Home| Contact Us| New Journals| Browse Journals| Journal Prices| For Authors|

Print ISSN: 0976-4127
Online ISSN:
0976-4135


  About JMPT
  DLINE Portal Home
Home
Aims & Scope
Editorial Board
Current Issue
Next Issue
Previous Issue
Sample Issue
Upcoming Conferences
Self-archiving policy
Alert Services
Be a Reviewer
Publisher
Paper Submission
Subscription
Contact us
 
  How To Order
  Order Online
Price Information
Request for Complimentary
Print Copy
 
  For Authors
  Guidelines for Contributors
Online Submission
Call for Papers
Author Rights
 
 
RELATED JOURNALS
Journal of Digital Information Management (JDIM)
International Journal of Computational Linguistics Research (IJCL)
International Journal of Web Application (IJWA)

 

 
Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies
 

 

The Effects of the Multimedia, Modality, and Redundancy Principles in a Computer- Based Environment on Adult Learners
Ray Pastore, Tutaleni I. Asino, Jessica Briskin
Associate Professor of Instructional Technology, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S. College Rd., Wilmington NC, 28403, US & Oklahoma State University College of Education 209 Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078, US & Bloomsburg University of P
Abstract: Computer-based training (CBT) has become a common form of instructional delivery in business and educational environments. A standard practice during the design and development of CBT, is to incorporate the multimedia principle to aid learning. However, a recent meta-analysis by Pastore, Briskin, and Asino (2016) revealed that very little research has actually examined the multimedia principle (single vs. multiple representations) on adult learners in a computer-based environment. Instead, much of the research has focused on K-12, used paper and pencil rather than a computer, did not compare single vs multiple representations, or had methodological issues (i.e. did not report the type of knowledge assessed). As a result, the current study examines the multimedia, modality, and redundancy principles in a computer-based environment with adult learners on learning (high- and low- level knowledge) and cognitive load measures. The results of the low (recall) and high (transfer) level learning tasks in this study supported the multimedia principle. Multiple representations were found to better support learning than just one. However, this was not the case for modality or redundancy principles. Learners presented duplicate text and narration or text with optional narration performed just as well as those with no duplication, indicating reverse redundancy. Additionally, the narration and images groups did not outperform text and image groups.
Keywords: Multimedia Principle, Multimedia, Multiple Representations, Redundancy Principle, Modality Principle The Effects of the Multimedia, Modality, and Redundancy Principles in a Computer- Based Environment on Adult Learners
DOI:https://doi.org/10.6025/jmpt/2019/10/2/49-61
Full_Text   PDF 281 KB   Download:   102  times
References:[1] Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R. (2009). Test length and cognitive fatigue: An empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15 (2) 163-181. [2] Anmarkrud, O., Anderson, A., Braten, I. (2019). Cognitive load and working memory in multimedia learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Educational Psychologist, 48 (3). [3] 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. [4] Baddeley, A. D. (1998). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [5] Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1) 53–61. [6] Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 174-205. [7] Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4) 293–332. [8] ChanLin, L. -J. (2001). Formats and prior knowledge on learning in a computer-based lesson. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17, 409e419. [9] Chen, Cl., Yen, P. (2019). Learner control, segmenting, and modality effects in animated demonstrations used as the beforeclass instructions in the flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments. [10] Clark, R. C., Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Multimedia Principle: Use Words and Graphics Rather Than Words Alone. e- Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, Third Edition, 66-89. [11] Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. Sydney: University of New South Wales. [12] de Koning, B. B., van Hooijdonk, C. M. J., Lagerwerf, L. (2017). Verbal redundancy in a procedural animation: On-screen labels improve retention but not behavioral performance, Computers & Education, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.013. [13] Dwyer, F. M. (1965). An experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of selected visual illustrations in teaching science concepts to college freshmen. Unpublished Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. [14] Dwyer, F. M. (1972). A guide for improving visual instruction. Learning services, box 784. PA: State College. [15] Dwyer, F. M. (1978). Strategies for improving visual learning. Learning services, box 784. PA: State College. [16] Dwyer, F. M., Lamberski, R. (1983). The instructional effect of coding (color and black and white) in facilitating students’ information acquisition and retrieval. Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 31, 9–21. [17] Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schuler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451-461. [18] Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J., Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60 (2) 223-238. [19] Florax, M., Ploetzner, R. (2010). What Contributes to the Split-Attention Effect? The Role of Text Segmentation, Picture Labeling, and Spatial Proximaty. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216-224. [20] Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525. [21] Hegarty, M., Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (6) 717-742. [22] Gunawardhana, L. K., Palaniappan, S. (2016). Possibility of using multimedia application for learning. Journal of Computing, 5 (1) 77-83. [23] Hoekstra, R., Kiers, H., Johnson, A. (2012). Are assumptions of well-known statistical techniques checked, and why (not)?. Frontiers in Psychology, 3 (137). [24] Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, E., Mayer, R. E., DaRosa, D. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45 (8) 818-826. [25] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371. [26] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2004). When Redundant On-Screen Text in Multimedia Technical Instruction Can Interfere With Learning. Human Factors, 46 (3) 567-581. [27] Kamaruddin, N., Sulaiman, S. (2018). Understanding interface design principles and elements guidelines: A content analysis of established scholars. In: Proceedings of the art and design international conference. [28] Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., Sweller, J. (2012). Redundancy and expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to learn primary school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60 (1) 1-13. [29] Low, R., Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In: R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia (p. 147–158). NY: Cambridge University Press. [30] Mahdi, Z., Naidu, V., Kurian, P. (2019). Analyzing the role of human computer interaction principles for e-learning in solution design. Smart Technology and Innovation for a Sustainable Future. 41-44. [31] Mayer, R., Anderson, R. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452. [32] Mayer, R. E., 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. [33] Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [34] Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In: The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 41, 22-29. [35] Mayer, R., Heiser, J., Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187. [36] Mayer, R. E., Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2) 380. [37] Mayer, R., Chandler, P. (2001). 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. [38] Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1) 43-52. [39] Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In: R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia (p. 1- 16). NY: Cambridge University Press. [40] Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press. [41] Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [42] McAlpin, E., Kalaycioglu, S., Shilane, D. (2019). Dynamic Versus Static Presentation Formats, Do They Impact Performance Differently? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38 (1) 49-76. [43] Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2) 81-97. [44] Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598- 610. [45] Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (1) 156-163. [46] Nagmoti, J. M. (2017). Departing from PowerPoint default mode: Applying Mayer’s multimedia principles for enhanced learning of parasitology. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 35 (2), 199. [47] Paas, Fred., Tuovinen, Juhani., Tabbers, Huib., Van Gerven, Pascal. (2003). Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist - EDUC PSYCHOL. 38. 63-71.10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8. [48] Packer, R., Jordan, K. (Eds.). (2002). Multimedia: from Wagner to virtual reality. WW Norton & Company. [49] Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press. [50] Pastore, R. (2010). The effects of diagrams and time-compressed instruction on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Education Technology and Research Development, 58, 485-505. [51] Pastore, R. (2012). The effects of time—compressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Computers & Education, 58 (1) 641—651. [52] Pastore, R. (2016). Learner preferences in multimedia design. Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies, 7 (4) 144-152. [53] Pastore, R. (2014). Multimedia: Learner Preferences For Multimedia Learning. Journal of Multimedia Processing and Technologies, 5 (4) 134-144. [54] Pastore, R., Briskin, J., Asino, T. (2016). The multimedia principle: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 13 (11) 17-30. [55] Pollock, E., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86. [56] Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. [57] Samur, Y. (2012). Redundancy effect on retention of vocabulary words using multimedia presentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6). [58] Scheiter, K., Schuler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Hesse, F. W. (2014). Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73-84. [59] Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science, 8. [60] Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. [61] Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2) 257-285. [62] Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4 (4) 295- 312. [63] Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technological areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press. [64] Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle. In: R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (p. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University Press. [65] Sweller, Ayres., Kalyuga. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer, New York, NY. [66] Toh, S. C., Munassar, W. A. S., Yahaya, W. A. (2010). Redundancy effect in multimedia learning: A closer look. C. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego, Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an unknown Future, 988-998. [67] Rapchak, M. E. (2017). Is Your Tutorial Pretty or Pretty Useless? Creating Effective Tutorials with the Principles of Multimedia Learning. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(1-2), 68-76. [68] Reyna, J., Hanham, J., Meier, P. (2018). The internet explosion, digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital space. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(1). [69] Sung, E., Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (5) 1618-1625. [70] Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Splitattention and modality effects. In: National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Long Beach, CA. [71] Vaughan, T. (2011). Multimedia: Making it work, 8th ed., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. [72] Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2) 266-277.

Home | Aim & Scope | Editorial Board | Author Guidelines | Publisher | Subscription | Previous Issue | Contact Us |Upcoming Conferences|Sample Issues|Library Recommendation Form|

 

Copyright 2011 dline.info