Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning,Instructional Design Principles,and Students with Learning Disabilities in Computer-based and Online Learning Environments
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2013
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning,Instructional Design Principles,and Students with Learning Disabilities in Computer-based and Online Learning Environments
Struggling learners and students with Learning Disabilities (LD) often exhibit unique cognitive processing and working memory characteristics that may not align with instructional design principles developed with typically developing learners. This paper begins with an explanation of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and underlying Cognitive Load Theory and Baddeley's Theory of Working Memory. A review of five empirically supported design principles based on these theories (redundancy effect, modality effect, split attention principle, worked samples, and expert reversal effect) and of cognitive and memory characteristics of students with LD prompts questions for further research. Implications for computer-based and online learning environments are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntonenkoP. D., & NiederhauserD. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning in a hypertext environment.Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 140–150.
2.
AtkinsonR. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427.
3.
AtkinsonR., RenklA., & MerrillM. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774–783.
4.
AyresP., & SwellerJ. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning.The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaddeleyA. (1986). Working memory.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
BaddeleyA. (1992). Working memory.Science, 255, 556–559.
7.
BaddeleyA. (1999). Human memory.Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
BaddeleyA. (2012). Working memory, theories models and controversy.The Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 12.1–12.29.
9.
BergD. (2008). Working memory and arithmetic calculation in children: The contributory roles of processing speed, short-term memory, and reading.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 99, 288–308.
10.
BertholdK., EysinkT., & RenklA. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompt are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations.Instructional Science, 37, 345–363.
11.
BobisJ., SwellerJ., & CooperM. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task.Learning and Instruction, 3(1), 1–21.
12.
CerpaN., ChandlerP., & SwellerJ. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345–367.
13.
ChandlerP., & SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
14.
ChungK., & TamY. (2005). Effects of cognitive-based instruction on mathematical problem solving by learners with mild intellectual disabilities.Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 30(4), 207–216.
15.
ClarkR., & MayerR. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning.San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
16.
ClarkR., NguyenF., SwellerJ. (2005). Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load.San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
17.
ConatiC., & VanLehnK. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.
18.
CortiellaC. (2011). The state of learning disabilities.New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
19.
CraigS., GholsonB., & DriscollD. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.
20.
CrooksS., CheonJ., InanF., AriF., & FloresR. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1063–1071.
21.
deHirschK. (1974). Early language development. In ArietiS. (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry (Vol. 1, pp. 352–367). New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
de JongT. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought.Instructional Science, 28, 105–134.
23.
DimmittS., HodappJ., JudasC., MunnC., & RachowC. (2006). Iowa Text Reader Project impacts student achievement.Closing the Gap, 24(6), 1–3.
24.
EdenG., SteinJ., WoodM., & WoodF. (1995). Verbal and visual problems in reading disability.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 272–290.
25.
EspindaS. (1973). Color vision deficiency: A learning disability?Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 6(3), 163–166.
26.
FiorellaL., Vogel-WalcuttJ., & SchatzS. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills.Educational Technology & Research Development, 60, 223–238.
27.
FuchsL., FuchsD., HamlettC., & AppletonA. (2002). Explicitly teaching for transfer: Effects on the mathematical problem solving performance of students with mathematics disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(2), 90–106.
28.
GearyD. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15.
29.
GearyD., HamsonC., & HoardM. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 236–263.
30.
GobetF., LaneP., CrokerS., ChengP., JonesG., OliverI., & PineJ. (2001). Chunking mechanisms in human learning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 236–243.
31.
GoodglassH., & KaplanE. (1993). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
32.
GranerP., & DeshlerD. (2012). Improving outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities. In WongB., & ButlerD.L. (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 299–323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33.
GreerD., IngramP., & MayerR. (2013). Cognitive load and multi-media learning: Testing effective multi-media information conveyance in early adolescence with learning disabilities. (Unpublished manuscript). Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
34.
HomerB., & PlassJ. (2010). Expertise reversal for iconic representations in science visualizations.Instructional Science, 38, 259–276.
35.
HuffM., BauhoffV., & SchwanS. (2012). Effects of split attention revisited: A new display technology for troubleshooting tasks.Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1254–1261.
36.
