See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232419576

Multimedia Learning Applying Multimedia Learning to Social and Cognitive

Load Theory

Article · January 2012

CITATION READS

1 7,158

1 author:

Brad Henry
The Ohio State University
3 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brad Henry on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Multimedia Learning

Brad A. Henry

Applying Multimedia Learning to Social and Cognitive Load Theory © 2011

1
 Multimedia Learning

Social and instructional scientific methods that employ constructs of multi-media learning

Presently, multimedia technology-centered training approaches provide instruction

through a variety of virtual learning environments commonly referred to as a Learning Content

Management System (LCMS). A LCMS is a centralized computer infrastructure that manages

processes, documentation and content. The multimedia content within the LCMS represents a

variety of electronic sources of words, images, audio, video and other electronic formats. The

electronic content is structured, sequenced and encapsulated into a learning object. A primary

intention of using a learning object, e.g. content that creates a learning objective, is to present the

content as an instructional method of learning to improve a students’ comprehension for testing.

The available recent empirical research suggests that multimedia learning can enhance student

provided scientific design principles are used (Clark & Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2009).

Cognitive load theory

Cognitive Load Theory is based on early work of Baddeley’s model of working memory

and was first introduced by Sweller and associates (Sweller, 1999; van Merrienboer, & Paas,

1998; vanMerrienboer & Sweller, 2005). Baddeley’s model of working memory (Baddeley &

Hitch, 1986; Baddeley, 1986, 2001, 2007) maintains that working memory is comprised of three

main components. The executive control system is a limited capacity control system that

manages information entering short term memory and selects strategies to process information.

The executive control system controls two sub-systems; the articulatory loop and visuo-spatial

sketch pad. The articulatory loop holds short-term verbal auditory information. The visuo-

spatial sketchpad holds short-term information for processing visual and spatial purposes.

2
 Multimedia Learning

Figure 1

Baddeley’s Model of working Memory (Baddeley, 2000)

The working memory model has access to limited attention resources. The limitation

on each resource prevents adversely affecting the other subsystems. Another belief is that the

executive control system regulates the the two sub-systems. The better the executive control

system is at processing information the more effective the sub-systems will function (Baddeley,

1986, 2001, 2007). However, other researchers argue that the working memory is not a separate

component of the cognitive memory, but rather works with long-term memory (Miyake, 2001;

Miyake & Shah, 1999). The alternate view asserts that working memory is the ability to

maintain information in an active state while concurrently processing new information (Conway,

Jarrold, Kane, Miyake, & Towse, 2007). It is believed that information is domain-specific. The

ability to automatize information is dependent upon the knowledge a person has stored and can

recall. In addition, Schacter (2001), asserts that emotional factors play a key role in processing

3
 Multimedia Learning

information. Negative emotions may present issues in accessing information while a positive

mood will increase access to working memory (Oaksford, Morris, Grainger, & Williams, 1996)

Researchers, whose primary focus apply uses of technology, have used Baddeley’s model

of working memory to develop the Cognitive Load Theory (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuoviven, &

Sweller, 2001; Mayer & Chandler, 2001; van Merrienboer & Sweller, 2005; van Merrienboer

& Paas, 1998). Cognitive load theory asserts that some learning environments require more

cognitive processes than others and that meaningful learning is dependent upon active cognitive

processes in working memory. It assumes that we are limited by the number of cognitive

resources that can be accessed in working memory at any given time (van Merrienboer &

Sweller, 2005). When cognitive processes become excessive, learners go into essential overload,

i.e. a daydream state, and meaningful learning ceases.

Intrinsic, extraneous and germane variables may directly affect a persons’ cognitive

load. Intrinsic cognitive load is triggered by inherent properties of information to-be learned.

