Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
1
Peer-Reviewed Article
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Michelle Rudolph
Independence University
Abstract: Instructional multimedia has rapidly advanced in the past decade. The area that has
seen the most growth is video instruction. In this literature review the Cognitive Theory of
Multimedia Learning (CTML) is introduced and how it can be implemented to help learners
effectively and efficiently learn through instructional multimedia. The theoretical framework of
CTML is reviewed as well has how memory works in instructional multimedia. The framework
for multimedia learning is rooted in three assumptions: dual channels, limited capacity, and
active processing. To balance visual and verbal channels the twelve principles of multimedia
design are used. Research and experiments have been conducted by Mayer as well as other
researchers over the past three decades on how implementing different multimedia principles can
have an effect on a learner's ability to develop meaningful learning and what principles are the
most effective in designing instructional multimedia. The results found that learners perform
better on problem solving transfer tests when watching a concise lesson compared to an extended
lesson. Text should be close to images and given breathing room. Using symbols and highlights
help call out key concepts to the learner. Results also showed extraneous details should not be
added.
Keywords: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, instructional multimedia, meaningful
learning, dual channels, limited capacity, active processing, and multimedia principles
Over the past ten years there have been rapid advances in technology that have made
instructional multimedia pieces easier for instructional designers, instructors, and multimedia
designers to purchase, create, and share. Instructional multimedia can be graphics in a textbook,
PowerPoints with audio, listening or watching a narrative presentation, animation, and
educational video. The multimedia area that has seen the most growth is the creation of online
educational videos (Ibrahim, 2012). Designers have access to free and affordable video
applications such as CamStudio, Camtasia, Jing, and Screencast-O-Matic. Educational videos
can be easily upload to free and affordable video storage websites such as YouTube, Vimeo, or a
private server. A decade ago these resources did not exist and limited what instructional
multimedia existed. Creating educational videos still requires an extensive amount of time to
master the technology, create the multimedia piece, and upload it for the learners. In addition to
the technical and design requirements multimedia designers must learn how to present the
information in the multimedia piece in an effective way.
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) looks at how designers should structure
multimedia development and how to implement effective cognitive strategies to help learners
learn efficiently (Sorden, 2012). This is a key theory that can be overlooked by a designer. If a
designer is not trained in the cognitive principles and theories of multimedia learning their
multimedia piece might interfere with the learning experience. Multimedia learning is where
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
2
students learn by using graphics (graphs, photos, maps, animations, and videos) and printed or
spoken text (Mayer, 2008). Graphics, photos, maps, text, and spoken words can be combined
into one piece or used separately.
This paper will synthesize research on what the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning is,
what is meaningful learning, how multimedia learning works, the multimedia principles, the
different types of multimedia presentations that can be created, how effective they are, and their
limitations.
The Science of Learning
The science of learning investigates how people learn (Mayer, n.d). Understanding how
people learn can assist instructional and multimedia designers as they developed sound
instructional multimedia pieces that will generate meaningful learning.
What is meaningful learning? Mayer and Moreno (2003) defines meaningful learning
as a deep understanding of the material. Learners emerge themselves in meaningful learning
when they are able to make a connection between information in the visual and the verbal
processing channels of working memory (Tempelman-Kluit, 2006). The learner is able to
identify key concepts, mentally organize the information, and integrate this information with
prior knowledge (Mautone & Mayer, 2001). A challenge all multimedia designers face is how to
introduce new concepts that are engaging without causing cognitive overload. Cognitive
overload according to Mayer and Moreno (2003) is "when the learner’s intended cognitive
processing exceeds the learner’s available cognitive capacity (p. 43).
What is multimedia learning and instruction? Mayer and Moreno (2003) define multimedia
learning as learning from words and pictures and multimedia instruction as the vehicle that
delivers the words and pictures for learning (Mayer and Moreno). The words can be printed on
the screen or spoken as a narration. The pictures can be static or animation. Static pictures can be
charts, graphs, diagrams, and illustrations. Animation pictures can be interactive animations and
videos.
