The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Ten Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning

This chapter outlines the cognitive architecture used by cognitive load theory, and provides a general indicator of its relevance to instructional design issues associated with multimedia instruction. Cognitive load theory has been one of the theories used to integrate our knowledge of human cognitive structures and instructional design principles. It is concerned with the elements of that theory and its general implications for multimedia learning, specifically words presented in spoken or written form along with pictures or diagrams. The chapter considers categories of knowledge from an evolutionary perspective, followed by an outline of those aspects of human cognitive architecture relevant to instructional concerns, also considered from an evolutionary perspective. The chapter discusses three categories of cognitive load: intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load and germane cognitive load. All categories of cognitive load are concerned with the acquisition, storage and use of biologically secondary information.

[1]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Online multimedia learning with mobile devices and desktop computers: An experimental test of Clark's methods-not-media hypothesis , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[2]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction : A Conversation , 2013 .

[3]  Soo Young Rieh,et al.  Amount of invested mental effort (AIME) in online searching , 2012, Inf. Process. Manag..

[4]  J. Michael Spector,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Edition , 2012 .

[5]  Gavriel Salomon,et al.  Knowledge to Go: A Motivational and Dispositional View of Transfer , 2012 .

[6]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Educational Implications of Expertise Reversal Effects in Learning and Performance of Complex Cognitive and Sensorimotor Skills , 2012 .

[7]  Cynthia L. Scheibe,et al.  The Teacher’s Guide to Media Literacy: Critical Thinking in a Multimedia World , 2011 .

[8]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2011 .

[9]  Roxana Moreno,et al.  The Roles of Animated Pedagogical Agents' Presence and Nonverbal Communication in Multimedia Learning Environments , 2010, J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl..

[10]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text , 2010 .

[11]  G. Bente,et al.  Personalizing e-Learning. The Social Effects of Pedagogical Agents , 2010 .

[12]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  Instructional Interventions Affecting Critical Thinking Skills and Dispositions: A Stage 1 Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[13]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Learning Styles , 2008, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[14]  J. Herrington,et al.  Authentic Learning Supported by Technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms , 2007 .

[15]  David F. Feldon,et al.  Cognitive Load and Classroom Teaching: The Double-Edged Sword of Automaticity , 2007 .

[16]  K. Koedinger,et al.  Exploring the Assistance Dilemma in Experiments with Cognitive Tutors , 2007 .

[17]  E. Thorndike.  Education, a First Book. -- , 2007 .

[18]  Myron H. Dembo,et al.  Advice about the Use of Learning Styles: A Major Myth in Education , 2007 .

[19]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[20]  Jan Herrington,et al.  Authentic Learning Environments In Higher Education , 2005 .

[21]  Theo J. Bastiaens,et al.  The surplus value of an authentic learning environment , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[22]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Five Design Principles for Experiments on the Effects of Animated Pedagogical Agents , 2005 .

[23]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent , 2003 .

[24]  Chien Chou,et al.  Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[25]  R. Atkinson.  Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. , 2002 .

[26]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Learning from media : arguments, analysis, and evidence , 2001 .

[27]  R. Mayer,et al.  When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? , 2001 .

[28]  Robert A. Reiser.  A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design , 2001 .

[29]  N. Cowan.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[30]  H. Levin,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and Applications , 2000 .

[31]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains , 1998 .

[32]  Paul Brett,et al.  Using Multimedia: A Descriptive Investigation of Incidental Language Learning , 1998 .

[33]  Herbert J. Walberg,et al.  Learner-Control Effects: A Review of Reviews and a Meta-Analysis , 1996 .

[34]  Waynne B. James,et al.  Learning styles: Implications for distance learning , 1995 .

[35]  Robert B. Kozma,et al.  A reply: Media and methods , 1994 .

[36]  R. Kozma.  Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate , 1994 .

[37]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Active learning through multimedia , 1994, IEEE MultiMedia.

[38]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[39]  H. Levin.  Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. , 1987 .

[40]  Larry Cuban.  Teachers and machines : the classroom use of technology since 1920 , 1986 .

[41]  G. Salomon.  Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. , 1984 .

[42]  R. Clark.  Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media , 1983 .

[43]  R. Clark.  Antagonism Between Achievement and Enjoyment in ATI Studies , 1982 .

[44]  S. Ross,et al.  Learner control versus program control as adaptive strategies for selection of instructional support on math rules. , 1981 .

[45]  K. Dunn,et al.  Teaching Students Through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach , 1978 .

[46]  Edward L. Thorndike,et al.  The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). , 1901 .

[47]  Charalambos Vrasidas,et al.  Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications , 2008 .

[48]  J. Sweller.  Instructional Design Consequences of an Analogy between Evolution by Natural Selection and Human Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[49]  R. Mayer.  Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. , 2004, The American psychologist.

[50]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation , 2003 .

[51]  Amy L. Baylor,et al.  Perceived disorientation and incidental learning in a Web-based environment: internal and external factors , 2001 .

[52]  Dorit Maor,et al.  Mathematics, multimedia and higher level thinking skills , 1998 .

[53]  David N. Perkins,et al.  Outsmarting IQ: The Emerging Science of Learnable Intelligence , 1995 .

[54]  Lynn A. Fontana,et al.  Multimedia: A Gateway to Higher-Order Thinking Skills. , 1993 .

[55]  Karl Josef Klauer,et al.  Intentional and Incidental Learning with Instructional Texts: A Meta-Analysis for 1970–1980 , 1984 .

[56]  G. A. Miller.  The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. , 1956, Psychological review.