Presenting instructional materials with a mixture of media increases the likelihood that people will learn the information. The hypothesis of this study is that these learning benefits are primarily the result of multimedia supporting the integration of instructional materials. For instance, replacing text with narrations improves learning (the modality effect) by taking advantage of humans' ability to perceive visual and auditory inputs simultaneously, allowing faster processing and aiding efficient integration of multimedia instructional materials. To test this hypothesis, study time will be manipulated to see if it influences the modality effect when verbal materials accompany visual images. This paper outlines results of a pilot study, study results will be presented at the conference.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinsworthS. E. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1995). Learning and Memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
3.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. J. (1994). Developments in the Concept of Working Memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485.
4.
BiegerG. R.GlockM. D. (1986). Comprehending spatial and contextual information in picture-text instructions. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(4), 181.
5.
BodemerD.PloetznerR.BruchmallerK.HackerS. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73–95.
6.
BodemerD.PloetznerR.FeuerleinI.SpadaH. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 325–341.
7.
BransfordJ. D.FranksJ. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, Vol.2(4), 331–350.
8.
BrunyéT. T.TaylorH. A.RappD. N.SpiroA. B. (2006). Learning procedures: The role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 917–940.
9.
ButcherK. R. (2006). Learning From Text With Diagrams: Promoting Mental Model Development and Inference Generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197.
10.
CraikF. I.LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, Vol.11(6), 671–684.
11.
EskiciogluA. M.KopecD. (2003). The Ideal Multimedia-Enabled Classroom: Perspectives from Psychology, Education, and Information Science. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 12(2), 199.
12.
GellevijM.Van Der MeijH.JongT. D.PietersJ. (2002). Multimodal versus unimodal instruction in a complex learning context. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 215.
13.
KozmaR. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.
14.
LarkinJ. H.SimonH. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65.
15.
MayerR. E. (1989). Systematic Thinking Fostered by Illustrations in Scientific Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 240–246.
16.
MayerR. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MayerR. E.AndersonR. B. (1992). The Instructive Animation: Helping Students Build Connections between Words and Pictures in Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.
18.
MayerR. E.BoveW.BrymanA.MarsR.TapangcoL. (1996). When Less Is More: Meaningful Learning From Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 64–73.
19.
MayerR. E.GalliniJ. K. (1990). When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.
20.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.
21.
MayerR. E.SimsV. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389.
22.
MorenoR.MayerR. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
23.
MousaviS. Y.LowR.SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319.
24.
MousaviS. Y.LoweR.SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319.
25.
SchnotzW.BannertM.SeufertT. (2002). Toward an integrative view of text and picture comprehension: Visualization effects on the construction of mental models. In Psychology of science text comprehension. (pp. 385): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
26.
TabbersH. K. (2002). The modality of text in multimedia instructions. Open University of the Netherlands, Herleen, Netherlands.
27.
TabbersH. K.MartensR. L.Van MerrienboerJ. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 71–81.
28.
WolfeM. B. W.SchreinerM. E.RehderB.LahamD.FoltzP. W.KintschW., et al. (1998). Learning from text: Matching readers and texts by latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2), 309–336.
29.
ZolnaJ. S. (2005). Learning from Multimedia: The Locus of Modality Effects. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atanta.