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
The core principle of the CTML is how does multimedia learning work? How does the
learner make sense of the instructional material and construct meaningful connections and new
knowledge (Sorden, 2012)?
Theoretical framework. Richard E. Mayer is cognitive scientist who developed this theory and
has the spent almost three decades researching and updating this theory has instructional
multimedia has evolved. Mayer built this multimedia model off the work of Palvio, Baddelev,
and Sweller. His model and principle’s for multimedia design were created after conducting
numerous experiences on students from the Psychology Subject Pool at the University of
California, Santa Barbara (Reed, 2006). In his instructional multimedia experiments he tested
different types of cognitive constraints on multimedia learning. Learners were split into different
groups during the experiment. After the multimedia piece(s) were completed learners were asked
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
3
to answer on paper a series of questions that measured the retention of what was learned.
Three assumptions. The framework for multimedia learning and how the mind works is
rooted in these three assumptions: dual channels, limited capacity, and active processing. These
three assumptions as well as how they are activated in this model are explained below:



Dual channels: according to Austin (2009) "the dual channel processing assumption is
based on the seminal work by Paivio (p. 1340)". Learners have different channels in their
brain for processing visual and verbal material separately (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). The
learner will select relevant words for processing in verbal working memory and relevant
images for processing in visual working memory (Toh, Munassar, & Yahaya. 2010).
Limited capacity: there is a limit to the amount of information (verbal and visual) each
channel can process.
Active processing: in order for meaningful and deeper learning to occur it is dependent
on the learner's cognitive processing to be able to select, organize, and integrated the
information (verbal and visual) being presented with prior knowledge (Mayer, 2008).
How memory works in instructional multimedia. These three assumptions are connected to
the cognitive theory of multimedia learning graphic (figure 1). This figure represents how
memory works in instructional multimedia. There are two rows and five columns of boxes that
have arrows that connect them. According to Mayer and Moreno (2003) "the two rows contain
information-processing channels (auditory/verbal channel and then visual/pictorial channel)
(p.44)”. There are five columns in this model that represent the modes of knowledge
presentation. Learners start by watching an instructional multimedia piece. The multimedia
presentation contains words (text and/or auditory) and pictures. Words and pictures are the
physical representations. Learners then use their ears and eyes to access the sensory
representations. Leaners than select the text/auditory elements and images to put into working
memory. The learner determines what text/auditory and images will be stored in long term
memory. In order for the learner to process and integrate written text and visualizations, the
written text or visual that the learner looked at first needs to be held in working memory as the
learner looks at the second source that was not attended to first (Schmidt-Weigand, Kohnert, &
Glowalla, 2010). The learner will then integrate these selected elements (words and images) with
relevant prior knowledge. The arrows in this model represent cognitive processing. The arrow
from words to ears represents the processing of the spoken word by the ears; the arrow from
words to eyes is for printed text. Pictures are processed by the eyes. Moving from the sensory
memory to working memory the arrows selecting words and images indicate the learner is
selecting specific words and images to pay attention to. Then these selected words and images
are organized into a coherent verbal and pictorial presentation. The last arrow moves from
working memory to long-term memory. This is where the learner merges the verbal and pictorial
model with relevant prior knowledge. Working memory is limited in storage and is temporally,
whereas long-term memory has no limitations (Schweppe & Rummer, 2014).
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
4
Figure 1. Working Memory. Reprinted from Multimedia Learning (p. 44), by R.E. Mayer, 2001.
Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press. Copyright 2001 by Cambridge University
Press. Reprinted with permission.
Cognitive load theory. Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) defines how the brain can only
process selective incoming sensory data into working memory (Sorden, 2005). This is an
important theory multimedia and instructional designers must follow when designing
instructional multimedia. Because learners can only process a limited amount of information at a
time the information presented to the learner should not contained unnecessary content.
