You are here:

Multimedia: Learner preferences for multimedia learning
PROCEEDING

, University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Savannah, GA, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-13-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Today’s learners are using multimedia on a daily basis. Prior research from Mayer and colleagues has revealed the multimedia principle, which communicates that two representations that explain for one another are better for learning than just one. While much of this research focused on cognitive load and learning, it did not focus on learner preference. As a result, a survey was presented to learners to discover their preferences for the multimedia, modality, redundancy, and coherence principles in a multimedia environment. Overall, participants agreed that they preferred multiple representations to a single one. However the most surprising results were that learners indicated they preferred redundant text and sound with images to image and text or images and sound and that they preferred highly detailed and colored images to simple images. This indicates that while learners may learn better if we following the multimedia principles, it may decrease learner interest or motivation.

Citation

Pastore, R. (2016). Multimedia: Learner preferences for multimedia learning. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3015-3022). Savannah, GA, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 11, 2023 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Clark, R.C. And Mayer, R.E. (2011) Applying the multimedia principle: Use words and graphics rather than words alone, in e-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, Third Edition, Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  2. Dwyer, F.M. (1965). An experimental evaluation of the relative effectiveness of selected visual illustrations in teaching science concepts to college freshmen. Unpublished Dissertation. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
  3. Dwyer, F.M. (1972). A guide for improving visual instruction. Learning Services, Box 784, State College, PA.
  4. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and instruction, 18, 368-378.
  5. Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J., & Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higherorder cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 223-238.
  6. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525.
  7. 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, 414-434.
  8. Issa, N., Mayer, R.E., Schuller, M., Wang, E., Shapiro, M.B. And DaRosa, D.A. (2013), Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles. Medical Education, 47, 388–396.
  9. Mayer, R.E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of educational psychology, 88, 64-73.
  10. Mayer, R.E. (2010), Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical Education, 44, 543–549.
  11. 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, 187-198.
  12. Mayer, R., & Anderson, R. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444--452.
  13. Mayer, R.E. (2010), Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical Education, 44, 543–549.
  14. Mayer, R.E., Dow, G.T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–813.
  15. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 117-125.
  16. Ollerenshaw, A., Aidman, E., & Kidd, G. (1997). Is an illustration always worth ten thousand words? Effects of prior knowledge, learning style and multimedia illustrations on text comprehension. International journal of instructional media, 24(3), 227-238.
  17. Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
  19. Pastore, R. (2012). The effects of time--compressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Computers& Education, 58(1), 641--651.
  20. Plass, J., Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
  21. Pociask, F.D., & Morrison, G.R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 56(4), 379.
  22. Schnotz, W., Lowe, R. (2003). External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 13, 117-123.
  23. Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 159-168). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Toomey, N. (2013). Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preferences for multimedia learning in the visual and verbal domains. In T. Bastiaens& G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning inCorporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2013 (pp. 1598-1602). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  25. Yu, Z., Zhang, D., Zhou, X, & Li, C. (2005). User preference learning for multimedia personalization in pervasive computer environment. In R. Khosla (Ed.), Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems (pp. 236-242). Springer.
  26. Yue, C.L., Bjork, E.L., & Bjork, R.A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (2), 266-277.

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

Also Read

Related Collections