Renae Low, Putai Jin and John Sweller
4.6 Implications for multimedia instruction and conclusions The split-attention, redundancy and modality effects have both
theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, while experimental results demonstrating split-attention and redundancy effects provide evidence that the limitation of working memory can be overcome by formatting instructional materials in a manner that minimizes extraneous cognitive load, the experimental results indicat-ing the modality effect demonstrate that workindicat-ing-memory capacity can be effectively expanded. From a practical perspective, the three cog-nitive load effects provide guidelines for effective instructional proce-dures. In constructing digital support systems and tools, the educational effectiveness of instructions that require learners to split their attention unnecessarily between multiple sources of information is likely to be compromised. Eliminating split attention has the potential to improve multimedia instruction substantially. One way to eliminate split atten-tion is to integrate different sources of informaatten-tion physically (see figure 4.2). The modality principle suggests that under split-attention conditions, learning can also be enhanced by presenting a written source
of information in auditory mode. However, it is important to ensure that the auditory material is essential and not redundant and that the instruc-tional material is complex enough to necessitate the use of a cognitive load reducing technique.
Modern information technology has provided a variety of platforms and vehicles for the design and delivery of multimedia learning mate-rial. However, simply providing access to multimedia does not guar-antee useful learning. The entire teaching and learning process must take into account the limitations of human working memory. Cogni-tive load theory specifically addresses the limitations of working mem-ory. The split-attention, redundancy and modality effects discussed in this chapter can be explained by cognitive load theory. In turn, these effects provide a theoretical base for practical applications in multimedia presentations.
4.7 References
Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. 2006. Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding?Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General135(2): 298–313
Baddeley, A., and Hitch, G. 1974. Working memory, in G. A. Bower (ed.),The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press: vol. VIII:
47–89
Bandura, A. 1986.Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bays, P. M., and Husain, M. 2008. Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision,Science321: 851–4
Berninger, V. W., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., and Stock, P. 2008.
A multidisplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruc-tion,Developmental Neuropsychology33(6): 707–44
Br ¨unken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. 2004. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modal-ity effects,Instructional Science32: 115–32
Br ¨unken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. 2002. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology, Experi-mental Psychology49: 109–19
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., and Mazur-Rimetz, S. 1987. The minimal manual,Human–Computer Interaction3: 123–53
Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1996. Cognitive load while learning to use a com-puter program,Applied Cognitive Psychology10: 151–70
Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. 1973. Perception in chess,Cognitive Psychology 4: 55–81
Cooper, G., and Sweller, J. 1987. The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer,Journal of Educational Psychology79: 347–62
Cowan, N. 2005.Working Memory Capacity. New York: Psychology Press De Groot, A. 1965.Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton (original
work published 1946)
Diao, Y., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 2007. The effect of written text on learning to comprehend spoken English as a foreign language,American Journal of Psychology120: 237–261
Diao, Y., and Sweller, J. 2007. Redundancy in foreign language reading compre-hension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations,Learning and Instruction17: 78–88
Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., Carr, L. A., and Ferreira, F. 2008. Cognitive inhibition and working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Journal of Abnormal Psychology117(3): 591–604
Ericsson, K. A., and Kintsch, W. 1995. Long-term working memory, Psycholog-ical Review102: 211–45
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., and Smith, I. M. 2008. Executive function in preschool-ers: A review using an integrative framework,Psychological Bulletin134(1):
31–60
Geary, D. 2002. Principles of evolutionary educational psychology,Learning and Individual Differences12: 317–45
2005.The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
2007. Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology, in J. S. Carlson and J. R. Levin (eds.),Psychological Perspectives on Contemporary Educational Issues. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing: 1–99
2008. An evolutionarily informed education science,Educational Psychologist 43: 179–95
Hirai, A. 1999. The relationship between listening and reading rates of Japanese EFL learners,Modern Language Journal83: 367–84
Hung, H. C. M. 2007. ‘Split attention in reading comprehension: A case of English as a foreign/second language’, unpublished masters thesis, Univer-sity of New South Wales, Australia
Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1997. The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction,Educational Psychology17: 329–43
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1998. Levels of expertise and instruc-tional design,Human Factors40: 1–17
2000. Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruc-tion,Journal of Educational Psychology92: 126–36
2004. When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning,Human Factors46: 567–81
Kim, E. S., Bayles, K. A., and Beeson, P. M. 2008. Instruction processing in young and older adults: Contributions of memory span,Aphasiology22(7):
753–62
Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., and Caterino, L. C. 1994. Reference maps as a framework for remembering text, in W. Schnotz and R. W. Kulhavy (eds.), Comprehension of Graphics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science: 153–62
Lavie, N. 2005. Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences9(2): 75–82
