Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:33:30.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning

Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Spatial Contiguity, and Temporal Contiguity Principles

from Part IV - Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
Logan Fiorella  and
Richard E. Mayer
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

Extraneous processing occurs when suboptimal instructional design causes learners to engage in cognitive processing irrelevant to the instructional goal. This chapter explores five principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. The coherence principle is that people learn better when extraneous information is excluded from multimedia lessons. The signaling principle is that people learn better when cues are added to highlight the organization of the essential information. The redundancy principle is that people learn better when multimedia lessons include graphics and spoken text rather than graphics, spoken text, and printed text. The spatial contiguity principle is that people learn better when words and corresponding graphics are physically integrated rather than separated. The temporal contiguity principle is that people learn better when words and corresponding graphics are presented simultaneously rather than sequentially.

Keywords

extraneous processingcoherence principlesignaling principleredundancy principlespatial contiguity principletemporal contiguity principle

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 185 - 198
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

Abercrombie, S., Hushman, C. J., & Carbonneau, K. J. (2019). The impact of seductive details and signaling on analogical transfer. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263.Google Scholar
Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125, 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amadieu, F., Marine, C., & Lemay, C. (2011). The attention guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 36–40.Google Scholar
Ari, F., Flores, R., Inan, F. A., Cheon, J., Crooks, S. M., Paniukov, D., & Kurucay, M. (2014). The effects of verbally redundant information on student learning: An instance of reverse redundancy. Computers & Education, 76, 199–204.Google Scholar
Arndt, J., Schüler, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Investigating the influence of simultaneous – versus sequential – text–picture presentation on text–picture integration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 116–127.Google Scholar
Austin, K. A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers and Education, 53, 1339–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: Spatial contiguity effects as trade‐off between gaze switches and memory load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 863–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmüller, K., & Häcker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73–95.Google Scholar
Boucheix, J. M., Lowe, R. K., Putri, D. K., & Groff, J. (2013). Cueing animations: Dynamic signaling aids information extraction and comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 25, 71–84.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.Google Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar
Chung, K. K. H. (2007). Presentation factors in the learning of Chinese characters: The order and position of Hanyu pinyin and English translations. Educational Psychology, 27, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congdon, E. L., Novack, M. A., Brooks, N., Hemani-Lopez, N., O’Keefe, L., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2017). Better together: Simultaneous presentation of speech and gesture in math instruction supports generalization and retention. Learning and Instruction, 50, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(2), 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crooks, S., White, D., Srinivasan, S., & Wang, Q. (2008). Temporal, but not spatial, contiguity effects while studying an interactive geographic map. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(2), 145–169.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020a). Learning from split-attention materials: Effects of teaching physical and mental learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020b). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 106379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 731–746.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self‐explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, B. B., van Hooijdonk, C. M., & Lagerwerf, L. (2017). Verbal redundancy in a procedural animation: On-screen labels improve retention but not behavioral performance. Computers & Education, 107, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doolittle, P. E., & Altstaedter, L. L. (2009). The effect of working memory capacity on multimedia learning: Does attentional control result in improved performance? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 2, 7–23.Google Scholar
Eitel, A., Bender, L., & Renkl, A. (2019). Are seductive details seductive only when you think they are relevant? An experimental test of the moderating role of perceived relevance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Picture or text first? Explaining sequence effects when learning with pictures and text. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 153–180.Google Scholar
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenesi, B., Heisz, J. J., Savage, P. I., Shore, D. I., & Kim, J. A. (2014). Combining best-practice and experimental approaches: Redundancy, images, and misperceptions in multimedia learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Pilegard, C. (2020). Learner-generated explanations: Effects on restudying and learning from a multimedia lesson. Educational Psychology, 41(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, L., DeCaro, M. S., & Ramirez, G. (2019). The lure of seductive details during lecture learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(4), 736.Google Scholar
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C., Tindall‐Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2016). Learning from instructor‐managed and self‐managed split‐attention materials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53.Google Scholar
Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18, 135–145.Google Scholar
