Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:27:48.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Modality Principle in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Renae Low  and
John Sweller
Edited by
Richard Mayer
Renae Low
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
John Sweller
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Richard Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access

Summary

Abstract

The capacity limitations of working memory are a major impediment when students are required to learn new material. Furthermore, those limitations are relatively inflexible. Nevertheless, in this chapter we explore one technique that can effectively expand working memory capacity. Under certain, well-defined conditions, presenting some information in visual mode and other information in auditory mode can expand effective working memory capacity and so reduce the effects of an excessive cognitive load. This effect is called the modality effect or modality principle. It is an instructional principle that can substantially increase learning. This chapter discusses the theory and data that underpin the principle and the instructional implications that flow from the principle.

Introduction

There is evidence to indicate that the manner in which information is presented will affect how well it is learned and remembered (e.g., Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapangco, 1996). This chapter deals with evidence documenting the importance of presentation modes, specifically the modality effect that occurs when information presented in a mixed mode (partly visual and partly auditory) is more effective than when the same information is presented in a single mode (either visual or auditory alone). The instructional version of the modality effect derives from the split-attention effect (see chapter 8), a phenomenon explicable by cognitive load theory (see chapter 2). It occurs when multiple sources of information that must be mentally integrated before they can be understood have written (and therefore visual) information presented in spoken (and therefore auditory) form.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 147 - 158
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & BaconGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L. (1967). The suppression of visualization by reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science 32, 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, S., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, I. (1977). Component problems in dichotic listening. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, R. (1984). Using both an auditory and a visual short-term store to increase digit span. Memory and Cognition, 12, 507–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–3713.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (in press). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human FactorsGoogle Scholar
Kolers, P. A. (1979). A pattern-analyzing basis of recognition. In Cermak, L. S. & Craiks, F. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, J., & Divine-Hawkins, P. (1974). Visual imagery as a prose-learning process. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 6, 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margrain, S. (1967). Short-term memory as a function of input modality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 109–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive contraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multi-media learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environ‭ments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based multimedia learning: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, B. B. Jr. (1971). Four-channel effects in short-term memory. Psychonomic Science, 24, 197–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwangi, W., & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Merriënboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, C. (1980). Order of report in bisensory verbal short-term memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 34, 190–195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penney, C. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penney, C., & Butt, A. (1986). Within- and between-modality associations in probed recall: A test of the separate streams hypothesis. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 1–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollins, H. A., & Hendricks, R. (1980). Processing of words presented simultaneously to eye and ear. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 99–109Google ScholarPubMed
Rollins, H. A., & Thibadeau, R. (1973). The effects of auditory shadowing on recognition of information received visually. Memory and Cognition, 1, 164–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1987). A connectionist/control architecture for working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. (Vol. 21, pp. 53–119). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, L. H. (1975). Multiple attention in continuous verbal tasks. In Rabbitt, P. M. A. & Dornic, S. (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 157–167). London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, 215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In Kornblum, S. (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 101–117). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×