Narration or Visual Text: When Does Modality Effect Apply?
PROCEEDINGS
Slava Kalyuga, University of New South Wales, Australia
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Orlando, Florida, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-83-9 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
According to the modality effect, textual information accompanying pictures, animations, or simulations should be presented in an auditory rather than visual form. Within a cognitive load framework, the modality effect is explained by a more efficient use of the available working memory resources: by engaging two channels of working memory when verbal information is presented in the auditory modality, learning can be facilitated. However, some studies failed to replicate the modality effect and in some cases, found statistically significant differences opposite to those expected. This paper reviews and systematizes a set of evidence-based conditions of the applicability and factors moderating the modality effect based on recent empirical evidence.
Citation
Kalyuga, S. (2010). Narration or Visual Text: When Does Modality Effect Apply?. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2010--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1052-1058). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 18, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/35689/.
© 2010 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
References
View References & Citations Map- [1] Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- [2] Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J., & Paas, F.G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
- [3] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
- [4] Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126-136.
- [5] Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257-287.
- [6] Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory model instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329– 433.
- [7] Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319 – 334.
- [8] 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.
- [9] Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.
- [12] Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction. 13, 157-176.
- [13] Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 492-503.
- [14] Schnotz,W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
- [17] Schneider, W., & Detweiler, M. (1987). A connectionist/ control architecture for working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 21 (pp. 53-119). New York: Academic Press.
- [18] Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- [19] Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- [20] Tabbers, H.K., Martens, R.L., & Van Merrienboer, J.J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71-81.
- [22] Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107– 119
- [23] Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational
- [25] Moreno, R., Mayer, R., Spires, H.A., & Lester, J.C. (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.
- [26] Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
- [27] 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.
- [29] Dutke, S., & Rinck, M. (2006). Multimedia learning: Working memory and the learning of word and picture diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 16, 526-537.
- [30] Goolkasian, P. (2000). Pictures, words, and sounds: ·From which format are we best able to reason? The Journal of General Psychology, 127, 439-459.
- [31] Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning& Instruction, 15, 313-331.
- [34] Wouters, P., Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J.J. (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology 34, 1-8.
- [35] Mayer R.E., & Johnson, C.I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380-386.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References