The cognitive load requires making connections between information and constructing new

knowledge structured in working memory, i.e. schemas. The cognitive load is determined by

the experience level in a learners’ given domain. Due to the complexity of the information it

cannot be changed without extensive schema acquisition. Intrinsic cognitive load is the level

of difficultly of information-to-learned and cannot be altered. Extraneous cognitive load results

from how instructional information is presented and to-be learned information may be changed

when specific learning instructions and aids are supplied with the information. Germane

cognitive load controls processing, construction and automation of schema acquisition and

should be promoted while controlling extraneous load. Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive loads

4
 Multimedia Learning

are additive, if they exceed available working memory learning will cease (Sweller, 2010).

Cognitive load theory states that there are three constraints that impact learning; the

characteristic of the learner, the complexity of the information to be learned, and the

instructional environment. Learning improves when:

● the learner has automatized the relevant information,

● instruction for isolated tasks are designed to utilize smaller cognitive loads,

● information delivery is in segments or chunks and summarized,

● information processing is simultaneously delivered across two modalities.

Mayer and Moreno (2003) assert that learners’ have three types of cognitive demands

when using multimedia learning. The first demand, essential processing states that a learner

must understand the main concepts and have the ability to relate information from memory.

The second demand, incidental information may enhance understanding, such as taking notes,

however, is not essential. The third demand, representational holding suggests that some

information is temporarily stored in memory while processing additional information. An

example is recalling a reference from the beginning of presentation and applying the knowledge

to the current content being presented. They assert that meaningful learning occurs when

the learner is maximizing use of essential processing. Using incidental information and

representational holding, when not necessary, may cause unnecessary distractions and cause

cognitive overload.

Multi-media learning

5
 Multimedia Learning

The role of technology for educational purposes should apply instructional methods

that harness the advantages of a particular technology used for learning (Mayer, 2009). The

construction of content and learning environments must look beyond perceptions of applying

a standard formula for all content and begin applying methods and technologies that work to

enhance learning. Research comparing traditional classrooms methods to online presentations

and discussion is showing few signs that technology ‘alone’ cannot produce better learning

outcomes (Clark, 1994, 2001, 2003; Salomon, 1984). Educators constructing content for virtual

learning environments should have working knowledge of the principles of Cognitive Load

Theory. They need to be equipped with working knowledge to know how and when to apply

differing instructional design to a diverse set of technologies that use multimedia methodologies

for instruction.

The cognitive theory of multimedia learning investigates how people learn in

electronic learning environments. These basic e-learning principles construct what Mayer calls

the “science of instruction.” The science of instruction is guided by research-based theory

of instruction and methods that impact learning (Clark & Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 2009). Mayer

asserts that in order to construct a science of e-learning researchers must address three areas;

evidence, theory and application. Evidence should be able to replicate findings from existing

research studies. Theory extends from a research-base model that studies how people learn in

distance learning environments. Application is theory-based principles of designing distance-

learning environments that can be tested (Mayer, 2003).

Mayer (2009) supports his multi-media principles using a theory he refers to as the

cognitive theory of multimedia learning. He states the cognitive theory of multimedia learning

6
 Multimedia Learning

is the creation of scientific research that is based on grounded theory and being evidenced-based.

The cognitive theory of multimedia learning is theory that explores learning from words and

pictures. Mayer defines learning as a change in the learner’s knowledge caused by an experience

in a learning environment. He reports the learning is not observable but may be inferred through

testing. The five types of knowledge that may be learned include; facts, concepts, procedures,

strategies, and beliefs (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Mayer & Wittrock, 2006).

Mayer (2009) defines multimedia instruction as the presentation of material using

both words and pictures, with the intention of promoting learning. Mayer and his associates

assert that the two channels are not equal and that research indicates that information should be

delivered in a manner consistent with the way the mind works. By using cognitive theory and

understanding how both channels work, designers can develop content allowing a learner able to

build meaningful connections using verbal and pictorial representations.

