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
- 19 Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- 20 The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 21 The Transient Information Principle 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
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
21 - The Transient Information Principle in Multimedia Learning
from Part V - Principles for Managing Essential Processing 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
- 19 Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- 20 The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 21 The Transient Information Principle 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
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Instructional information can be categorised as being either transient or permanent. Spoken information or videos provide examples of transient information, while written information or static graphics provide examples of permanent information. The major characteristic of transient information is that current information, once presented, disappears to be replaced by new information, with the old information difficult to access. Permanent information, once presented, remains available and accessible for the duration of the instructional episode. The transient information effect or principle can be demonstrated when the same information is presented in either transient form such as speech or permanent form such as identical, written text. The effect occurs when learning is facilitated by the permanent version of the information. Cognitive load theory can be used to explain such results.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 268 - 274Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Boucheix, J., & Forestier, C. (2017). Reducing the transience effect of animations does not (always) lead to better performance in children learning a complex hand procedure. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro-Alonso, J., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014). Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks. Learning and Instruction, 34, 11–21.Google Scholar
Castro-Alonso, J., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018). Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: Don’t overplay the hand. Computers & Education, 116, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheon, J., Crooks, S., Inan, F., Flores, R., & Ari, F. (2011). Exploring the instructional conditions for a reverse modality effect in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 20, 117–133.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.Google Scholar
Crooks, S., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1063–1071.Google Scholar
Cunningham, T., Healy, A., Till, R., Fendrich, D., & Dimitry, C. (1993). Is there really very rapid forgetting from primary memory? The role of expectancy and item importance in short-term recall. Memory and Cognition, 21, 671–688.Google Scholar
Geary, D. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guichon, N., & McLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 36(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
Healy, A., & Cunningham, T. (1995). Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Muter. Memory and Cognition, 23, 387–392.Google Scholar
Inan, F., Crooks, S., Cheon, J., Ari, F., Flores, R., Kurucay, M., & Paniukov, D. (2015). The reverse modality effect: Examining student learning from interactive computer-based instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 123–130.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2016). Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on the modality effect. Instructional Science, 44, 107–123.Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Liu, T., & Sweller, J. (2015). Improving the frame design of computer simulations for learning: Determining the primacy of the isolated elements or the transient information effects. Computers & Education, 88, 280–291.Google Scholar
Mayer, R., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352.Google Scholar
Moussa-Inaty, J., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2012). Improving listening skills in English as a foreign language by reading rather than listening: A cognitive load perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 391–402.Google Scholar
Muter, P. (1995). Very rapid forgetting: Reply to Cunningham, Healy, Till, Fendrich and Dimitry. Memory and Cognition, 23, 383–386.Google Scholar
Ng, H., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). Reducing transience during animation: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology, 33, 755–772.Google Scholar
Penney, C. (1989). Modality effects in delayed free recall and recognition: Visual is better than auditory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 455–470.Google Scholar
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198.Google Scholar
Ploetzner, R., & Lowe, R. (2014). Simultaneously presented animations facilitate the learning of higher-order relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.Google Scholar
Singh, A., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 848–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.Google Scholar
Tabbers, H., & de Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instructional Science, 38, 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merriënboer, J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, B, Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Broek, G., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Effects of text modality in multimedia presentations on written and oral performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 438–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witteman, M., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 132–142.Google Scholar
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning & Instruction, 22, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by