Examples of unnecessary content are entertaining animation designs that distract the learner from
the concepts being taught in the instructional multimedia piece. There are three different types of
cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane (Sweller, Van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998).



Intrinsic cognitive load - is based on the material being introduced and the experience of
the learner.
Extraneous cognitive load – is based on material outside of the content such as
presentation methods or activities that force the user to pay attention to multiple sources
of information (Sorden, 2005). Examples of extraneous material are: background music,
animations flying across the screen, and text on the screen with a narration. Instructional
and multimedia designers need to prevent extraneous processing as the more energy the
learner spends on trying to process this information the less cognitive capacity they will
have for engaging in the learning experience (Mayer & Johnson, 2008).
Germane cognitive load - is based on enhancing the learning experience and results in
task resources being devoted to schema acquisition and automation (Sorden, 2005).
Principles of Multimedia
Designers who develop instructional multimedia pieces will need to balance their use of visual
and verbal information to effectively engage the learner in the learning process (Bull, 2013).
Twelve principles of multimedia design were created by Mayer to help designers balance visual
and verbal channels (Mayer, 2009). With the ease of multimedia applications it is more critical
than ever for instructional and multimedia designers to understand and apply the twelve
principles.
Twelve principles of multimedia design. These twelve principles of multimedia design are:

Multimedia principle – Instructional multimedia pieces that contain words and pictures
are more effective for learners than just using words. The designer should make sure at
least two modes are present: text, video, graphics, animation, and narration (Bull, 2013).
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017











5
An example could be a screencast of the instructor speaking while showing their
PowerPoint presentation on the screen.
Spatial contiguity principle – Multimedia pieces are better designed for the learner when
words and pictures are placed near each other vs being a distance apart (Sorden, 2012).
Temporal contiguity principle – Learners respond better to instructional multimedia
pieces that present words and graphics continuously rather than one after another
(Sodern, 2012).
Coherence principle – Learners are more successful in grasping the concepts in the
instructional multimedia piece when irrelevant elements are not included. The
multimedia piece should not contain different concepts on the same frame or slide. The
designer also shouldn’t include multiple images on the same frame or slide as this can
visually overload the learner.
Modality principle – Graphics and narration are more effective in instructional
multimedia pieces than text and graphics on a page.
Redundancy principle – Graphics, narration, and printed text should not all be
implemented on a slide/frame. Instead only graphics and narration should be presented.
The designer should not include interactive animations if a video is being used as it can
compete and distract from the learner’s attention.
Individual differences principle (also known as personalization principle) – Formal style
conversations should not be used. Instead the instructor should speak in a conversational
style (Sorden, 2012).
Signaling principle – Learners are able to recognize and learn information easier when
call outs, arrows, and highlighting is used for key aspects.
Segmenting principle – Learners understand the instructional multimedia piece better
when the lesson is broken into user-paced chunks rather than all in one multimedia piece
(Sorden, 2012).
Pre-training principle – Instructional multimedia is more effective when learners have
pre-training on the objectives and key concepts they will learn about.
Voice principle – Learners are more engaged in the learning process when the voice in a
multimedia presentation is human vs. a computer generated voice.
Image principle – The instructor's image on the screen does not generate more
meaningful learning than if the image was not present.
Three challenges. Cognitive researchers have identified over the past decade three major
challenges multimedia designers face when creating instructional multimedia: extraneous
content, extraneous details, and complexity (Ibrahim, 2012). Instructional multimedia pieces that
contain extraneous content can overload the learners processing capacity. According to Ibrahim
(2012) “empirical studies have found that learners performed better on a problem solving
transfer test after reviewing a concise lesson, rather than an expanded lesson” (p. 84).
Having too much information (verbal and visual) within the instructional multimedia piece can
drain the learner's ability to focus on the main idea. Adding headers, highlighting key concepts,
and using symbols can help the learner focus on the information they need to learn.