Classic research shows that people learn better from printed text and supporting images

than text alone (Mayer, 2009; Levie & Lentz, 1982; Levin, Anglin & Carney, 1987). Plass

and Jones (2005) assert similar findings for auditory coupled with supporting images when

learning foreign languages (Mayer, 2009). According to Mayer’s multimedia principle, adding

illustrations, animation, or narration with text helps learners to better understand content being

presented rather than using illustrations or words alone. Mayer asserts cognitive processing is

primed when the images and words correlate and are meaningful. Learning occurs when learners

build systematic connections between word and visually based representations (Mayer, 2009).

Fletcher and Tobias (2005) place emphasis on visuals when using the multimedia principles of

learning. They state that learning and understanding are enhanced when appropriate images

7
 Multimedia Learning

that enhance the content are added. It is believed that the benefit of the image is dependent

upon the quality and pedagogic value of the graphic (Schnotz & Bannert, 2003; Mayer, 2009).

More recently Ruth Clark presented findings that state implicit methods that include relevant

graphics and personalization should be used to stimulate psychological activity in the absence of

behavioral activity (Clark, & Mayer 2008).

Mayer’s (2009) Cognitive theory of multi-media learning maintains three primary

assumptions derived from learning sciences; dual channels, limited capacity, and active

processing. The dual channel assumption is based on Paivio’s (1986; Clark & Paivio, 1991) dual

coding theory and Baddeley’s (1992) model of working memory. The dual channel assumption

states that learners have two channels for processing information, pictorial and auditory

channels. Information presented is first processed through the auditory or visual channels

separately and then concurrently through working memory.

8
 Multimedia Learning

Figure 2

A generative model of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2010)

The limited capacity cognitive load theory assumption states that learners are limited in

the amount of information that can be processed at one time (Baddeley, 1999; Chandler &

Sweller, 1991). The theory states that learners are limited to 3 to 5 bits, or chunks, of

information at any given time. When learners exceed their cognitive capacity capabilities for

processing information decisions are made where connections can be made using existing

knowledge. Baddeley (1992) states a learner will use their central executive strategies that are

constructs developed using metacognitive strategies. When too much information is presented a

learner may move into cognitive overload thus limiting or preventing information processing

(Mayer, 2001; Clarke, 2005). This theory is based on Sweller’s (Chandler & Sweller, 1991;

Sweller, Chandler, Tierney & Cooper, 1990) Cognitive Load Theory.

The active learning assumption is that learners are not passive and that they are actively

engaged. This assumption states that meaningful learning is dependent upon active cognitive

processes during learning. An active learning situation a learner is selecting new relevant

information for additional processing while simultaneously organizing and integrating new

9
 Multimedia Learning

information with existing knowledge (Mayer, 2001; Wittrock, 1989).

There are two types of active learning, cognitive and behavioral. The cognitive

active learning assumption states that learners are continually cognitively processing mental

information, making connections and creating mental models. Deep learning is dependent

upon a learner selecting relevant information, mentally organizing information into coherent

structures, and the ability to integrate new information with existing knowledge. Behavioral

active learning assumption states that human cognition is a result of some interactive

combination between memory and behavior (Mayer, 2009; Anderson & Gluck 2001). It is

believed that behavioral activity is not always essential for deep learning. Behavior attributed

to deep learning is dependent upon activities that combine specific interactive tasks with deeper

cognitive processing, such as collecting evidence, incorporating information into knowledge

structures, or active manipulation of data. Constructing learning for either type of active learning

is dependent upon the generative processing methods used in the learning environment (Monero

& Mayer, 2005, 2007).

10
 Multimedia Learning

Figure 3

Two Kinds of Active Learning (Mayer, 2009)

L Lev
ev
el el of
of
B Co
eh
a gni
vi
or tive
al
A Acti
cti
vi vity
ty
Low High

Low

Hig
h

11
 Multimedia Learning

Triarchic Theory of Cognitive Load

The cognitive theory of multi-media learning is based upon the theory of human

cognition in what Mayer calls the triarch theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2010). The

triarchic theory of cognitive load identified three kinds of processes required during learning;

extraneous cognitive load, intrinsic cognitive load, and germane cognitive load. The overall goal

is to reduce extraneous cognitive processing, manage essential cognitive processing and foster

generative processing that contributes to learning (Mayer, 2009).

