Levels of Verbal Redundancy, Note-Taking and Multimedia Learning

We examine the influence of redundancy in multimedia comprehension, within the framework of cognitive load theory. In two experiments, we examined whether totally or partially repeating a spoken comment in print could improve undergraduate students’ comprehension of an introductory course on accountancy rules. In Experiment 1, the participants studied a multimedia document made of a series of graphs with a spoken explanation. The explanation was either totally, partially or not repeated in print. We found that the totally redundant format (diagram plus spoken and written text) was evaluated positively, but affects negatively comprehension processes. In Experiment 2, students were allowed to take notes while studying the multimedia course. The three conditions resulted in similar comprehension outcomes and subjective evaluations. The results suggest that redundancy must be used with caution in multimedia design, because it may increase the cognitive load of learning without facilitating the deep comprehension of the materials.

[1]  A. Piolat.  La prise de notes , 2001 .

[2]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Are Good Texts Always Better? Interactions of Text Coherence, Background Knowledge, and Levels of Understanding in Learning From Text , 1996 .

[3]  Scotty D. Craig,et al.  Animated Pedagogical Agents in Multimedia Educational Environments: Effects of Agent Properties, Picture Features, and Redundancy , 2002 .

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

[5]  Kenneth A. Kiewra,et al.  Effects of Repetition on Recall and Note-Taking: Strategies for Learning from Lectures. , 1991 .

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

[7]  N. Cowan.  Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[9]  R. Mayer,et al.  Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. , 2000 .

[10]  W. N. Dember,et al.  The role of time and cuing in a college lecture , 1992 .

[11]  J. G. Schuurman,et al.  Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. , 2002 .

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

[13]  Eduardo Vidal-Abarca,et al.  Some good texts are always better: text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge , 2005 .

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

[15]  R. Mayer,et al.  Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening , 2002 .

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

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

[18]  Maria Bannert,et al.  Managing Cognitive Load--Recent Trends in Cognitive Load Theory. Commentary. , 2002 .

[19]  Kenneth A. Kiewra.  Investigating Notetaking and Review: A Depth of Processing Alternative , 1985 .

[20]  Fred G. W. C. Paas,et al.  The Efficiency of Instructional Conditions: An Approach to Combine Mental Effort and Performance Measures , 1992 .

[21]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Signaling as a Cognitive Guide in Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[22]  Ann E. Barron,et al.  Audio instruction in multimedia education: is textual redundancy important? , 1994 .

[23]  Eric Jamet,et al.  The Effect of Redundant Text in Multimedia Instruction , 2007 .

[24]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A Resource Account of Inhibition , 1995 .

[25]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Incorporating Learner Experience into the Design of Multimedia Instruction. , 2000 .

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

[27]  A. Tricot.  Charge cognitive et apprentissage. Une présentation des travaux de John Sweller , 1998 .

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

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

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

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

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

[33]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition , 1998 .

[34]  Nelson F. DuBois,et al.  Note-taking functions and techniques. , 1991 .

[35]  M. Gernsbacher,et al.  The mechanism of suppression: a component of general comprehension skill. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  John P. Rickards,et al.  Signaling, notetaking, and field independence–dependence in text comprehension and recall. , 1997 .

[37]  D. Kobus,et al.  The Effects of Redundancy in Bimodal Word Processing , 1993 .

[38]  John Sweller,et al.  Instructional Design in Technical Areas , 1999 .