Jamet, E., & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 588–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarosz, A. F., & Jaeger, A. J. (2019). Inconsistent operations: A weapon of math disruption. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 124–138.Google Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, A. M., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2015). Supporting multimedia learning with visual signalling and animated pedagogical agent: Moderating effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(2), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 178–191.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 71–85.Google Scholar
Khacharem, A., Trabelsi, K., Engel, F. A., Sperlich, B., & Kalyuga, S. (2020). The effects of temporal contiguity and expertise on acquisition of tactical movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 413.Google Scholar
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, M. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911–930.Google Scholar
Kühl, T., & Münzer, S. (2019). The moderating role of additional information when learning with animations compared to static pictures. Instructional Science, 47(6), 659–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Bohec, O., & Jamet, E. (2008). Levels of verbal redundancy, notetaking and multimedia learning. In Rouet, J.-F., Lowe, R., & Schnotz, W. (eds.), Understanding Multimedia Documents (pp. 79–101). New York: Springer.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
Lee, H., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Fostering learning from instructional video in a second language. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(5), 648–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650–658.Google Scholar
Lowe, R., & Boucheix, J. M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 650–663.Google Scholar
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction, 61, 23–34.Google Scholar
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240–246.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256–265.Google ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrudden, M. T. (2019). The effect of task relevance instructions on memory for text with seductive details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 31–37.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2014). Exploring the boundary conditions of the redundancy principle. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(4), 537–554.Google Scholar
Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555–575.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Cristmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–807.Google Scholar
Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2015). Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Educational Technology & Society (online), 18, 78–88.Google Scholar
Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110–117.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
Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 379–399.Google Scholar
Rey, G. D. (2010). Reading direction and signaling in a simple computer simulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1176–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, G. D. (2014). Seductive details and attention distraction – An eye tracker experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 133–144.Google Scholar
Richter, J., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Studying the expertise reversal of the multimedia signaling effect at a process level: Evidence from eye tracking. Instructional Science, 47(6), 627–658.Google Scholar
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2018). Signaling text–picture relations in multimedia learning: The influence of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(4), 544.Google Scholar
Roodenrys, K., Agostinho, S., Roodenrys, S., & Chandler, P. (2012). Managing one’s own cognitive load when evidence of split attention is present. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 878–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roscoe, R. D., Jacovina, M. E., Harry, D., Russell, D. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2015). Partial verbal redundancy in multimedia presentations for writing strategy instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 669–679.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning and Instruction, 36, 11–26.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
Schneider, S., Wirzberger, M., & Rey, G. D. (2019). The moderating role of arousal on the seductive detail effect in a multimedia learning setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 71–84.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.Google Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2020). Do measures of cognitive load explain the spatial split-attention principle in multimedia learning environments? A systematic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 254–270.Google Scholar
Schüler, 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(2), 92–102.Google Scholar
Smith, A., & Ayres, P. (2016). Investigating the modality and redundancy effects for learners with persistent pain. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 401–424.Google Scholar
Stull, A., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.Google Scholar
Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 707–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.Google Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modalities are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498.Google Scholar
van Wermeskerken, M., & van Gog, T. (2017). Seeing the instructor’s face and gaze in demonstration video examples affects attention allocation but not learning. Computers & Education, 113, 98–107.Google Scholar
Wassenburg, S. I., de Koning, B. B., Bos, L. T., & van der Schoot, M. (2020). Inspecting a picture before reading affects attentional processing but not comprehension. Educational Psychology, 40(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
Xie, H., Mayer, R. E., Wang, F., & Zhou, Z. (2019). Coordinating visual and auditory cueing in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 235–255.Google Scholar
Yue, C. L., & Bjork, E. L. (2017). Using selective redundancy to eliminate the seductive details effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(5), 565–571.Google Scholar
Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277.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
×