Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

photograph of Richard E. Mayer, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of California

(Retrieved from http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/mayer/index.php)

Richard E. Mayer, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of California

R.E. Mayers cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) incorporates several concepts from both
the science of learning (how people learn) and the science of instruction (how to design instruction).[1]
It is built on the philosophy that "the design of e-learning courses should be based on a cognitive theory
of how people learn and on scientifically valid research studies. In other words, e-learning courses
should be constructed in light of how the mind learns and experimental evidence concerning e-learning
features that promote best learning."[2] CTML is supported by Mayers extensive research involving
testing learning theory while focusing on authentic learning situations. He calls this approach basic
research on applied problems. Mayers research around CTML gave rise to his 10 principles of
multimedia instruction.[3]

Contents [hide]

1 The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

2 Influence of the Science of Learning

2.1 Dual-Coding Theory

2.2 Limited Capacity Working Memory

2.3 Active Processing

2.4 Information Transfer

3 Influence of the Science of Instruction

3.1 Extraneous Processing

3.2 Essential Processing

3.3 Generative Learning

4 Mayers 10 Principles of Multimedia Instruction

4.1 Five Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing[3]

4.2 Three Principles for Managing Essential Processing[3]

4.3 Two Principles for Fostering Generative Processing[3]

5 Criticism
6 Other Multimedia Theories

7 References

8 Further Reading

The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Diagram of the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning showing flow of sensory information from
multimedia presentation through sensory and working memory, finally being integrated with prior
knowledge from long-term memory

Figure 1. Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Mayers CTML contends that words and pictures presented to the learner via a multimedia presentation
are processed along two separate, non-conflicting channels (figure 1).[2] They enter the sensory
memory through the ears and eyes. Words and images are actively selected by the learner from the
sensory memory and enter the working memory where they are organized into a verbal model and a
pictorial model. Each channel can process only a few chunks of information at a given time in working
memory. The two models are then integrated with prior knowledge retrieved from long-term memory.
This integration occurs within the working memory following each segmented portion of instruction
offered to the learner in the multimedia presentation.

Influence of the Science of Learning

Mayers CTML incorporates four elements from research on how people learn: (a) dual-coding theory,
(b) limited capacity working memory, (c) active processing and (d) information transfer.[1]

Dual-Coding Theory

Diagram of Baddeley's model of working memory showing the visuo-spatial sketch pad and phonological
loop independently interacting with the central executive.

Figure 2. Baddeley's Model of Working Memory

Dual processing cognitive theory was first described by Allan Paivio in 1986.[4] The theory suggests that
verbal and visual stimuli are processed separately but simultaneously in working memory. Alan
Baddeleys model of working memory (figure 2) also incorporated dual pathway concepts in the form of
a central executive regulating a phonological loop and a visuo-spatial sketch pad.[5] He later revised his
model to include an episodic buffer.

Limited Capacity Working Memory

It is postulated that the working memory can hold a limited number of items or chunks of information
at one time which requires us to choose where to allocate cognitive resources.[6] Baddeleys model of
working memory recognized that although the central executive could store information, it was limited
in its capability to do so. Cognitive load theory was developed by John Sweller who proposed there were
limitations on the capacity of working memory and that cognitive load is cumulative in nature, which can
affect the ability to learn.[7] [8] Mayer allows for the concept of the limited capacity of working memory
by recommending segmenting of instruction and excluding extraneous information.

Active Processing

The CTML acknowledges that humans are actively engaged in cognitive processing in order to make
sense of the stimuli presented. We do not passively receive information into our memory. The concept
of active processing is reflected in the CTML by the inclusion of selecting, organizing and integrating
information. In his book, Multimedia Learning,[1] Mayer states:

Perhaps the most crucial step in multimedia learning involves making connections between word-
based and image-based representations.

Information Transfer

When meaningful learning takes place, people are able to retrieve newly acquired knowledge from long-
term memory when they need it to perform a given task.[2] Transfer can be further divided into near-
transfer for knowledge that is used immediately after learning it, and far-transfer for when knowledge is
needed some time after learning it. Clark & Mayer recommend using worked examples to facilitate both
types of transfer.

