 202–232.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Ross, S. M. (1987). Using computer-assisted instruction to personalize math learning materials for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodemer, D., Plötzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGilley, K. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The art of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31 (1), 21–32.Google Scholar
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
d'Ailly, Simpson, H. H., J., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1997). Where should “you” go in a math compare problem? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 562–567.Google Scholar
Davis-Dorsey, J., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The role of rewording and context personalization in the solving of mathematical word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duquette, L., & Painchaud, G. (1996). A comparison of vocabulary acquisition in audio and video contexts. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(1) 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, A. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1994). Benefits of teaching design skills before teaching LOGO computer programming: Evidence for syntax independent learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garnett, P. J., Garnett, P. J., & Hackling, M. W. (1995). Students' alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Teaching, 25, 69–95.Google Scholar
Gelman, R. (1969). Conservation acquisition: A problem of learning to attend to relevant attributes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 7, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1998). Narrative representation and comprehension. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 171–205). White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kost, C., Foss, P., & Lenzini, J. (1999). Textual and pictorial gloss: Effectiveness on incidental vocabulary growth when reading in a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical content and implications for practice. In Dempsey, J. V. & Sales, G. C. (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 3–20). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (1997). The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In English, L. D. (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 21–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lee, M., & Thompson, A. (1997). Guided instruction in LOGO programming and the development of cognitive monitoring strategies among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, J. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback on discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In PytlikZillig, L., Bodvarsson, M., & Bruning, R. (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don't work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: The case for guiding student teachers' observations with metacognitive prompts. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (in press). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9122-9.CrossRef
Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (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
Moreno, R., & Morales, M. (2008). Studying master paintings to promote painting skills: The role of visualization, copying from memory, and spatial ability. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27(2), 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008). Using cases as thinking tools in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Optimizing worked-example instruction in electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed learning effects of presenting classroom cases in teacher education: Are video cases or case narratives more effective? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 745–783). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Roher, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Dolezal, S. E., Raphael, L. M., Welsh, L. M., Bogner, K., & Roehrig, A. D. (2003). Motivating primary-grade students. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Reeder, G. D., McCormick, C. B., & Esselman, E. D. (1987). Self-referent processing and recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., Jänen, I., & Brünken, R. (2007). The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of graphical help for coherence formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, L. S., & Keisler, E. R. (1966). Learning by discovery. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1966). The learning by discovery hypothesis. In Shulman, L. S. & Keislar, E. R. (Eds.), Learning by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 33–75). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×