Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction to Multimedia Learning
- PART I THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
- PART II BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING
- 6 Five Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning
- 7 The Multimedia Principle
- 8 The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 9 The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 10 The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 11 Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning : Segmenting, Pretraining, and Modality Principles
- 12 Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning : Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles
- 13 Principles of Multimedia Learning Based on Social Cues : Personalization, Voice, and Image Principles
- PART III ADVANCED PRINCIPLES OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING
- PART IV MULTIMEDIA LEARNING IN CONTENT AREAS
- PART V MULTIMEDIA LEARNING IN ADVANCED COMPUTER-BASED CONTEXTS
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
9 - The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction to Multimedia Learning
- PART I THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
- PART II BASIC PRINCIPLES OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING
- 6 Five Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning
- 7 The Multimedia Principle
- 8 The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 9 The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 10 The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 11 Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning : Segmenting, Pretraining, and Modality Principles
- 12 Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning : Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles
- 13 Principles of Multimedia Learning Based on Social Cues : Personalization, Voice, and Image Principles
- PART III ADVANCED PRINCIPLES OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING
- PART IV MULTIMEDIA LEARNING IN CONTENT AREAS
- PART V MULTIMEDIA LEARNING IN ADVANCED COMPUTER-BASED CONTEXTS
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
The capacity limitations of working memory are a major impediment when students are required to learn new material. Furthermore, those limitations are relatively inflexible. Nevertheless, in this chapter we explore one technique that can effectively expand working memory capacity. Under certain, well-defined conditions, presenting some information in visual mode and other information in auditory mode can expand effective working memory capacity and so reduce the effects of an excessive cognitive load. This effect is called the modality effect or modality principle. It is an instructional principle that can substantially increase learning. This chapter discusses the theory and data that underpin the principle and the instructional implications that flow from the principle.
Introduction
There is evidence to indicate that the manner in which information is presented will affect how well it is learned and remembered (e.g., Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapangco, 1996). This chapter deals with evidence documenting the importance of presentation modes, specifically the modality effect that occurs when information presented in a mixed mode (partly visual and partly auditory) is more effective than when the same information is presented in a single mode (either visual or auditory alone). The instructional version of the modality effect derives from the split-attention effect (see chapter 8), a phenomenon explicable by cognitive load theory (see chapter 2). It occurs when multiple sources of information that must be mentally integrated before they can be understood have written (and therefore visual) information presented in spoken (and therefore auditory) form.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 147 - 158Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
, , & (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1967). The suppression of visualization by reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science 32, 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , & (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1977). Component problems in dichotic listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span. Memory and Cognition, 12, 507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–3713.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (in press). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human FactorsGoogle Scholar
Kolers, P. A. (1979). A pattern-analyzing basis of recognition. In & (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
, , & (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1974). Visual imagery as a prose-learning process. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 6, 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1967). Short-term memory as a function of input modality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , & (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2001). Cognitive contraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). A split-attention effect in multi-media learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & (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, 177–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1971). Four-channel effects in short-term memory. Psychonomic Science, 24, 197–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). Order of report in bisensory verbal short-term memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 190–195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1986). Within- and between-modality associations in probed recall: A test of the separate streams hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 1–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & (1980). Processing of words presented simultaneously to eye and ear. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 99–109Google ScholarPubMed
, & (1973). The effects of auditory shadowing on recognition of information received visually. Memory and Cognition, 1, 164–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1987). A connectionist/control architecture for working memory. In (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. (Vol. 21, pp. 53–119). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In & (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167). London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
, , , & (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , & (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 101–117). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
, & (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 86
- Cited by