Influence of the Science of Instruction

From the science of instruction, three key elements are integrated into the CTML: (a) extraneous
cognitive load, (b) essential processing and (c) generative learning.

Extraneous Processing

When information irrelevant to the learning objective requires processing, it is considered extraneous
cognitive load. Extraneous information competes for the limited cognitive resources available in the
working memory and as a result, interferes with efficient learning of the intended objectives. Swellers
Cognitive load theory describes three types of cognitive load; intrinsic (caused by content), germane
(relevant to learning) and extraneous (irrelevant to learning). Five of Mayers principles of multimedia
instruction address reducing extraneous cognitive load.[3]
Essential Processing

Essential processing is the learners ability to understand the main points of the multimedia
presentation.[2] What is processed by the learner depends on what is attended to or selected during the
instructional period. When essential cognitive processing outstrips the learners intrinsic cognitive
capacity, learning fails to thrive. For example, onscreen text presented simultaneously with animation
causes split attention and the visual channel is overloaded. The design of the multimedia presentation
can facilitate and direct selection of appropriate material for cognitive processing. For this reason,
Mayer offers three principles for managing essential processing when designing instruction.

Generative Learning

Merlin C. Wittrock proposed a model of generative learning, which emphasized the importance of
linking concepts, information, prior knowledge and experience.[9] Mayer puts forward two principles for
fostering generative processing to deal with this concept.

Mayers 10 Principles of Multimedia Instruction

Five Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing[3]

Coherence Principle: People learn better when extraneous material is excluded from a multimedia
lesson.

Signalling Principle: People learn better when essential words are highlighted.

Redundancy Principle: People learn better from animation with narration than from animation with
narration and text except when the onscreen text is short, highlights the key action described in the
narration, and is placed next to the portion of the graphic that it describes. In 2008, Mayer revised this
principle to include the exception noted here.[10]

Spatial Contiguity Principle: People learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented
near rather than far from each other on the page or screen.

Temporal Contiguity Principle: People learn better when corresponding narration and animation are
presented simultaneously rather than successively (i.e. the words are spoken at the same time they are
illustrated in the animation).

Three Principles for Managing Essential Processing[3]

Segmenting Principle: People learn better when a narrated animation is presented in learner-paced
segments rather than as a continuous presentation.

Pretraining Principle: People learn better from a narrated animation when they already know the names
and characteristics of essential components.
Modality Principle: People learn better from graphics with spoken text rather than graphics with printed
text.

Two Principles for Fostering Generative Processing[3]

Multimedia Principle: People learn better from words and pictures than from words alone. This allows
people to build connections between their verbal and pictorial models.

Personalization Principle: People learn better from a multimedia lesson when words are in
conversational style rather than formal style. If people feel as though they are engaged in a
conversation, they will make more effort to understand what the other person is saying.[11] [12] [13]

Criticism

Some criticism has been levelled at the CTML and the attending ten principles. For example, Astleitner &
Wiesner note that the model does not take motivational elements into consideration. Motivation can
impact learning, and consume memory resources thus affect cognitive load.[14]

Mayers research does not consider video and non-narrative audio. It is also centred on learning about
physical and mechanical systems. Questions regarding the applicability of Mayers results to other
situations arise from these constraints.[15] [16]

Reed mentions a concern about the lack of explanation for the integration process in the CTML.[16] How
are the verbal and visual representations combined with prior knowledge in the working memory? Are
the 2 representations merged to either verbal or visual, or does it take some other abstract form?

Other Multimedia Theories

Hede and Hedes integrated model for multimedia effects on learning[17]

Nathans ANIMATE theory[16]

References

Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 1.2 Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction
(2nd ed). Retrieved from
http://books.google.com/books?id=MOutGGET2VwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r
&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Mayer, R.E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based
principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.

Jump up Pavio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Jump up Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jump up Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our
capacity for processing information. Psychology Review, 63, 81-97.

Jump up Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 257-285.

