EDCI 513 Individual Paper: Practical Applications of Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Principles in E-Learning

Running head: APPLICATIONS OF CTML PRINCIPLES IN E-LEARNING

Practical Applications of Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Principles in E-Learning

Danielle L. Moffat

Purdue University

APPLICATIONS OF CTML PRINCIPLES IN E-LEARNING 2

Abstract

The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) has been described as, of the current

cognitive processing theories, the most beneficial to instructional designers in terms of its practical

applicability. This paper critically considers this position by exploring the extent to which the

practical application of CTML design principles is useful in assisting instructional designers to

build e-learning environments and materials that promote effective learning. CTML is first defined

with reference to its theoretical assumptions that are based on cognitive sciences understanding

of how learning takes place. The implications of the assumptions for effective learning are

discussed. CTMLs six central principles are described and the way in which they can be

practically applied to enhance and optimize learning in digital contexts is considered and explored

with reference to relevant, illustrative case studies. On the basis of its research findings this paper

makes practical instructional design recommendations focused on reducing cognitive load to

maximize transfer and retention of instructional information presented in e-learning environments

and resources. Finally recommendations are made for further study, the results of which are

required to provide deeper insight into, as yet, underexplored applications of CTMLs

personalization principle in digital environments.


The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning proposed by Mayer and Moreno (2003) sets

out a theory, based on empirical evidence, of how the mind works to process pictorial and textual

information. Given Mayer and Morenos main aim to, figure out how to use words and pictures

to foster meaningful learning, (2003, p. 43) it is unsurprising that CTMLs principles have been

adopted by many instructional designers as useful guidance in relation to the design of instruction

intended to optimize learning through the strategic arrangement of visual and textual elements

within learning environments and materials (De Weselink, Valcke, De Craene & Kirschner, 2005).

This essay will attempt to provide an overview of CTML as well as to explore the extent to which

its principles can be practically and usefully applied to the design of e-learning in order to achieve

optimal learning and retention of the instructional information by learners.

Literature Review

Assumptions of CTML

CTML is based on three assumptions which are rooted in the current understanding of the

way in which the mind processes information and learns within the field of cognitive science

(Mayer, 2003a; Mayer, 2009):

Dual channel assumption. CTML provides that there are two distinct processing avenues

dealing, respectively, with auditory/verbal information and visual/pictorial information. As can be

seen in the CTML model at Fig. 1, below, it is assumed that the mind initially processes sounds

and images separately within working, or short term, memory. Once it has produced distinct verbal

and pictorial models of the information, it then merges them together whilst contextualizing the

integrated data against the learners existing knowledge to form understanding via a mental

procedure known as active processing.


As De Weselink et al. point out, the dual channel assumption is not peculiar to CTML; it

is a widely accepted notion that features in a number of other prominent cognitive processing

theories including Paivios Dual Coding Theory and the Multiple Communication Model of

Moore, Burton & Meyers (2005, p. 557).

Figure 1: The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Model

Active processing assumption. CTML assumes that the learner is actively engaged in the

processes taking place in the working memory of selecting relevant sounds and images within

shallow working memory, organizing and rationalizing relevant sounds and images into mental

models within deep working memory and, finally, forming an understanding of the new

information in the context of existing knowledge during the integration phase, in preparation for

storage of the same in to the long-term memory (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).

Limited capacity assumption. It is a central premise of CTML that the working memory

is of limited capacity, meaning that only a certain amount of visual and verbal information can be

processed by the learner at any one time. It has been established through experimentation that the


working memory is, in fact, only capable of processing around seven new pieces of information at

any one time (Miller, 1956; Baddeley, 1992). The results of Strayer & Johnstons (2001) study of

the effect of using a hands-free mobile phone on motor car drivers reactions provides an excellent

illustration of working memorys limitations; not only were, predictably, the reaction times of

drivers using the hand-held devices substantially slower than those who were not, they also

perceived only approximately half of the number of traffic signals simulated in the experiment.

The limited capacity assumption also features as an important tenet of Cognitive Load

Theory (CLT). The fathers of CLT Sweller, Van Merrinboer and Pass similarly shine a light

on the limited capacity of working memory within their theory, describing it as, one of the

defining aspects of human cognitive architecture (1998, p. 262). They highlight the importance

of recognizing this characteristic of the human mind in designing effective instruction, arguing

that any instructional design or procedure failing to take account of the limitations of working

memory will be ineffectual as a result (Sweller, Van Merrinboer & Pass, 1998).