If an
instructional media piece is too detailed or long this can cause a cognitive overload for the
learner and is dependent on the learner’s prior knowledge. The more prior knowledge a learner
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
6
has about a lesson or topic the less mental effort the learner needs to apply. This results in the
learner having more cognitive capacity left for selecting and organizing new information
(Höffler & Leutner, 2007). To prevent cognitive overload from happening the lesson should be
chunked into segments. If the visual and on screen text is too far away or appears at separate
time, it can create a split-attention effect (Aostinho, Tindall-Ford, & Roodenrys, 2013). A
multimedia designer needs to understand these three challenges before he or she can effectively
develop a sound instructional multimedia piece.
How Does a Designer Develop Effective Instructional Multimedia Pieces?
Mayer has conducted numerous research experiments to determine what elements in
instructional multimedia result in the most meaningful learning. His research found that
contiguous narration and visual graphics in videos are extremely effective for entry level courses,
visual learners, and for introducing complex topics (Berk, 2009). Designers need to understand
that learners generate more meaningful learning when the text is presented verbally rather than
printed on the screen (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2000). An experiment conducted by Park,
Flowerday, & Brünken (2015) found that learners learn better with narration instead of the
printed word next to a complex visual. Multimedia designers should place graphics and text near
each other. In addition graphics that are decorative or do not contribute to the main objectives of
the lesson should not be used.
Redundancy. Multimedia designers should leave out redundant information. The spoken text
should not appear word for word on the screen. Presenting printed words and a narrative can
actually decrease learning due to extra memory load (Oud, 2009). If on screen text is used it
needs to add to the learning experience. Under certain circumstances, a limited amount of onscreen text can induce germane load rather than extraneous (Adesope & Nesbit, 2012). In a study
Mayer conducted about redundancy, he found that adding short redundant text (two to three
words) next to the narrated graphics resulted in improvements on retention of the narration but
not on transfer (Mayer & Johnson, 2008). This design principle is called the redundancy
principle. Redundant information can cause a cognitive overload because the learner's working
memory is being used to process unnecessary information (Toh, Munassar, & Yahaya. 2010).
Multimedia designers should weed out unnecessary information (printed text, spoken word, and
visual graphics).
Signaling. Signaling is a technique that can be used and is one of the multimedia principles that
can reduce extraneous material. Extraneous material in an instructional multimedia piece can be
redundant text, images, diagrams, etc. Multimedia designers can use headers, overview or
objective statements, highlight key words or concepts, use call outs for important areas, as well
as arrows and animations transitions to draw the learner's attention. The text typeface can be
changed by making the text bold, changing the typeface, or the color. The text can also have
animation effects added (fade in, fly in, rotation, and flashing). Without the use of signaling
leaners might experience cognitive load due to having to hold auditory information in working
memory until the learner can find the visual reference on the screen (Kalyuga, 2012). In an
experiment Mayer conducted to assess the benefits of signaling he found (2008) "in six out of six
experiments on airplane and paper-based lessons on lighting and biology, learners who received
signaled lessons performed better on transfer tests than students who did not receive signaled
lessons" (p. 764). In an experiment conducted by Scheiter signaling resulted in quicker attention
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
7
to signaled diagram elements (Scheiter & Eitel, 2015). It is critical that the multimedia designer
use signaling sparingly or it can create a cognitive overload.
Segmentation. Segmentation focuses on dividing instructional multimedia pieces into smaller
topics that are split up across a lesson. An example would be a Photoshop multimedia lesson that
covers the tools, filters, effects, and layers. Instead of presenting all of these lessons in one video,
a multimedia designer can break this lesson into smaller segments or chunks. Segmentation
allows learners to learn one topic before moving on to the next topic. The learner has control
over how much of the video they want and can watch different topics out of order.
