You are here:

Multimedia, Multitasking, and Content Type and their Impact on College Students’ Perceived Mental Effort
PROCEEDINGS

, , , University of Illinois- Urbana, Champaign, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in New Orleans, LA, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-12-4 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

An experimental study was conducted in a compulsory introductory food science and human nutrition course at a mid-western University with undergraduate students to determine the relationship between multimedia and content types on perceived mental effort and how multitasking impacts students’ perceived mental effort. Students (n=160) were randomized into one of three groups: Group A, Group B, and Group C. Each group was provided with different multimedia (text-only, audio + text, and video+ audio+ text) and content types (declarative knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and procedural learning). Results showed students who viewed declarative knowledge material in text-only format experienced significantly lower mental effort investment than when exposed to other multimedia and content types. Non-multitask students also indicated lower perceived mental effort investment. This study is important to identify effective ways to present instructional information in a manner that reduces students

Citation

Andrade, J., Bohn, D. & Huang, W.D. (2014). Multimedia, Multitasking, and Content Type and their Impact on College Students’ Perceived Mental Effort. In T. Bastiaens (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 97-102). New Orleans, LA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 25, 2023 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Austin, K.A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers& Education, 53(4), 1339-1354.
  2. Bloom B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Co Inc.
  3. Clark, D. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains. Available from: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html.
  4. Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 2nd ed. NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Cook, M.P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073-1091.
  6. Doube, W., Tuovinen, J., & Shaffer, D. (2004). Selecting Multimedia Interactions to Build Knowledge Structures. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Lisbon, Portugal.
  7. Juno, R., & Cotten, S.R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers& Education. 59(2), 505-514.
  8. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19, 402-410.
  9. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Vander Vleuten, C.P.M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058-1072.
  10. Mayer, RE. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical Education 44, 543-549.
  11. Medula, C.T. (2012). Added cognitive burden or interest: Effect of enhancement in learning from slide lesson presentation in authentic classroom setting. International Journal of Education. 3(1), 24-39.
  12. Microsoft. (2013). Record Sound. Available from: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/record-sound. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
  13. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd Ed.). Denver, CO: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.
  14. Star, J.R., & Stylianides, G.G.J. (2013). Procedural and conceptual knowledge: Exploring the gap between knowledge type and knowledge quality. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(2), 169-181.
  15. Tossavainen, T. (2009). Who can solve 2x=1? An analysis of cognitive load related to learning linear equation solving. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast. 6(3), 435-448.
  16. Van Genuchten, E., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2012). Examining learning from text and pictures for different task types: Does the multimedia effect differ for conceptual, causal, and procedural tasks? Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2209-2218.
  17. Van Gog T, & Paas F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychology, 43, 16–26.
  18. Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., DePasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multitasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers& Education. 58(1), 365-374.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides