The modality principle in multimedia learning

The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 227-246

  Low, Renae ^a   Sweller, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947500478     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.012     Document Type: Chapter

References (71)

1. Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2006). Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,135(2), 298-313.
2. Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,24, 225-235.
3. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
5. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation(vol. 8, pp. 47-89). New York: Academic Press.
7. Brooks, L. (1967). The suppression of visualization by reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 289-299.
8. 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.
9. Br ü nken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology,49, 109-119.
10. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review,3, 149-210.
11. Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. New York: Psychology Press.
12. Craig, S., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 428-434.
13. Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers in Human Behaviour,28, 1063-1071.
14. Dennis, I. (1977). Component problems in dichotic listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,29, 437-450.
15. Frick, R. (1984). Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span. Memory & Cognition,12, 507-514.
16. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction,15, 313-331.
17. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology,17, 329-343.
18. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology,13, 351-371.
19. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,92, 126-136.
20. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors,46, 567-581.
21. Kolers, P. A. (1979). A pattern-analyzing basis of recognition. In L.S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craiks (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory(363-384)] Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. 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.
23. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology,25, 943-951.
24. Levin, J., & Divine-Hawkins, P. (1974). Visual imagery as a prose-learning process. Journal of Reading Behaviour,6, 23-30.
25. Lindow, S., Fuchs, H. M., F u rstenberg, A., Kleber, J., Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2011). On the robustness of the modality effect: Attempting to replicate a basic i nding. Zeitschrift für P ä dogoische Psychologie,25, 231-243.
26. Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, attentional processes and optimized learning outcomes in a digital environment. In C. Roda (Ed.), Human attention in digital environments(pp. 93-113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning(pp. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Mann, B., Newhouse, P., Pagram, J., Campbell, A., & Schulz, H. (2002). A comparison of temporal speech and text cueing in educational multimedia. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning18, 296-308.
29. Margrain, S. (1967). Short-term memory as a function of input modality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,19, 109-114.
30. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning(pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. 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.
32. Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology,93, 187-198.
33. Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multi-media learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology,90, 312-320.
34. Mayrath, M., Nihalani, P., & Robinson, D. (2011). Varying tutorial modality and interface restriction to maximize transfer in a complex simulation environment. Journal of Educational Psychology,103, 257-268.
35. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,63, 81-97.
36. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the methods-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,22, 149-158.
37. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational psychology,91, 358-368.
38. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology,94, 598-610.
39. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & 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 Instruction,19, 177-214.
40. Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology,87, 319-334.
41. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1971). Four-channel effects in short-term memory. Psychonomic Science,24, 197-198.
42. Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction,16, 173-199.
43. Oberauer, K., & Bialkova, S. (2009). Accessing information in working memory: Can the focus of attention grasp two elements at the same time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,138(1), 64-87.
44. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (1993). The eficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors,35, 737-743.
45. Paas, F. G. W., & van Merriënboer, J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review,6, 351-372.
46. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist,38, 1-4.
47. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Penney, C. (1980). Order of report in bisensory verbal short-term memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology,34, 190-195.
49. Penney, C. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition,17, 398-422.
50. Penney, C., & Butt, A. (1986). Within-and between-modality associations in probed recall: A test of the separate streams hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology,40, 1-11.
51. Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 193-198.
52. Rollins, H. A., & Hendricks, R. (1980). Processing of words presented simultaneously to eye and ear. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 99-109.
53. Rollins, H. A., & Thibadeau, R. (1973). The effects of auditory shadowing on recognition of information received visually. Memory & Cognition,1, 164-168.
54. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., F ü rstenberg, A., Scheiter, K., & Zindler, A. (2011). The perceptual basis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,17, 159-173.
55. Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Does animation amplify the modality effect-or is there any modality effect at all? Zeitschrift für P ä dogoische Psychologie,25, 245-256.
56. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,20, 100-110.
57. Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1987). A connectionist/control architecture for working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation(vol. 21, pp. 53-119). New York: Academic Press.
58. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning(pp. 49-69). New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In P.M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance(vol. 5, pp. 157-167). London: Academic Press.
60. Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition,4, 215-230.
61. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119, 176-192.
62. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,10, 251-296.
63. Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 71-81.
64. Tabbers, H. K., & van der Spoel, W. (2011). Where did the modality principle in multimedia go? A double replication failure that questions both theory and practical use. Zeitschrift für P ä dogoische Psychologie,25, 221-230.
65. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,80, 424-436.
66. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,3, 257-287.
67. Treisman, A. M., & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance(vol. 4, pp. 101-117). New York: Academic Press.
68. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction,7, 1-39.
69. Witteman, M. J., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,26, 132-142.
70. Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449-457.
71. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and rel ection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology,34, 1-8.