Multiple studies have proven that segmentation is effective for beginner students, learning
material is conceptually complex, and the presentation pace is rapid (Ibrahim, 2012). In an
experiment Mayer conducted he compared how learners did in a test of knowledge transfer with
one group of students watching a continuous animation showing how an electric motor works
and the other group watching the animation broken into segments (Ibrahim, 2012). The results
showed the segmented group was more successful. In another study according to Mayer (2008)
“in thirteen out of his fourteen experiments he conducted on instructional multimedia lessons on
lighting, ocean waves, and brakes learners performed better on their assessment when the lesson
was chunked into small pieces rather than the entire lesson being presented in one video” (p.
763).
Animation vs static image. Höffler & Leutner conducted experimental research to determine if
instructional animations were more effective than static pictures. Their research found there is an
advantage to using animations over static pictures, particularly when the animation connects
directly to the topic or lesson being addressed. In order for learners to create meaning from an
instructional multimedia piece, learners need to create a mental representation of the content
displayed in on the slide (de Koning, Tabbers, Rikers, Paas, 2010). According to Jamet, Gavota,
& Quaireau (2008) a study they reviewed discovered "color changes and flashing for cueing
resulted in positive effectives in retention, transfer, and text-image matching tasks" (p. 143). In
an experiment conducted by Scheiter, Schüler, Gerjets, Huk, Hesse (2014) they found that
adding animation to verbal explanations helped learners recall immediate information but did not
aid in the transfer part of the experiment. There are times when a static picture can be more
effective. The picture must be easy to understand, have limited text, and relate directly to the
main objective being taught.
Control. Research conducted by Mayer has found that when learners have control over the pace
of the multimedia the learning is more meaningful and effective (Oud, 2009). Mayer and
Chandler conducted several experiments where learners had control of their instructional
multimedia piece. Some experiments were very basic where the learner had control of a pause
button. In an experiment conducted by Sage, Bonacorsi, Izzo, & Quirk (2015) only a quarter of
learners in the experiment used the click-to-pause feature. Though only a quarter of the learners
used the click-to-pause feature, the majority of the learners stated they were happy that the clickto-pause feature was there. Another experiment compared learner-control against the systemcontrolled version. Their results concluded that the learner-control version had better transfer
performance when the system-controlled version (Tabbers and de Koeijer, 2010). Allowing the
learner to control the content, help, and pace can result in more meaningful learning and prevent
cognitive overload. Having a table of contents in the multimedia instructional design allows the
learner to quickly locate specific topics of interest quickly without having to scan through the
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
8
whole multimedia piece. Chunking the lessons into smaller segments gives the learner the
control to focus their attention on aspects of the lesson he or she prefers.
Interactivity. Interactivity describes the interactions between student-to-student, teacher-tostudent and student-to-content (Evans & Gibbons, 2007). According to Evans & Gibbons
(2007), "interaction involves a sequence of three actions: initiation, response, and feedback (p.
1149)".
1. Initiation – presents the learner with a button or control feature for the learner to
push/interact with to move on the response action.
2. Response – the learner presses the button or control features that appeared in the last
action.
3. Feedback – the next slide or information is presented as a result of the learner pushing the
button in the last action sequence.
Evans and Gibbons conducted two experiments to determine if using interactivity enhanced the
learning process. One experiment was interactive and the other was non-interactive. The results
found that learners who viewed the interactive multimedia piece performed better on the
problem-solving test and needed less time to complete the memory and problem-solving tests
(Evans & Gibbons, 2007). In an experiment conducted by Chen & Catrambone (2014) they
found that learners were more motivated and engaged in the learning process when using
interactivity. Interactivity can also help learners generate meaningful learning.
Engagement and feedback. Not only should instructional multimedia pieces contain signaling,
avoid redundancy, chunked into smaller sections, contain interactivity but should also interactive
with the learner and allow them to engage with the lesson being presented. Engagement and
feedback needs to be meaningful, help the learner apply what he/she learned, and realistic (Oud,
2009).Engagements can contain multiple choice questions, buttons to click on, objects to move
around, and links that go to different slides, pages, or websites. If a multimedia designer creates a
multiple choice question after the lesson for the learner to answer it is important that the multiple
choice question provides meaningful feedback. If the learner answered the question correctly, the
correct response should explain why it is correct. If the learner answered the question incorrectly,
the correct answer should be given as well as where the learner should go to review the main
concepts covered.