Jump up Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning. In R.
Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Jump up Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11(2), 87-
95. doi: 10.1080/00461527409529129

Jump up Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380-386. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380

Jump up Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in
virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96,165-173.

Jump up Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in
multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal
style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389-395.

Jump up Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of
speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419-425.

Jump up Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and
motivation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 3-21.

Jump up Gall, J. E., & Lohr, L. (2004). [Review of the book Multimedia Learning, by R.E. Mayer].
Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 87-90. doi:10.1007/BF02504677

Jump up to: 16.0 16.1 16.2 Reed, S. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87-98. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.88.6569&rank=
Jump up Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Lou, Y., Li, G., & Zhao, B. (2008). Multimedia instructional design
corresponded to cognitive psychology. In E. W. C. Leung et al. (Eds.), Advances in blended learning (pp.
155-164). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89962-4_16

Further Reading

Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques
predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers and Education, 53, 1339-1354.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.017

Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2005). the split-attention principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (pp. 135-146). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Low, R. &Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (pp. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning:
Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 11, 256-265.

Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting
more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187

Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: quantitative details
can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13-18.

Mayer, R. E., Johnson, L., Shaw, E., & Sahiba, S. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are
socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. International Journal of Human Compjter Studies,
64, 36-42.

Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive
style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 833-846.

Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,
12(1), 107-119. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00018-4

Mayer, R. E., & Morena, R. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps
listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156-163. doi10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.156

Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and
contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358

Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia
learning (pp. 147-158). New York: Cambridge University Press.

JenniferStieda 01:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

8 Prinsip Media Pembelajaran

1. 8 Prinsip Multimedia Pembelajaran Oleh : Lalu Satriwan Kholid NIM : 11520241007

2. Pendahuluan Pengertian Multimedia

3. Pembelajaran Multimedia Pemanfaatan dalam multimedia pembelajaran didasarkan atas

asumsi berikut : Dual channels Limited capacity Active processing

4. 1. Multimedia Principle Materi akan lebih efektif apabila disajikan dengan gambar dan kata
daripada hanya kata. Gambar atau grafik dapat memfasilitasi dalam belajar aktif.
Penggunaan hanya kata saja menyebabkan belajar tidak efektif.

5. Jenis Grafik/Gambar Gambar Dekoratif dapat memberi suasana enak di mata. Gambar
Eksplanatif dapat membantu siswa memahami materi.

6. 2. Contiguity Principle Gambar dan penjelasannya diletakkan sedekat mungkin. Dapat

mengurangi digunakan. beban lebih baik memori yang Meningkatkan penggunaan memori
untuk proses belajar.

7. Pelanggaran Pemisahan visualisasi dengan teks. Petunjuk latihan berbeda. ada pada layar
yang Feedback diberikan pada layar yang terpisah.

8. 3. Coherence Principle Konten yang tidak penting/relevan sebaiknya dihilangkan. Hindari

suara yang tidak penting. Hindari penggunaan kata-kata yang tidak penting. Hindari
grafik/gambar yang tidak penting.

9. 4. Modality Principle Penjelasan yang menyertai gambar/animasi yang kompleks sebaiknya

disajikan berupa narasi. Jangan menambahkan on-screen text pada gambar yang berisi narasi.
Sebaiknya penjelasan gambar menggunakan audio/suara tersendiri.

10. 5. Redudancy Principle Penggunaan elemen multimedia sebaiknya jangan berlebihan.

Narasi dan teks identik dianggap berlebihan. Hindari penyajian kata-kata sebagai narasi yang
persis sama dengan teks.

11. 6. Personalization Principle Materi lebih baik disajikan dalam gaya bahasa percakapan.
Jangan menggunakan bahasa yang terlalu formal dalam menyajikan materi.

12. 7. Interactvity Principle Pemahaman materi akan lebih optimal apabila disertai dengan
kontrol (interaktivitas.) Contohnya adalah interaksi menggunakan suatu simulasi. dalam

13. 8. Signaling Principle Penyajian materi perlu dilengkapi dengan penandaan atau identitas.
Pemberian outline pada awal presentasi. Pemberian nomor pada slide.