The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning

The split-attention principle states that when designing instruction, including multimedia instruction, it is important to avoid formats that require learners to split their attention between, and mentally integrate, multiple sources of information. Instead, materials should be formatted so that disparate sources of information are physically and temporally integrated thus obviating the need for learners to engage in mental integration. By eliminating the need to mentally integrate multiple sources of information, extraneous working memory load is reduced, freeing resources for learning. This chapter provides the theoretical rationale, based on cognitive load theory, for the split-attention principle, describes the major experiments that establish the validity of the principle, and indicates the instructional design implications when dealing with multimedia materials. Definition of Split-Attention Instructional split-attention occurs when learners are required to split their attention between and mentally integrate several sources of physically or temporally disparate information, where each source of information is essential for understanding the material. Cognitive load is increased by the need to mentally integrate the multiple sources of information. This increase in extraneous cognitive load (see chapter 2) is likely to have a negative impact on learning compared to conditions where the information has been restructured to eliminate the need to split attention. Restructuring occurs by physically or temporally integrating disparate sources of information to eliminate the need for mental integration. The split-attention effect occurs when learners studying integrated information outperform learners studying the same information

[1]  Hans Spada,et al.  The Active Integration of Information during Learning with Dynamic and Interactive Visualisations , 2004 .

[2]  R. Mayer Systematic Thinking Fostered by Illustrations in Scientific Text , 1989 .

[3]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[4]  R. Mayer,et al.  The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning , 1992 .

[5]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[6]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[7]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[8]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[9]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra , 1985 .

[10]  J. Sweller,et al.  Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. , 1987 .

[11]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[12]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Some Conditions under Which Integrated Computer-Based Training Software Can Facilitate Learning , 1996 .

[13]  Mireille Bétrancourt,et al.  Integrating textual and pictorial information via pop-up windows: An experimental study , 1998, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[14]  C. J. Wolfe,et al.  The effects of system design alternatives on the acquisition of tax knowledge from a computerized tax decision aid , 2000 .

[15]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load While Learning to Use a Computer Program , 1996 .

[16]  John Sweller,et al.  The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load , 1991 .

[17]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. , 1990 .

[18]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[19]  Eric Jamet,et al.  Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning , 2006, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[20]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animations need narrations : an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis , 1991 .

[21]  Paul Ginns Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[22]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[23]  J. Sweller,et al.  Structuring Effective Worked Examples , 1990 .

[24]  D. Leutner,et al.  Direct Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[25]  Patricia Baggett,et al.  Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. , 1984 .

[26]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[27]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[28]  R. Mayer,et al.  A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text , 1995 .

[29]  H. Simon,et al.  Learning Mathematics From Examples and by Doing , 1987 .

[30]  Yeung,et al.  Cognitive Load and Learner Expertise: Split-Attention and Redundancy Effects in Reading with Explanatory Notes , 1998, Contemporary educational psychology.

[31]  P. Chandler,et al.  Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn , 1994 .