The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) describes a set of empirically tested principles that technical and professional communication research largely acknowledges as important to the design of presentation slides. However, presenters often run into difficulties understanding how to apply CTML principles to contexts in which it has not been tested. We present three pilot studies that extend our knowledge of how to apply CTML principles. Pilot study one suggests that CTML principles can be effective for presenting advanced research to expert audiences. Pilot study two highlights the importance of user testing nonessential images added primarily for visual interest, specifically finding that visual organizer images such as Microsoft PowerPoint's SmartArt, can backfire by unintentionally indicating imprecise relationships while adding little in terms of visual interest. Pilot study three suggests that, when needing to present a long quotation, presenters should avoid verbatim reading and consider abridging or paraphrasing the quotation.
AdesopeO. O.NesbitJ. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026147
2.
AlleyM. (2003). The craft of scientific presentations. Springer.
3.
AlleyM.SchreiberM.MuffoJ. (2005, October). Pilot testing of a new design for presentation slides to teach science and engineering. In Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference (pp. S3G-7). IEEE.
4.
AmareN. (2006). To slideware or not to slideware: Students’ experiences with powerpoint vs. lecture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 36(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.2190/03GX-F1HW-VW5M-7DAR
5.
AtkinsonC. (2007). Beyond bullet points: Using Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 to create presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire. Microsoft Press.
6.
BekkerS.ClarkA. M. (2018). Improving qualitative research findings presentations: Insights from genre theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918786335
7.
ButlerM. D.YaffeJ. (2006). Clip art or no clip art: A lesson from cognitive science for social work educators. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24(2–3), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1300/J017v24n02_07
8.
CavanaghT. (2022). Cognitive and graphic design principles for creating well-organized, visually appealing slide decks. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906221131988
EitelA.KühlT. (2019). Harmful or helpful to learning? The impact of seductive details on learning and instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3513
14.
FarkasD. (2006). Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck design. Information Design Journal, 14(2), 162–171. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.14.2.08far
15.
GarnerJ.AlleyM. (2013). How the design of presentation slides affects audience comprehension: A case for the assertion-evidence approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(6), 1564–1579. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--17510
16.
GarnerJ. K.AlleyM.SawarynskiL. E.WolfeK. L.ZappeS. E. (2011). Assertion-evidence slides appear to lead to better comprehension and recall of more complex concepts. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
17.
GarnerJ. K.AlleyM. P. (2016). Slide structure can influence the presenter’s understanding of the presentation’s content. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--19685
18.
GuoP. J.KimJ.RubinR. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale Conference (pp. 41–50). https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
19.
HarpS. F.MayerR. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
HillA.ArfordT.LubitowA.SmollinL. M. (2012). “I’m ambivalent about it”: The dilemmas of PowerPoint. Teaching Sociology, 40(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X12444071
IbrahimM.PavloD.AntonenkoC.GreenwoodM.WheelerD. (2012). Effects of segmenting, signalling, and weeding on learning from educational video. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.585993
24.
IssaN.SchullerM.SantacaterinaS.ShapiroM.WangE.MayerR. E.DaRosaD. A. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education, 45, 818–826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03988.x
25.
JohnsonD. A.ChristensenJ. (2011). A comparison of simplified-visually rich and traditional presentation styles. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311421333
26.
KalyugaS. (2007). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9051-6
KernbachS.BrescianiS.EpplerM. J. (2015). Slip-sliding-away: A review of the literature on the constraining qualities of PowerPoint. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(3), 292–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615595499
30.
LamC.WolfeJ. (2023). An Introduction to quasi-experimental research for technical and professional communication instructors. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 37(2), 174–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221143111
31.
MacKiewiczJ. (2008). Comparing powerpoint experts’ and university Students’ opinions about powerpoint presentations. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 38(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.2190/TW.38.2.d
32.
ManasrahA.MasoudM.JaradatY. (2021, July). Short videos, or long videos? A study on the ideal video length in online learning. In 2021 International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT) (pp. 366-370). IEEE.
33.
MayerR. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.47
34.
MayerR. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Cambridge handbooks in psychology, pp. 31–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
35.
MayerR. E.HeiserJ.LonnS. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
36.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
37.
McNamaraD. S.KintschW. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975
38.
MoridaniM. (2007). Asynchronous video streaming vs. synchronous videoconferencing for teaching a pharmacogenetic pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 71(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj710116
39.
Nathans-KellyT.NicometoC. G. (2014). Slide rules: design, build, and archive presentations in the engineering and technical fields. John Wiley & Sons.
40.
NeeleyK. A.AlleyM.NicometoC. G.SrajekL. C. (2009). Challenging the common practice of PowerPoint at an institution: Lessons from instructors. Technical Communication, 56(4), 346–360. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43094156.
41.
ReynoldsG. (2008). Presentation zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and delivery. New Riders.
42.
RudolphM. (2017). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Online Higher Education, 1(2), 1–10.
43.
SchneiderS.DyrnaJ.MeierL.BeegeM.ReyG. D. (2018). How affective charge and text–picture connectedness moderate the impact of decorative pictures on multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 233. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000209
44.
Schoenfeld-TacherR. M.DormanD. C. (2021). Effect of delivery format on student outcomes and perceptions of a veterinary medicine course: Synchronous versus asynchronous learning. Veterinary Sciences, 8(2), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci8020013
45.
StraussJ.CorriganH.HofackerC. F. (2011). Optimizing student learning: Examining the use of presentation slides. Marketing Education Review, 21(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008210205
46.
SundararajanN.AdesopeO. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4
47.
SwellerJ.van MerrienboerJ. J. G.PaasF. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
48.
TangenJ. M.ConstableM. D.DurrantE.TeeterC.BestonB.KimJ. A. (2011). The role of interest and images in slideware presentations. Computers & Education, 56(3), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.028
49.
van MerrienboerJ. J. G.KirschnerP. A.KesterL. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2
50.
WolfeC.AlleyM.SheridanK. C. (2006). Improving retention of information from teaching slides. In Proceedings Frontiers in Education 36th Annual Conference (pp. 17–21). IEEE.
51.
WongA.LeahyW.MarcusN.SwellerJ. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004
52.
YueC. L.BjorkE. L.BjorkR. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty?Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031971
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
