Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity

Students viewed a computer animation depicting the process of lightning. In Experiment 1, they concurrently viewed on-screen text presented near the animation or far from the animation, or concurrently listened to a narration. In Experiment 2, they concurrently viewed on-screen text or listened to a narration, viewed on-screen text following or preceding the animation, or listened to a narration following or preceding the animation. Learning was measured by retention, transfer, and matching tests. Experiment 1 revealed a spatial-contiguity effect in which students learned better when visual and verbal materials were physically close. Both experiments revealed a modality effect in which students learned better when verbal input was presented auditorily as speech rather than visually as text. The results support 2 cognitive principles of multimedia learning. Technological advances have made possible the combination and coordination of verbal presentation modes (such as narration and on-screen text) with nonverbal presentation modes (such as graphics, video, animations, and environmental sounds) in just one device (the computer). These advances include multimedia environments, where students can be introduced to causal models of complex systems by the use of computer-generated animations (Park & Hopkins, 1993). However, despite its power to facilitate learning, multimedia has been developed on the basis of its technological capacity, and rarely is it used according to research-based principles (Kozma, 1991; Mayer, in press; Moore, Burton, & Myers, 1996). Instructional design of multimedia is still mostly based on the intuitive beliefs of designers rather than on empirical evidence (Park & Hannafin, 1994). The purpose of the present study is to contribute to multimedia learning theory by clarifying and testing two cognitive principles: the contiguity principle and the modality principle.

[1]  Michael Molenda,et al.  Instructional Technology , 2020, The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions.

[2]  D. Meyer,et al.  Attention and Performance XIV , 1973 .

[3]  H A Rollins,et al.  Processing of words presented simultaneously to eye and ear. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  R. Frick,et al.  Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[5]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

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

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

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

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

[10]  C. Penney Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory , 1989, Memory & cognition.

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

[12]  Joan K. Gallini,et al.  When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1990 .

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

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

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

[16]  R. Kozma Learning with Media , 1991 .

[17]  Earl Hunt,et al.  Coordinating cognitive information: Task effects and individual differences in integrating information from several sources , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[19]  Ok-Choon Park,et al.  Instructional conditions for using dynamic visual displays: a review , 1992 .

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

[21]  P. Chandler,et al.  THE SPLIT‐ATTENTION EFFECT AS A FACTOR IN THE DESIGN OF INSTRUCTION , 1992 .

[22]  A. Allport Attention and control: have we been asking the wrong questions? A critical review of twenty-five years , 1993 .

[23]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task , 1993 .

[24]  Michael J. Hannafin,et al.  Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia , 1993 .

[25]  F. Paas,et al.  Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach , 1994 .

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

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

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

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

[30]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

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