Practical Relevance of CTML for E-Learning: Design Principles for Multimedia Learning

Mayer (1997; 2009) has identified six CTML design principles, aimed at reducing

cognitive load and increasing retention in multimedia learning, which are equally applicable to

both printed and interactive instructional materials. For the purposes of this paper, however, the

following paragraphs shall discuss the practical application of the principles in relation to the

design of e-learning environments and resources only.

The Multimedia Principle: adding graphics to text improves learning. It has been

commonly accepted for some time that learners retain a greater amount of information from

illustrated text as compared to text alone (Levie & Lentz, 1982).


Clark & Meyer (2011), considering a number of experiments exploring this effect in

relation to multimedia learning materials, postulate that the blending of text and image works to

greatly increase the learners engagement in the active processing procedure which, in turn, has

the effect of optimizing learning and maximizing retention of the instructional information. They

suggest that the presentation of text alone is likely to have the effect of engaging only the learners

shallow working memory. Consequently, they opine, the learner will fail to go on to form mental

models of the visual and aural information within deep working memory or to peg the new

knowledge to their existing understanding, thus vastly reducing, if not entirely negating, the

prospect of the information being integrated into long-term memory (Clark & Mayer, 2011).

It should be noted that not all graphics are equally effective in promoting learning in

combination with text. Sung & Mayer (2012) identified three types of graphics used in the design

of multimedia learning materials: instructive (directly relevant), seductive (highly interesting but

not relevant) and decorative (neutral and not relevant). Whilst research conducted by Sung &

Meyer (2012) showed that, in general, adding an image to text had the effect of equally increasing

the learners appreciation of the learning materials regardless of image type, the only appreciable

difference in the quality of learning occurred where educationally relevant (instructive) images

were used. This writer suggests that it is therefore important that the instructional designer takes

care to select graphics that supplement text with images in a way that is congruent with the learning

goals in order to achieve optimal transfer and retention of the instructional information.

The Contiguity Principle: placing text near graphics improves learning. Clark &

Mayer (2011) recommend placing text and image in close temporal and spatial proximity (namely,

simultaneously rather than successively and near to each other on the screen). They make this

recommendation on the basis of their theory that the act of making connections between words


and images within working memory causes the learner to create more meaningful and memorable

connections in the active processing phase of learning, which in turn leads to more successful

retention of the information in the long-term memory (Clark & Meyer, 2011).

Furthermore, Schmidt-Weigand (2009) explains that the consequence of forcing the learner

to split their visual attention between two disparately placed elements has effect of placing

extraneous load on the working memory, thus clogging the learners cognitive processing system

and preventing effective learning. He suggests that this type of cognitive overloading can be

avoided entirely by presenting the text in oral rather than written form, and thus essentially

balancing the visual and aural information being processed in the working memory (Schmidt-

Weigand, 2009).

This writer suggests that, in e-learning contexts, it is critical that the instructional designer

pay careful attention to the manner in which text and words are integrated to ensure the learners

working memory is not overloaded, particularly when utilizing formats such as the scrolling

screen, where poor design can easily lead to a breach of the contiguity principle. Similarly,

separating exercise directions and exercises, tests and feedback or images and captions should be

avoided (Clark & Mayer, 2011).

The Modality Principle: using audio to explain graphics improves learning. Clark &

Meyer (2011) postulate that splitting a learners visual attention has the effect of increasing

cognitive load. They therefore suggest that instructive text is presented aurally rather than in

textual form, simultaneously with the presentation of the graphic it relates to, in order to avoid this

occurrence (Clark & Meyer, 2011). The practical benefit of applying this principle has been well

established by confirmatory research including studies conducted at the University of Southern

Carolina Beauforts laboratories where participants experienced increased retention of explanatory


information that was delivered aurally alongside dynamic visual images in contrast to textual

presentation of the same (Mayer & Moreno, 1998, Experiments 1 & 2).

This writer suggests that the working memorys capacity should be preserved as far as

possible. Tasks requiring large cognitive expenditure in shallow working memory processing

should be avoided the instructional designer should aim for the bulk of the learners cognitive

processing to occur in the deep working memory and integration phases of learning, where

effective learning takes place. Furthermore, balanced division of information between the two

processing channels will work to avoid cognitive overloading, ensuring maximum retention (Clark

& Mayer, 2011).