IzzoM.V., YurickA., & McArrellB. (2009). Supported eText: Effects of text-to-speech on access and achievement for high school students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 9–20.
37.
JohnsonD. (1995). An overview of learning disabilities: Psychoeducational perspectives.Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 82–85.
38.
JordanN., & HanichL. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different types of learning difficulties.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 567–578.
39.
KalyugaS. (2005). Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KalyugaS., ChandlerP., & SwellerJ. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.
41.
KirschnerP. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning.Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1–10.
42.
LiuT., LinY., TsaiM., & PaasF. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environments.Computers & Education, 58, 172–180.
43.
LowR., & SwellerJ. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook on multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
MattisS. (1978). Dyslexia syndromes: A working hypothesis that works. In BentonA.L., & PearlD. (Eds.), Dyslexia (pp. 43–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
45.
MayerR. (2002). Multimedia learning. In RossB. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46.
MayerR. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media.Learning and Instruction, 12, 125–141.
47.
MayerR. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
MayerR., BoveW., BrymanA., MarsR., & TapangcoL. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.
49.
MayerR., HeiserJ., & LonnS. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.
50.
MayerR., & MorenoR. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.
51.
MayerR., & MorenoR. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning.Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99.
52.
MayerR., & MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
McLeanJ., & HitchG. (1999). Working memory impairments in children with specific arithmetic learning difficulties.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74(3), 240–260.
55.
MillerG. (1956, 1994). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63, 81–97 and Psychological Review, 101, 343-352.
56.
MorenoR., & MayerR. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.
57.
MorenoR., MayerR., SpiresH., & LesterJ. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based learning: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?Cognition and Instruction,, 19, 177–213.
58.
MousaviS.Y., LowR., & SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.
OksaA., KalyugaS., & ChandlerP. (2010). Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text.Instructional Science, 38, 217–236.
61.
OwenR., & FuchsL. (2002). Mathematical problem-solving strategy instruction for third-grade students with learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 268–278.
62.
PaasF., RenklA., & SwellerJ. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments.Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.
63.
PaasF., & Van MerrienboerJ. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks.Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 351–371.
64.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65.
PalincsarA., & BrownA. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(2), 66–75.
66.
PiccianoA., SeamanJ., SheaP., & SwanK. (2012). Examining the extent and nature of online learning in American K—12 education: The research initiatives of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.Internet and Higher Education, 15, 127–135.
67.
RederL., & AndersonJ. (1982). Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for the main points of a text.Memory & Cognition, 10, 97–102.
68.
RenklA. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences.Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.
69.
RenklA. (2002). Worked-out examples: Instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations.Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.
70.
RenklA. (2005). The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
RenklA., & AtkinsonR. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective.Educational psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.
72.
RenklA., StarkR., GruberH., & MandlH. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.
SaldenR., AlevenV., SchwonkeR., & RenklA. (2010). The expertise reversal effect and worked examples in tutored problem solving.Instructional Science, 38(3), 289–307.
75.
SawyerR., GrahamS., & HarrisK. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Effects on the composition skills and self-efficacy of students with learning disabilities.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 340.
76.
SchnotzW., & BannertM. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation.Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
77.
SchwormS., & RenklA. (2002). Learning by solved example problems: Instructional explanations reduce self-explanation activity. Proceedings of the Annual Conference-Cognitive Science Society (pp. 816–821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78.
SilverL. (1989). Psychological and family problems associated with learning disabilities: Assessment and intervention.Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 319–325.
79.
SolmanR., SinghN., & KehoeE. (1992). Pictures block the learning of sightwords.Educational Psychology, 12, 143–153.
80.
SwansonH. (1996). Information processing: An introduction. In ReidD.K., HreskoW.O., & SwansonH.L. (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to learning disabilities (pp. 49–66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
81.
SwansonH. L., HowardC. B., & SaezL. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities,, 39(3), 252–269.
82.
SwansonH., & SaezL. (2005). Memory difficulties in children and adults with learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L., HarrisK., GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 182–198). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
83.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning.Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
84.
SwellerJ. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In RossB. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 43, pp. 215–216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
85.
SwellerJ. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In MayerR.E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–167). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
86.
SwellerJ., & ChandlerP. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn.Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
87.
TabbersH., MartensR., & van MerrienboerJ. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.
