The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning

doi:10.1017/9781108894333.039

31 - The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning

from Part VII - Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021

Claudia Leopold

Edited by

Richard E. Mayer and

Logan Fiorella

Show author details

Richard E. Mayer: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella: Affiliation:
University of Georgia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Mental imagery is a generative learning strategy that encourages students to construct a mental representation – a mental image – of the content of a text. Mental images are valuable tools for thinking and learning because they provide a framework for remembering, organizing, and elaborating text information. The research base indicates that mental imagery strategies facilitate not only recall, but also comprehension and transfer performance. An important boundary condition is that students need to receive appropriate instructional support for imagining. Instructional support has been found to consistently improve learning performance across outcome measures for children and adults. Types of support range from training students on how to imagine text content to providing specific instructions on what to imagine, or offering additional material like external pictures.

Keywords

imagination principle generative learning strategy mental imagery instructional support for imagining

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 370 - 380

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.039 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

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

Anderson, R. C., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 242–243.CrossRef Google Scholar

Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30(8), 821–828.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cheng, L., & Beal, C. R. (2020). Effects of student-generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 225–247.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts. The dual processing of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161–238.Google Scholar

Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S., Davison, M. L., Carlson, S. E., & Seipel, B. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 33, 2223–2248.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.Google Scholar

Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68–82.Google Scholar

de Koning, B.B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106379.Google Scholar

de Koning, B. B., & van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling the interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 261–287.CrossRef Google Scholar

Denis, M. (2008). Assessing the symbolic distance effect in mental images constructed from verbal descriptions: A study of individual differences in the mental comparison of distances. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 197–210.Google Scholar

Denis, M., & Cocude, M. (1992). Structural properties of visual images constructed from poorly or well-structured verbal descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 497–506.Google Scholar

Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., Fletscher, J. M., & Carter, S. (2015). Text‐processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 393–416.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning As a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gambrell, L. B. (1981). Induced mental imagery and the text prediction performance of first and third graders. In Niles, J. A., & Harris, L. A. (eds.), New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction (pp. 131–135). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar

Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children’s story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 265–276.Google Scholar

Giesen, C., & Peeck, J. (1984). Effects of imagery instruction on reading and retaining a literary text. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8, 79–90.Google Scholar

Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 229–251.Google Scholar

Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424–436.Google Scholar

Goodwin, G. P., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review, 112(2), 468–493.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gottschling, V. (2006). Visual imagery, mental models, and reasoning. In Held, C., Knauff, M., & Vosgerau, G. (eds.), Mental Models and the Mind (pp. 211–235). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 371–398.Google Scholar

Hegarty, M., & Stull, A. T. (2012). Visuospatial thinking. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 606–630). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. (2012). Inference with mental models. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 134–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S. S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201–214.Google Scholar

Jones, M. S., Levin, M. E., Levin, J. R., & Beitzel, B. D. (2000). Can vocabulary-learning strategies and pair-learning formats be profitably combined? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 256–262.Google Scholar

Karlsson, J., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., Hickendorff, M., Koornneef, A., & van Leijenhorst, L. (2018). Profiles of young readers: Evidence from thinking aloud while reading narrative and expository texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 105–116.Google Scholar

Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 363–371.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The Case for Mental Imagery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kulhavy, R. W., & Swenson, I. (1975), Imagery instructions and the comprehension of text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(1), 47–51.Google Scholar

Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 266–276.Google Scholar PubMed

Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26.Google Scholar

Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47–63.Google Scholar

Leopold, C., Mayer, R. E., & Dutke, S. (2019). The power of imagination and perspective in learning from science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 793–808.Google Scholar

Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284–289.Google Scholar

Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142–154,Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371.CrossRef Google Scholar

McCallum, R. D., & Moore, S. (1999). Not all imagery is created equal: The role of imagery in the comprehension of main ideas in exposition. Reading Psychology, 20(1), 21–60.Google Scholar

McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.Google Scholar

Miccinati, J. L. (1982). The influence of a six-week imagery training program on children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(2), 197–203.Google Scholar

Oakhill, J., & Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems? Journal of Research in Reading, 14(2), 106–115.Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pearson, J. (2019) The human imagination: The cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10), 624–634.Google Scholar

Pearson, J., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). The heterogeneity of mental representation: Ending the imagery debate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10089–10092.Google Scholar

Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 355–359.Google Scholar

Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., & Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 188–192.Google Scholar

Rinck, M. & Denis, M. (2004). The metrics of spatial distance traversed during mental imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1211–1218.Google Scholar

Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291–304.Google Scholar

Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and Text. A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138–153.Google Scholar

Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65(4), 235–241.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Wittrock, M. C. (1988). A constructive review of research on learning strategies. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 287–297). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google 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 HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.