Screencasts. Jon Udell in 2004 defined a screencast as a way to present digitally
recorded playback of a computer screen output that contained spoken narration (Brown,
Luterbach, & Sugar, 2009). Screencasts can fall under the category of animations as animations
are defined as moving visuals with spoken narration. Examples of screencasts can be an
instructor going through a PowerPoint presentation and showing how to use a feature in a
software application. There are several benefits for instructional and multimedia designers to
consider when creating screencasts. Per Hartsell and Yuen (2006) online video-based instruction
“brings courses alive by allowing online learners to use their visual and auditory senses to learn
complex concepts and difficult procedures” (p. 31).
In an experiment conducted by Ali, Zamzuri, Samsudin, Hassan, Sidek (2011) they found
that learners learned best when the screencast contained narration, were short, simple (did not
contain complex animation), and the learner had low prior knowledge. Palaigeorgiou, &
Despotakis (2010) conducted an experiment to determine how effective screencasts were and
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
9
inquired students on their attitudes towards screencasts. Students' stated that screencasts
increased their application-specific confidence, were more humanized, and were effective in
being able to reproduce the procedures the instructor demonstrated. When an instructional or
multimedia designer develops screencast multimedia it is important to consider prior knowledge,
redundancy, signaling, segmentation, and control as without these there is danger of overloading
the limited cognitive capacity of the learner (Brown, Luterbach, & Sugar, 2009).
Conclusion
We live in a video driven world where adult learners are drawn to instructional
multimedia pieces. Instructional and multimedia designers must learn about the cognitive theory
of multimedia learning and the different principles the designer should consider and implement
to design effective instructional multimedia pieces.
Implications of the literature. Effective instructional multimedia pieces should have detailed
graphics and narration that contribute to the key aspects of the lesson, include highlighting and
use of arrows to draw the learner's eye to the main concepts, the lesson is broken into segments
and the learner can control the user controls (play, stop, and pause), engage the learner, and
provide an opportunity at the end of the lesson for the learner to apply what he or she has
learned.
Limitations with instructional multimedia. One of the biggest weaknesses is that the majority
of the experiments that have been conducted were on instructional multimedia pieces that were
less than twenty minutes long and were often chunked into smaller pieces. Instructional
multimedia pieces require high levels of cognitive processing to analyze and synthesize the
visual and narration information and then place this new knowledge in working memory
(Ibrahim, 2012). Mayer’s experiments and recommendations are more effective for
inexperienced/novice learners than learners who already have knowledge in the subject. Spanjers
et al. (2011) conducted experiments on the effect of segmentation on learners with different
levels of prior knowledge in a specific field of study and found that learners with prior
knowledge learned equally efficiently from non-segmented and segmented instructional
multimedia pieces.
In several of Mayer's experiments he states his research is limited in subject area
(scientific multimedia and technical how to's) and that further research on different types of
instructional multimedia needs to be conducted. Furthermore additional studies and experiments
need to be conducted within non-scientific subjects as well learners who are under 18 years of
age. Very few studies have been conducted in the effects of cueing in animation and the
experiments that have been done have mixed results (De Koning, Tabbers, Rikers, & Paas,
2009). Additional studies also need to be conducted to determine the optimal size of textural
information (Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004).
Not only are there several theory based limitations but there are several technical limitations such
as time constraints, copyright material, technical support, and access to a server that could limit
how effective multimedia software and applications could be in creating instructional multimedia
pieces (Bull, 2013). If the instructor is developing the course and doesn’t have access to a
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
10
multimedia designer this will make it even harder due to concerns above to create instructional
multimedia pieces.
Discussion and recommendations for future research. To help instructional and multimedia
designers understand the cognitive theory of multimedia learning and the different principles a
visual table should be created in Excel or another visual tool application that connects different
principles to the most effective multimedia software. Within this visual table a listing of what to
avoid doing to prevent cognitive load should be shown as well as recommendations on how to
improve the instructional multimedia piece – such as chunking a screencast into small topics.
