Multimedia and Cognition: Examining the Effect of Applying Cognitive Principles to the Design of Instructional Materials

Abstract

The human cognitive system possesses a finite processing capacity, which is split into channels for various modalities, and learning can be inhibited if any of the cognitive channels is overloaded. However, although the amount of e-learning materials is increasing steadily, the design of instructional material has been largely based on intuition rather than cognitive principles. This research investigated if it is possible to improve the effectiveness of an established e-learning system by the application of cognitive design principles. And if so, does the increased development time and resources yield a substantial effect on learning. Quantitative data collecting during the experiment supported the cognitive principles based design and demonstrated that significantly better quiz scores were obtained in transfer and retention tests when compared against a more traditional design. The results of the study also indicate that the cognitive principles based design was both practical and feasible to apply in terms of necessary resources.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bearne

Jones

, & Sapsford-Francis

(1994). Towards usability guidelines for multimedia systems. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 105–110). San Francisco, CA: ACM Press.

Block

, & Dobell

(1999). The e-Bang Theory—Education industry overview. San Francisco, CA: Equity Research, Bank of America Securities.

Brunken

Steinbacher

Plass

J. L.

, & Leutner

(2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 109–119.

Hughes

, & Attwell

(2002). A framework for the evaluation of e-learning. Exploring models and partnerships for eLearning in SMEs Retrieved January 2008, from http://www.theknownet.com/ict_smes_seminars/papers/Hughes_Attwell.html

Huk

Lipper

Steinke

, & Floto

(2002). The role of navigation and motivation in e-learning—The CRIMP-approach within a Swedish-German research cooperation. Paper presented at the European distance and e-learning network annual conference.

Large

Beheshti

Breuleux

, & Renaud

(1994). The influence of multimedia on learning: A cognitive study. In Proceedings of the second ACM international conference on multimedia (pp. 315–319). San Francisco, CA: ACM Press.

Mayer

R. E.

(2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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(4), 444–452.

Mayer

R. E.

Bove

Bryman

Mars

, & Tapangco

(1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 64–73.

10.

Mayer

R. E.

, & Chandler

(2004). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397.

11.

Mayer

R. E.

Heiser

, & Lonn

(2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.

12.

Mayer

R. E.

, & Moreno

(1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.

13.

Miller

G. A.

(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

14.

Moreno

, & Mayer

R. E.

(1999a). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.

15.

Moreno

, & Mayer

R. E.

(1999b). Gender differences in responding to open-ended problem-solving questions. Learning and Individual Differences, 11(4), 355–364.

16.

Moreno

, & Mayer

R. E.

(2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.

17.

Paivio

(1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Penney

C. G.

(1989). Modality effects and the structure short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17(4), 398–422.

19.

Sweller

(1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 257–285.

20.

Sweller

, & Chandler

(1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

21.

Tannenbaum

R. S.

(2000). Multimedia developers can learn from the history of human communication. Ubiquity, 1(34). Retrieved March 2008, from http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/r_tannenbaum_3.html

22.

Tuovinen

J. E.

(2000). Optimising student cognitive load in computer education. In Proceedings of the Australasian conference on computing education (pp. 235–241). Melbourne, Australia: ACM Press.