Low, R., and Sweller, J. 2005. The modality principle in multimedia learning, in R. E. Mayer (ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 147–58
Makovski, T., Sussman, R., and Jiang, Y. V. 2008. Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34(2): 369–80 Mayer, R. E. 2001.Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press
2005. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in R. E. Mayer (ed.),The Cam-bridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: CamCam-bridge University Press: 31–48
Mayer, R. E., and Anderson, R. 1991. Animations need narrations: An exper-imental test of a dual-coding hypothesis, Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 484–90
1992. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning,Journal of Educational Psychology 84: 444–52
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., and Tapangco, L. 1996. When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons,Journal of Educational Psychology88: 64–73
Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. 1998. A split-attention effect in multimedia learn-ing: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory,Journal of Educational Psychology90: 312–20
Mayer, R. E., and 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 Psychology86: 389–401
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information,Psychological Review63: 81–97 Miller, W. 1937. The picture clutch in reading,Elementary English Review14:
263–4
Moores, E., and Maxwell, J. 2008. The role of prior exposure in the capture of attention by items in working memory,Visual Cognition16(5): 675–95 Moreno, R., and Mayer, R. E. 1999. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning:
The role of modality and contiguity, Journal of Educational Psychology91:
358–68
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., and Lester, J. C. 2001. The case for social agency in computer-based multimedia learning: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?Cognition and Instruction19: 177–214
Mousavi, S., Low, R., and Sweller, J. 1995. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes,Journal of Educational Psychology 87: 319–34
Oberauer, K., and Bialkova, S. 2009. Accessing information in working memory:
Can the focus of attention grasp two elements at the same time?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General138(1): 64–87
Oka, K., and Miura, T. 2008. Allocation of attention and effect of practice on persons with and without mental retardation,Research in Developmental Disabilities29(2): 165–75
Paas, F., and van Merri¨enboer, J. 1993. The efficiency of instructional conditions:
An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures,Human Factors35: 737–43
Paivio, A. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York:
Oxford University Press
Parks, E. L., and Hopfinger, J. B. 2008. Hold it! Memory affects attentional dwell time,Psychonomic Bulletin and Review15(6): 1128–34
Penney, C. G. 1989. Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory,Memory and Cognition17: 398–422
Peterson, L., and Peterson, M. J. 1959. Short-term retention of individual verbal items,Journal of Experimental Psychology58: 193–8
Reder, L., and Anderson, J. R. 1980. A comparison of texts and their summaries:
Memorial consequences,Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour19:
121–34
1982. Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for main points of a text,Memory and Cognition10: 97–102
San Miguel, I., Corral, M., and Escera, C. 2008. When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm,Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience20(7):
1131–45
Schnotz, W. 2005. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in R. E. Mayer (ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 49–66
Simon, H., and Gilmartin, K. 1973. A simulation of memory for chess positions, Cognitive Psychology5: 29–46
Solman, R., Singh, N., and Kehoe, E. J. 1992. Pictures block the learning of sight words,Educational Psychology12: 143–53
Sweller, J. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design,Learning and Instruction4: 295–312
2005a. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning, in R. E.
Mayer (ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press: 19–30
2005b. The redundancy principle, in R. E. Mayer (ed.),The Cambridge Hand-book of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 159–67 Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. 1991. Evidence for cognitive load theory,Cognition
and Instruction8: 351–62
1994. Why some material is difficult to learn,Cognition and Instruction 12:
185–233
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., and Cooper, M. 1990. Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material,Journal of Experimental Psychology: General119: 176–92
Sweller, J., and Cooper, G. 1985. The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra,Cognition and Instruction2: 59–89 Sweller, J., and Sweller, S. 2006. Natural information processing systems,
Evolutionary Psychology4: 434–58
Tarmizi, R., and Sweller, J. 1988. Guidance during mathematical problem solv-ing,Journal of Educational Psychology80: 424–36
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1997. When two sensory modes are better than one,Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied3: 257–87 Torcasio, S. and Sweller, J. 2010. The use of illustrations when learning to read: A
cognitive load theory approach,Applied Cognitive Psychology24(5): 659–72 Van Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., van Merri¨enboer, J., Hendriks, M., and Schmidt,
H. G. 2003. The efficienty of multimedia learning into old age, British Journal of Educational Psychology73(4): 489–505
van Merri¨enboer, J., and Kester, L. 2005. The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning, in R. E. Mayer (ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 71–93
van Merri¨enboer, J., and Kirschner, P. 2007. Ten Steps to Complex Learning:
A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. New York:
Routledge
Ward, M., and Sweller, J. 1990. Structuring effective worked examples,Cognition and Instruction7: 1–39
West-Eberhard, M. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. New York:
Oxford University Press
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., and Sweller, J. 1998. Cognitive load and learner expertise:
Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes, Contemporary Educational Psychology23: 1–21
Zhang, Y., Du, Y., and Zhang, J. X. 2008. Working memory selection and com-petition between target and distractor representations,Psychological Reports 102(1): 194–212
Zhu, X., and Simon, H. 1987. Learning mathematics from examples and by doing,Cognition and Instruction4: 137–66