There are several recommendations for future research:






Examine why a small discrepancy between on-screen text and narration is beneficial
whereas a large discrepancy is not.
If the interactivity effect for memory is reproducible
The effects of attention guidance on transfer tasks
Establish more specific instructional guidelines for the optimal size of textural
information
Determine best practices using the multimedia principles with learners who have high
prior knowledge
Experiments need to be conducted in more learning/classroom environments than
laboratory environments
References
Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning
environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250.
Retrieved from http://bjorklab.psych.ucla.edu/pubs/YueBjorkBjork2013_redundancy.pdf
Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive Diagrams: Handing Control
over to the Learner to Manage Split-Attention Online. Computers & Education, 6452-62.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/
S0360131513000110
Ali, M., Zamzuri, A., Samsudin, K., Hassan, M., & Sidek, S. F. (2011). Does Screencast
Teaching Software Application Needs Narration for Effective Learning?. Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(3), 76-82. Retrieved from http://files.
eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ944936.pdf
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. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0360131509001638
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
11
Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in
the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning,
5(1), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0901/1_Berk.pdf
Brown, A., Luterbach, K., & Sugar, W. (2009, March). The current state of screencast
technology and what is known about its instructional effectiveness. In Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No.
1, pp. 1748-1753). Retrieved from http://mcnewastrocasts.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/3/3/
5333522/current_state_of_screencast_technology.pdf
Bull, P. (2013). Cognitive Constructivist Theory of Multimedia: Designing Teacher-Made
Interactive Digital. Creative Education, 4, 614-619. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.49088.
Chen, D. W., & Catrambone, R. (2014, September). Effects of multimedia interactivity on spatial
task learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting (Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 1356-1360). SAGE Publications. Retrieved from
http://www.psychology.gatech.edu/probsolvelab/pubs/CubeHFES2014.pdf
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for
attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design.
Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113-140. Retrieved from http://link.springer.
com/article/10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7#page-1
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in
learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction,
20(Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning), 111-122.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.
ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/S0959475209000103
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers &
Education, 49(4), 1147-1160. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/
download?doi=10.1.1.477.3963&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hartsell, T. & Yuen, S. (2006). Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31–43.
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A metaanalysis. Learning and instruction, 17(6), 722-738. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.2791&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
12
Ibrahim, M. (2012). Implications of designing instructional video using cognitive theory of
multimedia learning. Critical Questions in Education, 3(2), 83-104. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1047003.pdf
Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning.
Learning and instruction, 18(2), 135-145. Retrieved from https://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/
teaching/methodo/jamet%20et%20al%202008.pdf
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design
of multimedia instruction. Journal of educational psychology, 92(1), 126. Retrieved from
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~aja05001/comps/documents/Kalyuga_2000_expert_reversal_e
ffect.pdf
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia
technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors: The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46(3), 567-581. Retrieved from http://www.it.
iitb.ac.in/~s1000brains/rswork/dokuwiki/media/redundant_on_screen_text_in_multimedi
a_instruction_can_interfere_with_learning.pdf
Kalyuga, S. (2012). Review: Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load
factors. Educational Research Review, 7145-159. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.12.002.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/
S1747938X11000546
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377-89. Retrieved from http://www.cs.uu.nl/
docs/vakken/b3elg/opdrachten/Mautone.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (n.d.). Research-based principles for designing multimedia instruction.
