Applying the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: an analysis of medical animations

Context  Instructional animations play a prominent role in medical education, but the degree to which these teaching tools follow empirically established learning principles, such as those outlined in the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML), is unknown. These principles provide guidelines for designing animations in a way that promotes optimal cognitive processing and facilitates learning, but the application of these learning principles in current animations has not yet been investigated. A large‐scale review of existing educational tools in the context of this theoretical framework is necessary to examine if and how instructional medical animations adhere to these principles and where improvements can be made.

[1]  J. Sweller.  Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

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

[3]  Richard K. Lowe.  Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning , 1999 .

[4]  John Sweller,et al.  Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations , 2007 .

[5]  Marc A.S. Brisbourne,et al.  Using web‐based animations to teach histology , 2002, The Anatomical record.

[6]  R. Mayer.  Applying the science of learning to medical education , 2010, Medical education.

[7]  Ok-choon Park,et al.  Dynamic characteristics of mental models and dynamic visual displays , 1995 .

[8]  B. Henderson,et al.  Teaching and assessing competence in cataract surgery , 2007, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[9]  Michael J. Martindale.  Mental Models and Text Schemas: Why Computer Based Tutorials Should Be Considered a Communication Medium. , 1993 .

[10]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

[11]  Huib K. Tabbers,et al.  Learner control in animated multimedia instructions , 2010 .

[12]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[13]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Getting a Handle on Learning Anatomy with Interactive Three-Dimensional Graphics , 2009 .

[14]  C. S. White,et al.  Effects of 'Seductive Details' on Macroprocessing and Microprocessing in Adults and Children , 1989 .

[15]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Interestingness - A Neglected Variable in Discourse Processing , 1986, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Rainer Bromme,et al.  Coherence Formation when Learning from Text and Pictures: What Kind of Support for Whom? , 2009 .

[17]  C Cutting,et al.  Use of three-dimensional computer graphic animation to illustrate cleft lip and palate surgery. , 2002, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[18]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. , 2001 .

[19]  Joachim Reinwein,et al.  Does the Modality Effect Exist? and if So, Which Modality Effect? , 2011, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.

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

[21]  R. Mayer.  Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[22]  R. Mayer,et al.  A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. , 2000 .

[23]  F. Paas,et al.  The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. , 2003, The British journal of educational psychology.

[24]  Richard E Mayer,et al.  Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[25]  Mary C. Schuller,et al.  Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education , 2011, Medical education.

[26]  John Halas.  Film Animation: A Simplified Approach , 1976 .

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

[28]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[29]  David A Cook,et al.  Web-based learning a systematic review of the variability of interventions , 2011 .

[30]  S. Schwan,et al.  The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots , 2004 .

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

[32]  Eliane Segers,et al.  Cognitive processes in children's multimedia text learning , 2008 .

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

[34]  Manjula D. Sharma,et al.  Coherence or interest: Which is most important in online multimedia learning? , 2008 .

[35]  P. Chandler,et al.  Assimilating complex information , 2002 .

[36]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Introduction to Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

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

[38]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

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

[40]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[41]  Mark Sadoski,et al.  Commentary: The Perils of Seduction: Distracting Details or Incomprehensible Abstractions?. , 1995 .