The Redundancy Principle: audio or text alongside graphics, but not both. Clark &

Meyer (2011) are of the opinion that learning is inhibited when the learner is presented with the

same information in multiple forms simultaneously. Empirical evidence shows that when learners

are concentrating on printed text their attention is diverted away from on-screen graphics, resulting

in cognitive overloading of the visual processing channel. Consequently, deep visual processing

is corrupted and ineffective mental models are produced meaning that successful retention of the

information is compromised (Clark & Mayer, 2011).

The redundancy effect has been confirmed by a number of studies undertaken by Kalyuga,

Chandler and Sweller (1999; 2000) in which learners were presented with computer-based

instructional material designed which was designed to either enhance or reduce split-attention

effects. The results of the respective studies all led to the same conclusion that instructional

materials designed in such a way as to reduce split-attention, and thus cognitive load, through the

strategic presentation of visual and aural elements resulted in more effective learning and retention

of the target instructional information.


The above notwithstanding, Clark & Meyer (2011) suggest that there are limited special

circumstances when the combination of text and audio in e-learning design may not only be

acceptable, but even helpful. They postulate that cognitive overload is unlikely to occur where text

and audio are used together and there is no visual element in the presentation; where the

presentation is slow enough to enable time for the learner to fully process all elements; in situations

such as EFL learning where learners will spend greater cognitive energy processing aural rather

than textual information; or where only a very few words are used; for example, labelling parts of

an image (Clark & Meyer, 2011).

This writer therefore suggests that instructional designer takes care to avoid the use of

redundant text in instructional situations where the learners visual working memory is likely to

be heavily utilized such as, for example, within graphically rich e-learning environments.

The Coherence Principle: elements extraneous to learning outcomes can hinder

learning. Clark & Mayers single most important recommendation to instructional designers

developing e-learning is to avoid embellishing instructional materials and environments with

distracting and unnecessary elements, such as background music or dramatic plot lines, simply for

the sake of spicing [them] up (Clark & Mayer, 2011, p. 151).

Harp & Mayer (1998) hypothesized that genuine learning can be interfered with in a variety

of ways by the inclusion of gratuitous elements in the design of e-learning. They suggested that

the learners attention can easily be distracted away from educationally relevant instructional

elements to extraneous ones. They opine that a persons attention tends towards the path of least

resistance and gratuitous elements tend to be empty, requiring comparatively minimal cognitive

effort to process. Similarly, extraneous materials may have the effect of disrupting cognitive


processing as the learner comes across them throughout the instruction thus preventing proper

functioning of working memory and the active processing procedure (Harp & Mayer, 1998).

The learners attention can be seduced by attractive and/or interesting but irrelevant

material, effectively creating false associations at the integration phase of the learning process.

This suggestion is supported most recently by a study which demonstrated that participants

provided with learning materials incorporating seductive illustrations and text passages were out-

performed on transfer by those participants receiving learning materials without such elements

(Gnter, 2014).

This writer is of the opinion that, practically speaking, the coherence principle asks that

instructional designers follow the simple rule that less is more in order to develop the most

effective instruction. This does not mean that learning materials and environments cannot be

visually appealing, but visual and aural elements should be educationally relevant and congruent

with the learning goals in order to ensure smooth and uninterrupted cognitive processing.

The Personalization Principle: humanizing e-learning environments can increase

learning. Clark & Mayer (2011) recommend the use of a friendly conversational style in the

presentation of instructional materials, pointing to studies undertaken by Beck, McKeown,

Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy (1996) which revealed that learners engage more deeply with learning

when they feel that they are taking part in a conversation within the instruction because they are

working harder to understand what the author is saying. A conversational tone can be simply

achieved by using first person words such as I and you rather than the third person (Mayer,

2011).


Whilst Clark & Meyer (2011) admit that research in relation to the application of the

personalization principle in e-learning is at this time scant, a series of eleven studies undertaken

by Mayer (2009) and his colleagues concluded that learners provided with instructional materials

conveying learning content in an informal tone performed better on transfer than participants

provided with those utilizing a formal tone.

Studies undertaken by Reeves and Nass (1996) revealed that certain human/computer

interactions, where the computer acted as a virtual agent capable of basic conversation, elicited

a social response from the human participants. Clark & Mayer (2011) draw attention to the fact

that related research on discourse processing has revealed that deeper cognitive processing, and

thus more effective learning, takes place when learners engaging in e-learning situations feel that

they are involved in active social discourse rather than simply passively receiving information that

is being passed down to them.

