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-784d4fb959-4lvlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-15T12:33:31.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Techniques That Reduce Extraneous Cognitive Load and Manage Intrinsic Cognitive Load during Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Richard E. Mayer  and
Roxana Moreno
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
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

WHAT IS MULTIMEDIA LEARNING?

Suppose you open an online multimedia encyclopedia and click on the entry for “pumps.” Then, the computer presents a narrated animation describing how a pump works. Alternatively, suppose you are playing an educational science game on your computer in which you fly to a new planet and must design a plant that would survive there. An on-screen character guides you and explains how the characteristics of the roots, stem, and leaves relate to various environmental conditions. Both of these examples – multimedia lessons and agent-based simulation games – are forms of computer-based multimedia learning environments. They are multimedia learning environments because they involve words (e.g., printed or spoken words) and pictures (e.g., animation, video, illustrations, or photos). They are computer-based learning environments because they are presented via computer. Our goal in this chapter is to explore research-based principles for improving the instructional design of computer-based multimedia learning.

We begin with the premise that research on multimedia learning should be theory based, educationally relevant, and scientifically rigorous. By calling for theory-based research, we mean that research on multimedia learning should be grounded in a cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In this chapter, we build on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2001, 2005a, 2005b; Mayer & Moreno, 2003), which is adapted from Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1999, 2005). By calling for educationally relevant research, we mean that research on multimedia learning should be concerned with authentic learning situations and materials.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 131 - 152
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

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.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
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Principles for managing essential cognitive processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). 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., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13–18.Google ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.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., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.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
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 and Development, 43, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Abercrombie, S. (in press). Promoting awareness of learner diversity in prospective teachers: Signaling individual and group differences within virtual classroom cases. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002a). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002b). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 O'Neil, H. F. & Andrews, D. H. (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modalities are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book 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
×