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-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:23:05.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

43 - Multimedia Learning with Visual Displays

from Part VIII - Multimedia Learning with Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Matthew T. McCrudden  and
Peggy N. Van Meter
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer  and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

A visual display is a graphic representation of information communicated to learners. In this chapter, we review research-based principles for the design of visual displays. We begin by providing an overview of visual displays and presenting the case for visual displays in education. This chapter also describes a theoretical framework for understanding how people learn with visual displays and reviews research-based principles for designing visual displays to improve learning. Specifically, we identify three common forms of extraneous processing (induced via spatial distance, unimportant information, and referential confusion) and how to reduce them using research-based principles (spatial contiguity principle, coherence principle, and signaling principle). In addition, we discuss ways to promote generative processing and how different types of graphic organizers (sequence, hierarchy, matrix) can support different types of inferences (temporal, hierarchical, relational). We conclude with a discussion of future directions for research on visual displays.

Keywords

visual displaygraphic organizersinferencesextraneous processinggenerative processing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 510 - 520
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Cognitive Psychology: A Modular Course. Essentials of Human Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182.Google Scholar
Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
Daher, T. A., & Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 10–21.Google Scholar
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning and comprehension by using effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning As a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies That Promote Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firetto, C. M., & Van Meter, P. N. (2018). Inspiring integration in college students reading multiple biology texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 123–134.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 117–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–332.Google Scholar
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students’ copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103–116.Google Scholar
Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601–614.Google Scholar
Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: Guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Assessing, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 569–587.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256–265.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 367–388.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and Its Evolution: A Dual-Coding Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Van Meter, P., van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621.Google Scholar
Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta‐analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 399–415.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Robinson, D. (2013). Visual displays and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Robinson, D. (eds.), Learning through Visual Displays (pp. 3–17). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24.Google Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2016). Integrating written text and graphics as a desirable difficulty in long-term multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 131–137.Google Scholar
Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 707–734.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.Google Scholar
van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 263–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Meter, P. N., Cameron, C., & Waters, J. R. (2017). Effects of response prompts and diagram comprehension ability on text and diagram learning in a college biology course. Learning and Instruction, 49, 188–198.Google Scholar
Van Meter, P. N., Firetto, C. M., Turns, S. R., Litzinger, T. A., Cameron, C. E., & Shaw, C. W. (2016). Improving students’ conceptual reasoning by prompting cognitive operations. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 245–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Meter, P. N., & Stepanik, N. (2020). Interventions to support learning from multiple external representations. In Van Meter, P. N., List, A., Lombardi, D., & Kendeou, P. (eds.), Handbook of Learning from Multiple Representations and Perspectives (pp. 76–91). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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
×