Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T16:22:28.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning

Segmenting, Pre-training, and Modality Principles*

from Part V - Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Richard E. Mayer and
Logan Fiorella
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

When a multimedia lesson containing complicated material is presented at a fast pace, the result can be a form of cognitive overload called essential overload. Three multimedia design methods intended to minimize essential overload are the segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. The segmenting principle is that people learn more deeply when a multimedia message is presented in learner-paced segments rather than as a continuous unit. The pre-training principle is that people learn more deeply from a multimedia message when they know the names and characteristics of the main concepts. The modality principle is that people learn more deeply from a multimedia message when the words are spoken rather than printed.

Keywords

essential processingessential overloadsegmentng principlepre-training principlemodality principle

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 243 - 260
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

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biard, N., Cojean, S., & Jamet, E. (2018). Effects of segmentation and pacing on procedural learning by video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 411–417.Google Scholar
Boucheix, J., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucheix, J., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 181–202). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C-Y., & Yen, P-R. (2021). Learner control, segmenting, and modality effects in animated demonstrations used as before-class instructions in the flipped classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheon, J., Crooks, S., & Chung, S. (2014). Does segmenting principle counteract modality principle in instructional animation? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 56–64.Google Scholar
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15–24.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.Google Scholar
Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. (2012). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1063–1071.Google Scholar
de Oliveira Neto, J. D., Huang, W. D., & de Azevedo Melli, N. C. (2015). Online learning: Audio or text? Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 555–573.Google Scholar
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.Google Scholar
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 48–63.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Paper-based aids for learning with a computer-based game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1074–1082.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., & Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gegner, J. A., MacKay, D. H. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Computer-supported aids to making sense of scientific articles: Cognitive, motivational, and attitudinal effects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 104–121.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–332.Google Scholar
Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction, 17, 465–477.Google Scholar
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load, and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.Google Scholar
Hassanabadi, H., Robatjazi, E. S., & Savoji, A. P. (2011). Cognitive consequences of segmentation and modality methods in learning from instructional animations. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1481–1487.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Izmirli, S., & Kurt, A. A. (2016). Effects of modality and pace on achievement, mental effort, and positive affect in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(3), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.Google Scholar
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004a). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instructional Science, 32, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004b). Information presentation and troubleshooting in electrical circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 239–256.Google Scholar
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185.Google Scholar
Kester, L., Lehnen, C., van Gerven, P. W. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Just-in-time, schematic supporting information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 93–112.Google Scholar
Khacharem, A., Spanjers, I. A. E., Zoudji, B., Kalyuga, S., & Ripoll, H. (2013). Using segmentation to support the learning from animated soccer scenes: An effect of prior knowledge. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 154–160.Google Scholar
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Edelmann, J. (2011). The influence of text modality on learning with static and dynamic visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418.Google Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951.Google Scholar
Lee, H., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Fostering learning from instructional video in a second language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32, 648–654.Google Scholar
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindow, S., Fuchs, H. M., Fürstenberg, A., Kleber, J., Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2011). On the robustness of the modality effect: Attempting to replicate a basic finding. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25(4), 231–243.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Jang, B. G., & Roy-Campbell, Z. (2018). Optimum input mode in the modality and redundancy principles for university ESL students’ multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 127, 190–200.Google Scholar
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia learning and individual differences: Mediating the effects of working memory capacity with segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 636–651.Google Scholar
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640–652.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1979a). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1979b). Twenty years of research on advance organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 8, 133–167.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia Learning (3rd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G., & 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, 806–813.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Howarth, J., Kaplan, M., & Hanna, S. (2018). Applying the segmenting principle to online geography lessons. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.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, 312–320.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Wells, A., Parong, J., & Howarth, J. (2019). Learner control of the pacing of an online slideshow: Does segmenting help? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 930–935.Google Scholar
Mayrath, M. C., Nihalani, P. K., & Robinson, D. H. (2011). Varying tutorial modality and interface restriction to maximize transfer in a complex simulation environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 257–268.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48, 69–92.Google Scholar
Merkt, M., Ballman, A., Felfeli, J., & Schwan, S. (2018). Pauses in educational videos: Testing the transience explanation against the structuring explanation. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 399–410.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H., & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213.Google Scholar
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.Google Scholar
O’Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K., & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In O’Neil, H. F., & Andrews, D. H. (eds.), Aircrew Training and Assessment (pp. 105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ohst, A., Fondu, B., Glogger, I., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2014). Preparing learners with partly incorrect intuitive prior knowledge for learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 664.Google Scholar
Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278.Google Scholar
Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
Pilegard, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Improving academic learning from computer-based narrative games. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 12–20.Google Scholar
Pilegard, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Game over for Tetris as a platform for cognitive skill training. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 29–41.Google Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.Google Scholar
Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the modality effect exist? and if so, which modality effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 1–32.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. D., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Wirzberger, M., Schmitt, T. H., & Schneider, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 389–419.Google Scholar
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, 31, 73–84.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237.Google Scholar
Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1590–1601.Google Scholar
Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22, 92–102.Google Scholar
Schwan, S., Dutz, S., & Dreger, F. (2018). Multimedia in the wild: Testing the validity of multimedia learning principles in an art exhibition. Learning and Instruction, 55, 148–157.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
Seufert, T. (2019). Training for coherence formation when learning from text and picture and the interplay with learners’ prior knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 193.Google Scholar
Singh, A., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 848–853.Google Scholar
Skuballa, I. T., Fortunski, C., & Renkl, A. (2015). An eye movement pre-training fosters the comprehension of processes and functions in technical systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 598.Google Scholar
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 411–423.Google Scholar
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Segmentation of worked examples: Effects on cognitive load and learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 352–358.Google Scholar
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., Wouters, P., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing. Computers & Education, 59(2), 274–280.Google Scholar
Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 46–52.Google Scholar
Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). Online multimedia learning with mobile devices and desktop computers: An experimental test of Clark’s methods-not-media hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 639–647.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.Google Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar
Witteman, M. J., & Segers, E. (2010). The modality effect tested in children in a user-paced multimedia environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(2), 132–142.Google Scholar
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22, 449–457.Google Scholar
Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 1–8.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.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×