Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles

The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 279-315

  Mayer, Richard E ^a   Fiorella, Logan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908630778     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.015     Document Type: Chapter

References (91)

1. Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,104, 250-263.
2. Amadieu, F., Marine, C., & Lemay, C. (2011). The attention guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 36-40.
3. Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers and Education,53, 1339-1354.
4. Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology,76, 408-417.
5. Baggett, P., & Ehrenfeucht, A. (1983). Encoding and retaining information in the visuals and verbals of an educational movie. Educational Communications and Technology Journal,31, 23-32.
6. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualizations. Learning and Instruction,14, 325-341.
7. Boucheix, J. M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye-tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction,20, 123-135.
8. Boucheix, J. M., Lowe, R. K., Kemala-Putri, D., & Groff, J. (2013). Cueing animations: Dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 71-84.
9. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,38, 53-62.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2d ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Cortina, J. M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,8, 293-332.
13. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology,62, 233-246.
14. Chung, K. K. H. (2007). Presentation factors in the learning of Chinese characters: The order and position of Hanyu pinyin and English translations. Educational Psychology,27, 1-20.
15. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior,25, 315-324.
16. 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.
17. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology,21, 731-746.
18. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review,21, 113-140.
19. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction,20(2), 111-122.
20. DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223-234.
21. Diao, Y., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2007). The effect of written text on comprehension of spoken English as a foreign language. American Journal of Psychology,120, 237-261.
22. Diao, Y., & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction,17, 78-88.
23. Doolittle, P. E., & Altstaedter, L. L. (2009). The effect of working memory capacity on multimedia learning: Does attentional control result in improved performance? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching,2, 7-23.
24. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction,16, 511-525.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
28. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1996). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In T. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research(vol. 2, pp. 641-668). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Issa, N., Mayer, R. E., Schuller, M., Wang, E., Shapiro, M., & DaRosa, D. A. (2013). Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Medical Education,47, 388-396.
30. Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, E., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education,45, 818-826.
31. Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,18, 135-145.
32. Jamet, E., & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology,32, 588-598.
33. Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: Guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction,25, 62-70.
34. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology,17, 329-433.
35. Johnson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,18, 178-191.
36. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology,13, 351-371.
37. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 126-136.
38. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computersimulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 71-85.
39. Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up inl uences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,65, 911-930.
40. Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology,17, 401-418.
41. Le Bohec, O., & Jamet, E. (2008). Levels of verbal redundancy, notetaking and multimedia learning. In J.-F. Rouet, R. Lowe, & W. Schnotz (Eds.), Understanding multimedia documents(pp. 79-101). New York: Springer.
42. Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology,31, 167-185.
43. Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Tsai, M. J., & Paas, F. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environments. Computers & Education,56, 172-181.
44. Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology,75, 402-412.
45. Lorch, R. F., Jr. (1989). Text signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review,1, 209-234.
46. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 377-389.
47. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 377-389.
48. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 240-246.
49. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2d ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 795-809.
54. Mayer, R. E., Grifith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,14, 329-339.
55. 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.
56. Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,11, 256-265.
57. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 380-386.
58. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,38, 43-52.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology,14, 555-575.
63. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmenting methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology,21(6), 765-781.
64. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 358-368.
65. 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.
66. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002a). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 156-163.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Cristmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for dei cits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 791-807.
70. Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology,28, 29-45.
71. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior,26, 110-117.
72. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist,38, 63-72.
73. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T. & Brunken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 5-10.
74. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
75. Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development,56, 379-399.
76. Rey, G. D. (2010). Reading direction and signaling in a simple computer simulation. Computers in Human Behavior,26(5), 1176-1182.
77. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review,7, 216-237.
78. Rockwell, S. C., & Singleton, L. A. (2007). The effect of the modality of presentation of streaming multimedia on information acquisition. Media Psychology,9, 179-191.
79. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Furstenberg, A., Scheiter, K., & Zindler, A. (2011). The perceptual basis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,17(2), 159-173.
80. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition,34, 344-355.
81. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2010). The effects of signals of learning from text and diagrams: How looking at diagrams earlier and more frequently improves understanding. In A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrams 2010, LNAI 6170 (pp. 261-270). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
82. Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction,22, 92-102.
83. Stull, A., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 808-820.
84. Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior,28(5), 1618-1625.
85. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.
86. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
87. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction,12, 185-233.
88. 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.
89. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 424-436.
90. Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory mode and information load: Examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing. International Journal of Instructional Media,27(2), 183-198.
91. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modalities are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,3, 257-287.