Table 1

Three goals for instructional design (Mayer, 2009)

Cognitive theory of Cognitive load theory Description of cognitive

multimedia learning processing

Reduce extraneous cognitive Reduce extraneous cognitive Cognitive processing that

processing load does not support learning the

essential material

Manage essential cognitive Manage intrinsic processing Cognitive processing aimed

processing at mentally representing the

essential material

Foster generative processing Foster germane cognitive load Cognitive processing aimed

at mentally organizing the

representation and integrating

it with existing knowledge

12
 Multimedia Learning

The content developed for multimedia lessons should minimize the amount of extraneous

processing of information that does not support the learning requirements of the learner. For

example, common causes may include unnecessary content, extraneous information and poorly

laid out materials. A learner engaged in large amounts of extraneous processing may not have

sufficient cognitive capacity to foster generative processing, otherwise known as extraneous

overload. When a learner has exhausted available cognitive resources due to extraneous

overload they may experience essential overload.

Material that is too complex, unfamiliar or too fast paced may overwhelm a

learner’s ability to process information that triggers generative learning. Learners with poor

metacognitive capabilities may lack the knowledge or skills of how to process the information in

such scenarios. Essential overload is correlated with poor performance, retention of the learning

task and minimizes a learner’s ability to comprehend the content. However, as learner becomes

familiar with how to construct knowledge and familiar with the content they develop techniques

process the information, i.e. essential processing (Mayer & Monero, 2003, Mayer 2005).

As the learner develops techniques for processing essential information they will begin

to make connections with the content and apply prior knowledge by chunking bits of data into

meaningful units. As the user processes the information they begin to construct the units into

meaningful schemas (Sweller, 1999).

Lessons that have effectively reduced extraneous processing allow a learner to

leverage essential processing. When essential processing is minimized the learner has access

to cognitive resources that foster generative processing. As generative processes increase

a learner’s germane cognitive load increases. The increase germane load triggers relevant

13
 Multimedia Learning

cognitive activities that processed by the schema acquisition and automation thus contributing to

meaningful learning (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Pass, 1998).

Principles for Multimedia Design

Mayer (2009) has developed the triarachic framework into the three processes for

learning. Within each of the three processes, reducing extraneous processing, managing

essential processing and fostering generative processing he has developed twelve basic design

principles. The principles are based on evidence comparing the effects of transfer test

performance.

Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing;

● Coherence – when extraneous word, sound, and pictures are minimized. The

coherence principle states that adding extraneous words or pictures that are

irrelevant in multimedia presentations results in poor retention and transfer

test performance (Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001) ,

● Signaling – when cues are added to highlight essential material,

● Redundancy – when graphics and narration are presented together rather than

text, graphics and narration together in multimedia presentations,

● Spatial Contiguity – when corresponding printed words and pictures are

presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screen,

● Temporal Contiguity – when corresponding spoken words and pictures are

presented simultaneously rather than successively.

Principles for Managing Essential Processing;

14
 Multimedia Learning

● Segmenting – when fast paced, complex multimedia lesson is presented in

user paced segments rather than as a continuous presentation. Segmenting

allows a user to process more information by slowing down the pace of the

content presented,

● Pre-training – providing the student with prior knowledge. Pre-training

supports quicker learning when the student knows the names and

characteristics of the key concepts of a lesson,

● Modality – provides input for two channels, auditory and visual. Graphics

and narration displayed simultaneously rather than a singular animation or on-

screen text in multimedia presentations.

Principles for fostering generative processing;

● Multimedia principle – people learn better from words and pictures,

● Personalization principle – people learn better from multimedia lessons when

words are in conversational style,

● Voice principle – people learn better when the narration in multimedia lesson

is spoken in a friendly human voice,

● Image principle – people do not necessarily learn better from a multimedia

lesson when the speakers image is on the screen.

