The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00016-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Multimedia learning occurs when students build mental representations from words and pictures that are presented to them (e.g., printed text and illustrations or narration and animation). The promise of multimedia learning is that students can learn more deeply from well-designed multimedia messages consisting of words and pictures than from more traditional modes of communication involving words alone. This article explores a program of research aimed at determining (a) research-based principles for the design of multimedia explanations—which can be called methods, and (b) the extent to which methods are effective across different learning environments—which can be called media. A review of research on the design of multimedia explanations conducted in our lab at Santa Barbara shows (a) a multimedia effect—in which students learn more deeply from words and pictures than from words alone—in both book-based and computer-based environments, (b) a coherence effect—in which students learn more deeply when extraneous material is excluded rather than included—in both book-based and computer-based environments, (c) a spatial contiguity effect—in which students learn more deeply when printed words are placed near rather than far from corresponding pictures—in both book-based and computer-based environments, and (d) a personalization effect—in which students learn more deeply when words are presented in conversational rather than formal style—both in computer-based environments containing spoken words and those using printed words. Overall, our results provide four examples in which the same instructional design methods are effective across different media.

Introduction

Consider the following learning scenario. A student sits at her desk and listens to a teacher giving a scientific explanation, such as how a bicycle tire pump works. For example, the teacher says: “When the handle is pulled up, the piston moves up, the inlet valve opens, the outlet valve closes, and air enters the cylinder. When the handle is pushed down, the piston moves down, the inlet valve closes, the outlet valves opens, and air moves out through the hose”. Alternatively, a student sits at her desk, opens her book, and reads a passage, such as the explanation of how a bicycle tire pump works. These are single-medium presentations that involve only one way of presenting information—words.

What’s wrong with this verbal-only method of instruction? On the positive side, verbal modes of instruction have a long history in education and words are clearly the dominant vehicle for delivering information in schools. In addition, the lecture and the textbook passage clearly present the key information describing how the pump works. On the negative side, however, verbal modes of instruction are sometimes based on an inadequate conception of how students learn—which can be called the information delivery view. According to this view learning involves adding new information to memory, so teaching involves delivering the information to the learner such as through words. This view is inconsistent with current theories of how people learn (Bransford, Brown and Cocking, 1999, Bruer, 1993, Lambert and McCombs, 1998, Mayer, Heiser and Lonn, 2001), namely the constructivist view in which students attempt to make sense of the presented material.

There is also empirical evidence that the verbal-only method does not always work so well. Our research shows, on average, that students who listen to (or read) explanations that are presented solely as words are unable to remember most of the key ideas and experience difficulty in using what was presented to solve new problems (Mayer, 1997, Mayer, 1999a, Mayer, 1999b, Mayer, 2001).

In contrast, consider a learning scenario that goes beyond the purely verbal. A student sits at a computer screen, calls up an on-line encyclopedia, clicks on the entry for “pump”, and views a narrated animation that explains how a bicycle tire pump works. Selected frames from the presentation are shown in Fig. 1, along with corresponding narration indicated in quotation marks. As an alternative, a student may read a book consisting of captioned illustrations; the book shows a series of frames of the pump depicting the steps in the operation of the pump with words that describe each step printed within each frame. These are examples of multimedia learning because the student receives an instructional message that is presented in two formats—as words (spoken or printed text) and pictures (animation or illustrations). Certainly, adding pictures to words does not always improve learning; thus, our goal is to determine the conditions under which adding pictures fosters deep learning.

Section snippets

What is the promise of multimedia learning?

The promise of multimedia learning is that, by combining pictures with words, we will be able to foster deeper learning in students. First, multimedia instruction messages can be designed in ways that are consistent with how people learn, and thus can serve as aids to human learning (Mayer, 1997, Mayer, 1999a, Mayer, 1999b, Mayer, 2001). Second, there is a growing research base showing that students learn more deeply from well-designed multimedia presentations than from traditional verbal-only

What is a multimedia instructional message?

Let’s begin with a very basic and focused definition of what I mean by a multimedia instructional message. A multimedia instructional message is a presentation consisting of words and pictures that is designed to foster meaningful learning. Thus, there are two parts to the definition: (a) the presentation contains words and pictures, and (b) the presentation is designed to foster meaningful learning. As you can see, I have limited my definition of multimedia instructional messages to

How does multimedia learning work?

The promise of multimedia learning—that is, promoting student understanding by mixing words and pictures—depends on designing multimedia instructional messages in ways that are consistent with how people learn. In this section, I present a cognitive theory of multimedia learning that is based on three assumptions suggested by cognitive science research about the nature of human learning—the dual channel assumption, the limited capacity assumption, and the active learning assumption.

The dual

Do methods work across media?

Is multimedia learning affected mainly by the instructional method (e.g., well-designed versus less well-designed), by the media (e.g., book-based versus computer-based), or does the effect of the instructional method depend on the media (e.g., well-designed presentations work in one medium but not the other)? There is consensus among instructional design researchers for the value of research on how to design instructional messages across various media (Fleming and Levie, 1993, Najjar, 1998,

Conclusion

As summarized in Table 1, our results provide four case examples of a straightforward finding: instructional design methods that promote deeper learning in one media environment (such as text and illustrations) also promote deep learning in other media environments (such as narration and animation). This means that good instructional methods can work across media. In short, the principles of instructional design do not necessarily change when the learning environment changes.

There may be some

Acknowledgements

Some of the material in this article was presented as a keynote address entitled “The promise of multimedia learning”, at the 8th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction in Goteborg, Sweden, August 1999. I gratefully acknowledge colleagues with whom I have worked on research in multimedia learning: Richard B. Anderson, Joan Gallini, Shannon Harp, and Roxana Moreno.

References (36)

  • R.E. Clark

    Reconsidering research on learning from media

    Review of Educational Research

    (1983)
  • R.E. Mayer

    Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer

    International Journal of Educational Research

    (1999)
  • S.E. Ainsworth et al.

    Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments

  • A. Baddeley

    Working memory

    Science

    (1992)
  • A. Baddeley

    Human memory

    (1998)
  • J.D. Bransford et al.

    How people learn

    (1999)
  • J.T. Bruer

    Schools for thought

    (1993)
  • P. Chandler et al.

    Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction

    Cognition and Instruction

    (1991)
  • J.M. Clark et al.

    Dual coding theory and education

    Educational Psychology Review

    (1991)
  • R.E. Clark

    Media will never influence learning

    Educational Technology Research and Development

    (1994)
  • R.E. Clark et al.

    Media in teaching

  • S.F. Harp et al.

    The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: on the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1997)
  • S.F. Harp et al.

    How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1998)
  • D.H. Jonassen et al.

    Learning with media: restructuring the debate

    Educational Technology Research and Development

    (1994)
  • R. Kozma

    Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate

    Educational Technology Research and Development

    (1994)
  • N.M. Lambert et al.

    How students learn

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text