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
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.