● Personalization – when the words are presented in conversational style

rather than in formal style,

● Voice – when the words are spoken by a friendly human voice rather

than by a machine voice,

● Image – not including the speakers’ image on screen (Mayer, 2009).

15
 Multimedia Learning

Learning Outcomes

Mayer asserts a goals of multi-media learning include assessing three learning outcomes,

no learning, rote learning, and meaningful learning. Rote learning is indicated by good

retention but poor transfer. Common assessment types for understanding are transfer test where

a learner must apply meaning, problem solve or construct an essay. Meaningful learning occurs

when a learner is able to effectively display deep understanding of the material through transfer

and retention skills simultaneously in an organized manner of the content that was presented. An

important aspect of meaningful learning is the ability to apply problem-solving transfer skills to

new situations (Mayer, 2009).

16
 Multimedia Learning

Bibliography

Anderson, J. R., & Gluck, K. A. (2001). What role do cognitive architectures play in intelligent

tutoring systems? In D. Klahr & S. M. Carver (Eds.), Cognition & Instruction: Twenty-five years

of progress (pp. 227-262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Baddeley A. D. (1986). Working memory: Theory and practice. London, UK University Press.

Baddeley A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in

Cognitive Science 4(11):417-423.

Baddeley A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56, 851-864.

Baddeley A.D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Baddeley, A.D. & Hitch, G.J. (1974). Working memory. In G.A. Bower (ed.), Recent Advances

in Learning and Motivation, Vol. 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

Burns, M. (2006). A Thousand Words: Promoting Teachers' Visual Literacy Skills. MultiMedia

& Internet@Schools. 13(1). P.16-20.

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2008). Learning by viewing versus learning by doing: Evidence-

based guidelines for principled learning environments. Performance Improvement, 47(9), 5-13.

doi:10.1002/pfi.20028.

17
 Multimedia Learning

Conway, A.R.A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M.J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J.N. (Eds.) (2007). Variation in

working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fletcher & Tobias (2005). The multimedia principle. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge

handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117-134). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J.,&Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to

studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588.

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R., (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educ.

Comm. Technol. J. 30: 195–232.

Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N., (1987). On empirically validating functions of

pictures in prose. InWillows, D. M., and Houghton, H. A. (eds.), The Psychology of Illustration:

I. Basic Research, Springer, New York, pp. 51–85.

Mayer, R.E., (2010). Seeking a science of instruction. Instructional Science Volume 38, Number

2, 143-145, DOI: 10.1007/s11251-009-9113

Mayer, R.E., (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E., (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing

Research, 29(3), 297-313.

Mayer, R., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user

interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 390–397.

18
 Multimedia Learning

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J. & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When

presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),

187-198.

Miyake, N., (2001), "Collaboration, technology and the science of learning: Teaching cognitive

science to undergraduates," The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 40, 218-

228.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Toward Unified Theories of Working Memory: Emerging

General Consensus, Unresolved Theoretical Issues, and Future Research Directions. In A.

Miyake, A., & Shah, P., (Eds.) Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance

and Executive Control (pp. 442-481). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oaksford, M.; Morris, F.; Grainger, B.; & Williams, J. M. G. (1996). Mood, reasoning, and

central executive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 22(2), 476-492.

Plass & Jones, (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In The Cambridge

handbook of multimedia learning, R. Mayer, Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.

467-488.

Schacter, D. L. (2001). The seven sins of memory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Schnotz & Bannert, (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple

representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.

19
 Multimedia Learning

Spalter, A. M., & vanDam, A., (2008). Digital visual literacy. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 93–

101.

Spalter, A. M., & vanDam, A., (2008). The interdisciplinary nature of DVL [image]. Digital

visual literacy. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 93–101.

Sweller, J.. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical. I Cognitive Load Theory, Plass, J,

Moreno, R., & Brunken, R.. Ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29–47.

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. ACER:Melbourne.

Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional

design. Educational Psychology Review 10: 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205.

Van Merriënboer, J. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent

developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.

Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. and Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning:

Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17 (2), 147-177.

20

View publication stats