Accordingly, Clark & Meyer (2011) recommend, where possible, the utilization of

pedagogical agents, or on-screen tutors, to guide the learner through the e-learning environment

and instructional materials. These characters can be represented either visually, for example as a

virtual avatar or video segments of a real person, or aurally as either a computer-generated or

recorded real human voice (Clark & Meyer, 2011). It should be noted that while the use of

pedagogical agents in e-learning is a relatively new area for research, preliminary studies appear

to reveal that people learn more effectively from agents with human, rather than computer-

generated, voices (Mayer, Sobko & Mautone, 2003).

Whilst on-screen pedagogical agents do not necessarily have to look realistic, or even

human, there is some evidence to show that learners engage most effectively with those that display

realistic human-like behavior, and thus are perceived by the learner as a conversational partner


(Louwerse, Graesser, McNamara & Lu, 2009). When using pedagogical agents, the instructional

designer should be careful to avoid breaching the coherence principle by using the agent

extraneously, for example, simply for entertaining the learner (Clark & Meyer, 2011).

Conclusion

This writer supports the view that CTML has enormous practical relevance to practitioners

of instructional design (Reimann, 2003; De Weselink et al., 2005). The large amount of empirical

evidence generated by Mayer and his colleagues through research and experimentation tends to

support the position that designing instruction on the basis of CTMLs principles will result in

increased learning and retention of instructional information. The six principles, commonly aimed

at reducing cognitive load to ensure fluid and effective translation of information into mental data

appropriate for successful long-term memory storage, provide demonstrably successful, practical

guidance on how to optimize learning via instructional designs informed by an understanding of

human cognitive processing.

Given the relatively recent rise in the popularity and widespread use of e-learning, this

writer suggests that further research relating specifically to the practical application of CTMLs

principles in electronic environments will be very useful to instructional design practitioners. In

particular, a deeper understanding of the psychological factors relating to human-machine

interaction and the way in which they affect learning in varying e-learning scenarios will provide

further valuable insight into how the personalization principle might most effectively be utilized

in digital environments to enhance learning quality and maximize instructional information

retention.


References

Baddeley, A.D. (1992) Working memory. Science, 255, 556 559.

Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author:

A year-long classroom implementation to engage students in text. Elementary School

Journal, 96, 385414.

Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2011). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven

Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Pfeiffer.

De Weselink, K., Valcke, M., De Craene, B. & Kirschner, P. (2005) Multimedia learning in

social sciences: limitations of external graphical representations. Computers in Human

Behavior, 21(4), 555 573.

Gnter, D. R., (2014) Seductive details and attention distraction An eye tracker experiment.

Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 133 144.

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(3), 414434.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in

multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of

multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126-136.

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

Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195232.


Louwerse, M.M., Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D.S., & Lu, S. (2009). Embodied conversational

agents as conversational partners. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 12441255.

Mayer, R.E. (1997) Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational

Psychologist, 32(1), 119.

Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of

modality and contiguity. Educational Psychologist, 91(2), 358 368.

Mayer, R.E. (2001) Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational aspects of problem solving. In

Hartman, H. (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 87 102), Kluwer

Academic Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Mayer, R.E. (2003a) The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design

methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125 139.

Mayer, R.E. (2005). Principles of multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization,

voice, and image principles. In Mayer, R.E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of

multimedia learning (pp. 201212). New York: Cambridge University Press

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

Mayer, R. E & Moreno, R. (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.

Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43 52.

Mayer, R.E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P.D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of

speakers voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419425.

Miller, G.A. (1956) The magical number seven +/- two: Some limits on our capacity for

processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81 97.

Reeves, B. & Nass, C. (1996). The Media Equation: How people treat computers, television and

new media like real people and places. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.


Reimann, P. (2003) Multimedia learning: beyond modality. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), pp.

245252.

Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2009). The Influence of Visual and Temporal Dynamics on Split

Attention: Evidences from Eye Tracking. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive Effects of

Multimedia Learning (pp. 89-107). Hershey, PA.

Strayer, D.L. & Johnson, W.A. Driven to distraction (2001): Dual-task studies of simulated

driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science, 12(6), 462 466.

Sung, E & Mayer, R.E. When graphics improve living but not learning from online lessons.

Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1618 1625.

Sweller, J., Van Merrinboer, J.J. G & Pass, F.G.W.C. (1998) Cognitive architecture and

instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251 296.

Van Merrinboer, J.J. G & Ayres, P. (2005) Research on cognitive load theory and its design

implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5

13.

Wikiversity (2012) Cognitive theory of Multimedia Learning. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from

Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cognitive_Theory_of_Multimedia_Learning.

Documents

EDCI 513 Individual Paper: Practical Applications of Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning Principles in E-Learning