Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- 28 The Generative Activity Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 29 The Mapping Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 30 The Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 31 The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 32 The Self-Explanation Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 33 The Guided Inquiry Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 34 The Feedback Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 35 The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 36 The Cognitive Load Self-Management Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
31 - The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning
from Part VII - Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- 28 The Generative Activity Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 29 The Mapping Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 30 The Drawing Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 31 The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 32 The Self-Explanation Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 33 The Guided Inquiry Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 34 The Feedback Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 35 The Learner Control Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 36 The Cognitive Load Self-Management Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Mental imagery is a generative learning strategy that encourages students to construct a mental representation – a mental image – of the content of a text. Mental images are valuable tools for thinking and learning because they provide a framework for remembering, organizing, and elaborating text information. The research base indicates that mental imagery strategies facilitate not only recall, but also comprehension and transfer performance. An important boundary condition is that students need to receive appropriate instructional support for imagining. Instructional support has been found to consistently improve learning performance across outcome measures for children and adults. Types of support range from training students on how to imagine text content to providing specific instructions on what to imagine, or offering additional material like external pictures.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 370 - 380Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Anderson, R. C., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(3), 242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist, 30(8), 821–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L., & Beal, C. R. (2020). Effects of student-generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts. The dual processing of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161–238.Google Scholar
Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S., Davison, M. L., Carlson, S. E., & Seipel, B. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 33, 2223–2248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68–82.Google Scholar
de Koning, B.B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106379.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., & van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling the interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, M. (2008). Assessing the symbolic distance effect in mental images constructed from verbal descriptions: A study of individual differences in the mental comparison of distances. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 197–210.Google Scholar
Denis, M., & Cocude, M. (1992). Structural properties of visual images constructed from poorly or well-structured verbal descriptions. Memory & Cognition, 20(5), 497–506.Google Scholar
Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., Fletscher, J. M., & Carter, S. (2015). Text‐processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 393–416.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning As a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gambrell, L. B. (1981). Induced mental imagery and the text prediction performance of first and third graders. In Niles, J. A., & Harris, L. A. (eds.), New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction (pp. 131–135). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children’s story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 265–276.Google Scholar
Giesen, C., & Peeck, J. (1984). Effects of imagery instruction on reading and retaining a literary text. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8, 79–90.Google Scholar
Ginns, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining information is effective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 229–251.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424–436.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). Reasoning about relations. Psychological Review, 112(2), 468–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottschling, V. (2006). Visual imagery, mental models, and reasoning. In Held, C., Knauff, M., & Vosgerau, G. (eds.), Mental Models and the Mind (pp. 211–235). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 371–398.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M., & Stull, A. T. (2012). Visuospatial thinking. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 606–630). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. (2012). Inference with mental models. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 134–155). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S. S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201–214.Google Scholar
Jones, M. S., Levin, M. E., Levin, J. R., & Beitzel, B. D. (2000). Can vocabulary-learning strategies and pair-learning formats be profitably combined? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 256–262.Google Scholar
Karlsson, J., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., Hickendorff, M., Koornneef, A., & van Leijenhorst, L. (2018). Profiles of young readers: Evidence from thinking aloud while reading narrative and expository texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 105–116.Google Scholar
Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 363–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The Case for Mental Imagery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., & Swenson, I. (1975), Imagery instructions and the comprehension of text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45(1), 47–51.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 266–276.Google ScholarPubMed
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26.Google Scholar
Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 47–63.Google Scholar
Leopold, C., Mayer, R. E., & Dutke, S. (2019). The power of imagination and perspective in learning from science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 793–808.Google Scholar
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284–289.Google Scholar
Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 142–154,Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, R. D., & Moore, S. (1999). Not all imagery is created equal: The role of imagery in the comprehension of main ideas in exposition. Reading Psychology, 20(1), 21–60.Google Scholar
McNamara, D., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers’ prior knowledge. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 229–257.Google Scholar
Miccinati, J. L. (1982). The influence of a six-week imagery training program on children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14(2), 197–203.Google Scholar
Oakhill, J., & Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems? Journal of Research in Reading, 14(2), 106–115.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, J. (2019) The human imagination: The cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10), 624–634.Google Scholar
Pearson, J., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). The heterogeneity of mental representation: Ending the imagery debate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(33), 10089–10092.Google Scholar
Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 355–359.Google Scholar
Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., & Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 188–192.Google Scholar
Rinck, M. & Denis, M. (2004). The metrics of spatial distance traversed during mental imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1211–1218.Google Scholar
Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Fritz, J. B. (1993). Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 291–304.Google Scholar
Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and Text. A Dual Coding Theory of Reading and Writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138–153.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J., & Geng, J. J. (2001). Oculomotor mechanisms activated by imagery and memory: Eye movements to absent objects. Psychological Research, 65(4), 235–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittrock, M. C. (1988). A constructive review of research on learning strategies. In Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T., & Alexander, P. A. (eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation (pp. 287–297). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by