Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:34:13.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - The Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning

from Part IV - Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Slava Kalyuga  and
John Sweller
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer  and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

The redundancy principle (or redundancy effect) suggests that redundant material interferes with rather than facilitates learning. Redundancy is broadly defined as any unnecessary information including irrelevant information, the same information presented concurrently in multiple forms or in unnecessarily elaborated form. According to cognitive load theory, processing redundant information with essential information increases working memory load which may interfere with learning. Eliminating such redundant information removes the requirement to process unnecessary sources of information. Accordingly, instructional designs that eliminate redundant material can be superior to those that include redundancy. This chapter summarizes research and theory concerned with the effect of processing redundant information in multimedia learning, a history of research in instructional redundancy, the conditions of applicability of this principle, and its instructional implications.

Keywords

redundancy principleredundancy effectcognitive load theoryworking memory loadextraneous cognitive load
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 212 - 220
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acarturk, C., & Ozcelic, E. (2017). Secondary-task effects on learning with multimedia: An investigation through eye-movement analysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 126–141.Google Scholar
Ari, F., Flores, R., Inan, F. A., Cheon, J., Crooks, S. M., Paniukov, D., & Kurucay, M. (2014). The effects of verbally redundant information on student learning: An instance of reverse redundancy. Computers & Education, 76, 199–204.Google Scholar
Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P. (2008). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 707–744.Google Scholar
Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, V., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2016). The redundancy effect on retention and transfer for individuals with high symptoms of ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, Fall 2016, 34–46.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. M., Smith-Kerker, P., Ford, J., & Mazur-Rimetz, S. (1987). The minimal manual. Human–Computer Interaction, 3, 123–153.Google Scholar
Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345–367.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, B. B., van Hooijdonk, C. M. J., & Lagerverf, L. (2017). Verbal redundancy in a procedural animation: On-screen labels improve retention but not behavioral performance. Computers & Education, 107, 45–53.Google Scholar
Diao, Y., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2007). The effect of written text on comprehension of spoken English as a foreign language. The American Journal of Psychology, 120, 237–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diao, Y., & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction, 17, 78–88.Google Scholar
Fenesi, B., Kramer, E., & Kim, J. A. (2016). Split‐attention and coherence principles in multimedia instruction can rescue performance for learners with lower working memory capacity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 691–699.Google Scholar
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H.S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, W. G. (1976). Teaching verbal chains using flow diagrams and texts. AV Communication Review, 24, 63–78.Google Scholar
Jamet, E., & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 588–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, D., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2018). The curious case of improving foreign language listening skills by reading rather than listening: An expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1139–1165.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoop‐van Campen, C. A. N., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). The modality and redundancy effects in multimedia learning in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 24(2), 140–155.Google Scholar
Knoop-van Campen, C. A. N., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The modality and redundancy effects, and their relation to executive functioning in children with dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 90, 41–50.Google Scholar
Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth a thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–69.Google Scholar
Lazonder, A., & Van der Meij, H. (1993). The minimal manual: Is less really more? International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 729–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., & Mayer, R. (2015). Visual aids to learning in a second language: Adding redundant video to an audio lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 445–454.Google Scholar
Lesh, R., Behr, M., & Post, T. (1987). Rational number relations and proportions. In Janvier, C. (ed.). Problems of Representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics (pp. 41–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Li, J., & Tong, F. (2019). Multimedia-assisted self-learning materials: The benefits of E-flashcards for vocabulary learning in Chinese as a foreign language. Reading and Writing, 32, 1175–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Jang, B. G., & Roy-Campbell, Z. (2018). Optimum input mode in the modality and redundancy principles for university ESL students’ multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 127, 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, T.-C., Lin, Y.-C., Gao, Y., Yeh, S.-C, & Kalyuga, S. (2015). Does the redundancy effect exist in electronic slideshow assisted lecturing? Computers & Education, 88, 303–314.Google Scholar
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, 58, 172–180.Google Scholar
Luchini, P. L. (2015) Simultaneous reading and listening is less effective than reading alone: A study based on cognitive load theory. In Piechurska-Kuciel, E., & Szyszka, M. (eds.), The Ecosystem of the Foreign Language Learner: Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 71–80). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, C., & Luchini, P. L. (2018). Cognitive load theory, redundancy effect and language learning. In Ponniah, R., & Venkatesan, S. (eds.), The Idea and Practice of Reading (pp. 177–190). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Majooni, A., Masood, M., & Akhavan, A. (2016). An eye tracking experiment on strategies to minimize the redundancy and split attention effects in scientific graphs and diagrams. In Di Bucchianico, G., & Kerscher, P. (eds.), Advances in Design for Inclusion: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 500, pp. 529–540). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R., 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.Google Scholar
Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive contraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.Google Scholar
Miller, W. (1937). The picture crutch in reading. Elementary English Review, 14, 263–264.Google Scholar
Mohamad Ali, A. Z., Segaran, K., & Wee Hoe, T. (2015). Effects of verbal components in 3D talking-head on pronunciation learning among non-native speakers. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 313–322.Google Scholar
Molina, A. I., Navaro, O., Ortega, M., & Lacruz, M. (2018). Evaluating multimedia learning materials in primary education using eye tracking. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 59, 45–60.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002a). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002b). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.Google Scholar
Moussa-Inaty, J., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load and the impact of spoken English on learning English as a foreign language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 63, 391–402.Google Scholar
Pachman, M., & Ke, F. (2012). Environmental support hypothesis in designing multimedia training for older adults: Is less always more? Computers & Education, 58, 100–110.Google Scholar
Paoletti, G., Bortolotti, E., & Zanon, F. (2012). Effects of redundancy and paraphrasing in university lessons: Multitasking and cognitive load in written-spoken PowerPoint presentation. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence, 3, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reder, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 121–134.Google Scholar
Reder, L., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for main points of a text. Memory & Cognition, 10, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roscoe, R. D., Jacovina, M. E., Harry, D., Russel, D. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Partial verbal redundancy in multimedia presentations for writing strategy instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 669–679.Google Scholar
Saunders, R., & Solman, R. (1984). The effect of pictures on the acquisition of a small vocabulary of similar sight-words. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 265–275.Google Scholar
Schooler, J., & Engstler-Schooler, T. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, A., & Ayres, P. (2016). Investigating the modality and redundancy effects for learners with persistent pain. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solman, R., Singh, N., & Kehoe, E. J. (1992). Pictures block the learning of sight words. Educational Psychology, 12, 143–153.Google Scholar
Swanson, H. L., Zheng, X., & Jerman, O. (2009). Working memory, short-term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(3), 260–287.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994) Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition & Instruction, 12, 185–233.Google Scholar
Torcasio, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load theory approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 659–672.Google Scholar
Wang, C.-Y., Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). Multimedia recipe reading: Predicting learning outcomes and diagnosing cooking interest using eye-tracking measures. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 266–277.Google Scholar
Zheng, R., Smith, D., Luptak, M., Hill, R. D., Hill, J., & Rupper, R. (2016). Does visual redundancy inhibit older persons’ information processing in learning? Educational Gerontology, 42, 635–645.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×