Abstract
The effectiveness of multimedia documents depends on a complex interaction between document design features, learners’ characteristics and task demands. A series of experiments demonstrated that depending on learners’ level of prior knowledge, animations may serve an enabling or a facilitating function. Those functions results in different patterns of learning processes and learning outcomes. The results are interpreted in terms of a general model linking document features, learner characteristics, task demands and learning outcomes. It is concluded that, in order for learning to occur, multimedia documents should not seek to facilitate any kind of cognitive processing. Instead, they should stimulate cognitive processes that are both learning effective and within the capabilities of the learners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atkinson, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines. The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Entwistle, N. J., & RamsdenRamsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.
Forbus, K. D., NielsenNielsen, P., & FaltingsFaltings, B. (1991). Qualitative spatial seasoning: the Clock project. Artificial Intelligence, 51, 417–471.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.
Levie, H. W., & LentzLentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustration: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195–232.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. WillowsWillows & H. A. HoughtonHoughton, (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, (Vol. 1, pp. 51–86). New York: Springer.
Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 225–244.
Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. EntwistleEntwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Edinburgh: Scottisch Academic Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia Learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.) (2005). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Paas, F., & van Merrie¨nboer, J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the treining of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 357–371.
Renninger, A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.) (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Salomon, G. (1994). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schnotz, W. (1993). On the relation of dual coding and mental models in graphics comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 247–249.
Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign sytems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. In J. F. RouetRouet, J. LevonenLevonen & A. BiardeauBiardeau (Eds.), Multimedia Learning – Cognitive and Instructional Issues (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Schnotz, W. (2005). An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Bild- und Textverstehen. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 216–235.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.
Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 47–58.
Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 245–265.
Sims, V. K., & Hegarty, M. (1997). Mental animation in the visuospatial sketchpad: Evidence from dual-tasks studies. Memory & Cognition, 25, 321–332.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
Sweller, J., & Chandler (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–223.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychological Review, 10, 251–296.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Bétrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Does it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247–262.
Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development. 53, 59–72.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age (J. SimonSimon, Trans.). In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R. (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schnotz, W. (2008). Why Multimedia Learning is not Always Helpful. In: Rouet, JF., Lowe, R., Schnotz, W. (eds) Understanding Multimedia Documents. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73337-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73337-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73336-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73337-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)