The Multimedia Principle

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.008

7 - The Multimedia Principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

J. D. Fletcher and

Sigmund Tobias

Edited by

Richard Mayer

Show author details

J. D. Fletcher: Affiliation:
Institute for Defense Analysis
Sigmund Tobias: Affiliation:
Teachers College, Columbia University
Richard Mayer: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

The multimedia principle states that people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone. It is supported by empirically derived theory suggesting that words and images evoke different conceptual processes and that perception and learning are active, constructive processes. It is further supported by research studies that have found superior retention and transfer of learning from words augmented by pictures compared to words presented alone and superior transfer when narration is accompanied by animation compared to narration or animation presented alone. Research has also found that the effectiveness of combining imagery with text varies with the content to be learned, the conditions under which performance is measured, and individual differences in spatial ability, prior knowledge, and general learning ability. Cognitive theory derived from these findings posits interactions between three stages of memory – sensory, working, and long term – that are connected by cooperative, additive channels used to process information arriving from different sensory modalities.

The Multimedia Principle

It is commonly assumed that adding pictures to words, rather than presenting text alone, makes it easier for people to understand and learn. The proverb that a picture is worth a thousand words attests to the popularity and acceptance of this assumption. The assumption leads to what may be called the multimedia principle. This principle, as stated by Mayer (2001), is that people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone, or, more specifically, that people learn more or more deeply when appropriate pictures are added to text (Mayer, in press).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 117 - 134

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

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, 202–232Google Scholar

Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., & Binkley, M. (Eds.). (1993). Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61CrossRef Google Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, R. E. (Ed.). (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar

Corno, L., & Snow, R. E. (1986). Adapting teaching to individual differences among learners. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 605–629). New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Craik, E. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684CrossRef Google Scholar

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: IrvingtonGoogle Scholar

Dochy, F. J. R. C. (1992). Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning. Utrecht/London: Lemma B. V./Jessica Kingsley PublishersGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, J. D. (1982) Training technology: An ecological point of view. In Kasschau, R. A., Lachman, R., & Laughery, K. R. (Eds.), Psychology and society: Information technology in the 1980s (pp. 166–191). New York: Holt, Reinhart, and WinstonGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, J. D. (1991). Effectiveness and cost of interactive videodisc instruction. Machine Mediated Learning, 3, 361–385Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. D. (2003) Evidence for learning from technology-assisted instruction. In O'Neil, H. F. Jr. & Perez, R. (Eds.), Technology applications in education: A learning view (pp. 79–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, J. D. (2004). Technology, the columbus effect, and the third revolution in learning. In Rabinowitz, M., Blumberg, F. C., & Everson, H. (Eds.), The design of instruction and evaluation: Affordances of using media and technology (pp. 139–157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Garris, R. D., Mulligan, C. P., Ricci, K. E., Dwyer, D. J., McCallum, G. A., Moskal, P. J. (1990). Effects of graphics detail on locator task performance for computer-based training. (NTSC Tech Rep 87-034). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems CenterGoogle Scholar

Gay, G. (1986). Interaction of learner control and prior understanding in computer-assisted video instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225–227CrossRef Google Scholar

Gustafsson, J. E., & Undheim, J. O. 1996. Individual differences in cognitive functions. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 186–242). New York: Simon & Schuster MacmillanGoogle Scholar

Hagman, J. D., & Rose, A. M. (1983). Retention of military tasks: A review. Human Factors, 25(2), 199–213CrossRef Google Scholar

Hanley, J., Herron, C., & Cole, S. (1995). Using video as advance organizer to a written passage in the FLES classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 57–66CrossRef Google Scholar

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Hooper, S. R., Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for education communications and technology (pp. 378–402). New York: Macmillan Reference USAGoogle Scholar

Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (1995). Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageCrossRef Google Scholar

Healy, A. F., Wohldmann, E., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (in press). The procedural reinstatement framework: Studies on training, retention, and transfer. In Healy, A. F. (Ed.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications: Festschrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRef Google Scholar

Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1996). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. Volume II (pp. 641–668). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Hesketh, B. (1997). Dilemmas for training transfer and retention. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 317–386Google Scholar

James, W. (1890/1950). Principles of psychology: Volume I. New York: Dover PressGoogle Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31CrossRef Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of experise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17CrossRef Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–3713.0.CO;2-6>CrossRef Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136CrossRef Google Scholar

Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working-memory capacity Spearman's g? In Dennis, I. & Tapsfield, P. (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 49–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Kyllonen, P. C. (in press). ‘g’: Knowledge, speed, strategies, or working-memory capacity? A systems perspective. In Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it?Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 371–409CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (in press). Ten research-based principles of multimedia learning. In O'Neil, H. F. Jr. & Perez, R. S. (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490CrossRef Google 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, 444–452CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198CrossRef Google 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, 84, 389–401CrossRef Google Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125CrossRef Google Scholar

Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton, Century, CroftsGoogle Scholar

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4CrossRef Google 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, 63–71CrossRef Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Paivio, A. (1991). Images in mind: The evolultion of a theory. Hempstead, Herfordshire, UK: Harvester WheatshaftGoogle Scholar

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22CrossRef Google Scholar

Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Ricci, K. E., Garris, R. D., Mulligan, C. F., & McCallum, G. A. (1990). Effects of graphics detail parameters on procedural task performance for computer-based training. (NTSC Tech Rep 89-023). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center. (DTIC AD-B154 814)Google Scholar

Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers, graphics, and learning. Dubuque, IA: Brown & BenchmarkGoogle Scholar

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant differences phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State UniversityGoogle Scholar

Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217CrossRef Google Scholar

Schneider, V. I., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (1998). Contextual interference effects in foreign language vocabulary acquisition and retention. In Healy, A. F. & Bourne, L. E. Jr. (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 77–90). Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Seignon, N., & Tobias, S. (1996, April). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and need for feedback. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York

Sugrue, B., & Clark, R. (2000). Media selection for training. In Tobias, S. & Fletcher, J. D. (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 208–234). New York: Macmillan Reference USAGoogle Scholar

Süß, H-M., Oberauer, K., Wittman, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schultze, R. (1996). Working memory capacity and intelligence: An integrative report based on Brunswik symmetry (Research Report No. 8). Mannheim, Germany: University of MannheimGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (in press). Why understanding instructional design principles requires an understanding of the evolution of human cognitive architecture. In O'Neil, H. F. Jr. & Perez, R. S. (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Tobias, S. (1976). Achievement treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 46, 61–74CrossRef Google Scholar

Tobias, S. (1982). When do instructional methods make a difference?Educational Researcher, 11(4), 4–9Google Scholar

Tobias, S. (1987). Mandatory text review and interaction with student characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 154–161CrossRef Google Scholar

Tobias, S. (1989). Another look at research on the adaptation of instruction to student characteristics. Educational Psychologist, 24, 213–227CrossRef Google Scholar

Tobias, S. (in press). The importance of motivation, metacognition, and help seeking in web based learning. In O'Neil, H. F. Jr. & Perez, R. S. (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (2000). Assessing metacognitive knowledge monitoring. In Schraw, G. & Impara, J. C. (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 147–222). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental MeasurementsGoogle Scholar

Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load of a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13CrossRef Google Scholar

Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Wickens, C. D., & Flach, J. M. (1988). Information processing. In Wiener, E. L. & Nagel, D. C. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 111–155). San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Wisher, R. A., Sabol, M. A., & Ellis, J. A. (1999). Staying sharp: Retention of militaryknowledge and skills (ARI Special Report 39). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Retrieved June 30, 2004, from http://www.ari.army.milGoogle Scholar

Wittman, W. W, & Süß, H-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik Symmetry. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRef Google Scholar

Youngblut, C. (2003). Experience of presence in virtual environments (IDA Document D-2960). Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense AnalysisCrossRef 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 PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.