Multimedia Learning with Visual Displays

doi:10.1017/9781108894333.052

43 - Multimedia Learning with Visual Displays

from Part VIII - Multimedia Learning with Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021

Matthew T. McCrudden and

Peggy N. Van Meter

Edited by

Richard E. Mayer and

Logan Fiorella

Show author details

Richard E. Mayer: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella: Affiliation:
University of Georgia

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A visual display is a graphic representation of information communicated to learners. In this chapter, we review research-based principles for the design of visual displays. We begin by providing an overview of visual displays and presenting the case for visual displays in education. This chapter also describes a theoretical framework for understanding how people learn with visual displays and reviews research-based principles for designing visual displays to improve learning. Specifically, we identify three common forms of extraneous processing (induced via spatial distance, unimportant information, and referential confusion) and how to reduce them using research-based principles (spatial contiguity principle, coherence principle, and signaling principle). In addition, we discuss ways to promote generative processing and how different types of graphic organizers (sequence, hierarchy, matrix) can support different types of inferences (temporal, hierarchical, relational). We conclude with a discussion of future directions for research on visual displays.

Keywords

visual display graphic organizers inferences extraneous processing generative processing

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 510 - 520
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.052 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Cognitive Psychology: A Modular Course. Essentials of Human Memory. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182.Google Scholar

Chi, M., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar

Daher, T. A., & Kiewra, K. A. (2016). An investigation of SOAR study strategies for learning from multiple online resources. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 10–21.Google Scholar

Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning and comprehension by using effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 451–461.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning As a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies That Promote Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Firetto, C. M., & Van Meter, P. N. (2018). Inspiring integration in college students reading multiple biology texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 123–134.Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 117–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–332.Google Scholar

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), 414–434.CrossRef Google Scholar

Igo, L. B., Bruning, R., & McCrudden, M. T. (2005). Exploring differences in students’ copy-and-paste decision making and processing: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 103–116.Google Scholar

Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 601–614.Google Scholar

Jarodzka, H., van Gog, T., Dorr, M., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Learning to see: Guiding students’ attention via a model’s eye movements fosters learning. Learning and Instruction, 25, 62–70.Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. A. (1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Assessing, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10–16.Google Scholar

Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 569–587.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 256–265.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.Google Scholar

McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639.Google Scholar

McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 367–388.Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations: A Dual-Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and Its Evolution: A Dual-Coding Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Van Meter, P., van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.Google Scholar

Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621.Google Scholar

Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta‐analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237.Google Scholar

Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 399–415.Google Scholar

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439.Google Scholar

Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Robinson, D. (2013). Visual displays and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. In Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Robinson, D. (eds.), Learning through Visual Displays (pp. 3–17). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24.Google Scholar

Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 679–701.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2016). Integrating written text and graphics as a desirable difficulty in long-term multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 131–137.Google Scholar

Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 707–734.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional Design in Technical Areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.Google Scholar

van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 263–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Meter, P. N., Cameron, C., & Waters, J. R. (2017). Effects of response prompts and diagram comprehension ability on text and diagram learning in a college biology course. Learning and Instruction, 49, 188–198.Google Scholar

Van Meter, P. N., Firetto, C. M., Turns, S. R., Litzinger, T. A., Cameron, C. E., & Shaw, C. W. (2016). Improving students’ conceptual reasoning by prompting cognitive operations. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(2), 245–277.CrossRef Google Scholar

Van Meter, P. N., & Stepanik, N. (2020). Interventions to support learning from multiple external representations. In Van Meter, P. N., List, A., Lombardi, D., & Kendeou, P. (eds.), Handbook of Learning from Multiple Representations and Perspectives (pp. 76–91). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter complies with version 2.2 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range of users and attains the highest (AAA) level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive accessibility guidelines.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.

Visual Accessibility

Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.