Acknowledgments and Dedication, 59. Retrieved from http://hilt.harvard.edu/files/hilt/
files/background_reading.pdf
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. Retrieved from http://portal.ou.nl/documents/
25460761/0/Mayer+%26%20Moreno+2003+-+EPigxrG8CM.pdf
Mayer, R. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design
methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125. Retrieved from
http://stc.huji.ac.il/thj/articles_tj/articles_english/Learning%20and%20Instruction%2013
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
13
_2%20%282003%29/The%20promise%20of%20multimedia%20learning%20using%20t
he%20same%20instructional%20design%20methods%20across.pdf
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(2), 389. Retrieved
from http://www.matmatics.org/etec668/week4/PersonalizationEffect.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760. Retrieved from http://
www.education.ucf.edu/Rtp3/docs/RTP3_Mayer_Article_Applying_the_Science_of_Lea
rning.pdf
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380. Retrieved from http://www.matmatics.
org/etec668/week4/RevisingRedundancyPrinciple.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oud, J. (2009). Guidelines for effective online instruction using multimedia screencasts.
Reference Services Review, 37(2), 164-177. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.
com/doi/abs/10.1108/00907320910957206
Palaigeorgiou, G., & Despotakis, T. (2010). Known and unknown weaknesses in software
animated demonstrations (screencasts): A study in self-paced learning settings. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 9(1), 81-98. Retrieved from http://www.
jite.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p081-098Palaigeorgiou787.pdf
Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive
details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44267-278.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.
memphis.edu/science/article/pii/S0747563214006591
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 87-98. Retrieved from http://mpel5comunicacaoeducacional.pbworks.com/f/
Cognitive_Architectures_Multimedia_Learning_p14.pdf
Sage, K., Bonacorsi, N., Izzo, S., & Quirk, A. (2015). Controlling the slides: Does clicking help
adults learn? Computers & Education, 81179-190. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.007.
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
14
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/
S0360131514002279
Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2014). Extending multimedia
research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning
from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 3173-84.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.022. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.
memphis.edu/science/article/pii/S0747563213003506
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of
highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11-26.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.002. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.
ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/S0959475214001054
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention
in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,
20(2), 100-110. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011 http://www.sciencedirect.com.
ezproxy.memphis.edu/science/article/pii/S0959475209000097
Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2014). Attention, Working Memory, and Long-Term Memory in
Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Perspective Based on Process Models of Working
Memory. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 285-306. Retrieved from http://eds.a.
ebscohost.com.ezproxy.memphis.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=bf6640c0-9e3e-4a9cb2f9-bca44fc7d936%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4110
Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning.
Informing Science Journal, 8, 263-279. Retrieved from http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/
v8p263-279Sorden34.pdf
Sorden, S. (2012). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Handbook of educational
theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Retrieved from http://sorden.com/
portfolio/sorden_draft_multimedia2012.pdf
Spanjers, I., Van Gog, T., Van Merrienboer, J., & Wouters, P. (2011). An expertise reversal
effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(1), 46-52. Retrieved from http://lnx-hrl-075v.web.pwo.ou.nl/
bitstream/1820/3011/1/8%20CiHBpaper_Spanjers%20et%20al_final.pdf
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F.G.W.C (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-29. Retrieved from
http://www.davidlewisphd.com/courses/EDD8121/readings/1998-Sweller_et_al.pdf
Journal of Online Higher Education vol. 1, no. 2/2017
Tabbers, H. K., & de Koeijer, B. (2010). Learner control in animated multimedia instructions.
Instructional Science, 38(5), 441-453. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/
10.1007/s11251-009-9119-4/fulltext.html
Tempelman-Kluit, N. (2006). Multimedia learning theories and online instruction. College &
Research Libraries, 67(4), 364-369. Retrieved from https://files.nyu.edu/ntk2/public/
multimedia.pdf
Toh, S. C., Munassar, W. A. S., & Yahaya, W. A. J. W. (2010). Redundancy effect in
multimedia learning: A closer look. Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for An
Unknown Future. Proceedings Ascilite Sydney, 988-99. Retrieved from http://ascilite.
org.au/conferences/sydney10/Ascilite%20conference%20proceedings%202010/Tohfull.pdf
Udell, J. (2005). What is screencasting? Retrieved from http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/pub/a/
oreilly/digitalmedia/2005/11/16/what-is-screencasting.html?page=2#heading2.
15