Guidelines for Effective Multimedia Presentations Jung Lim, Ph.D. (limj@nsula.edu) Sanghoon Park, Ph.D. (parks@nsula.edu) Northwestern State University Most often time in learning environment, we get to encounter different types of information. Those could be text, still, picture, animation, charts, or narrated information. And we receive those types of information simultaneously through our sensory modality, which includes our eyes and ears.

Guidelines for Effective Multimedia Presentations  Provide pictures (video) that closely match the content of narration. (e.g., Educational Television or film)  Avoid irrelevant and/or repetitive information.  Minimize the visual search process.  Use concrete words for narration & on-screen text.  Consider learner’s knowledge level and give them choices over their preferred presentation mode.

Theoretical / Conceptual Framework Information Processing Theory (Miller, 1956) Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986) Dual Sensory Channel View (Baddeley, 1992) Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller & Chandler, 1991) The theoretical or conceptual framework for this paper is based on the following: Miller’s information processing theory, which tells us that our short-term memory has limited capacity so we can only process seven plus minus two chunks of information at once. Paivio’s dual coding theory assumes that human cognitive system has dual coding systems, which are verbal and pictorial. And it suggests that people learn better when both verbal and non-verbal, which is pictorial information are presented at the same time. Baddeley’s dual sensory channel view basically tells us that people receive information through our two sensory modalities: auditory and visual. Finally, cognitive load theorists emphasize that instruction should be designed in ways that reduce learners cognitive load.

1. Provide pictures (video) that closely match the content of narration. (e.g., Educational Television or films) If narration and picture (video) highly match each other, semantically, learners understand the content better. “ A cheetah's head and body grow to 44 to 53 inches long. When it’s fully grown, its tail measures 26 to 33 inches long. ” If narration and picture (video) highly match each other, semantically, learners understand the content better. Most studies that examined the effects of educational television have shown that the redundancy between narration and picture has a positive effect on students learning, especially when the two forms of information are highly redundant (e.g., Drew & Grimes, 1987; Furnham, De Siena, & Gunter, 2000; Grimes, 1991; Son, Reese & Davie, 1987). Nugent (1982) also discovered that students performed better when they were provided three forms of information concurrently (e.g., picture (film), on-screen text, and narration), than did other learners who were given only single or dual forms of information. Drew & Grimes (1987), Furnham, De Siena, & Gunter (2000), Grimes (1991), Son, Reese & Davie (1987), Nugent (1982) Source: National Geographic.com Kids (Photograph by Gary Ellis)

2. Avoid irrelevant information. + + + – – – + + – – – Avoid information that is irrelevant to learning. Avoid information that can be derived from other information elements. Information that is irrelevant to learning but only meant to make the multimedia instructions more fun is redundant. These information elements are often added to spice up the learning materials and keep the students motivated. However, these “seductive details” as Mayer calls them, seem to do more harm than good to learning. Information that can also be derived form other information elements is redundant. In a lot of cases, instructional designers assume that presenting information in multiple forms or extended form will enrich the knowledge construction and in the worst case only have a neutral effect on learning. This is a false assumption, as the results of experiments on the redundancy effect have shown. e.g., Mayer, Heiser & Lonn (2001); Chandler, & Sweller (1991); Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (1999); Mousavi, Low, & Sweller (1995), etc. Story Source: Mayer (2001), ‘Multimedia Learning’

x 2. Avoid repetitive information. Animation with Narration Avoid information that can be derived from other information elements. Animation with Narration Animation with Narration and On-Screen Text “As the air in this updraft cools, water vapor condenses into water droplets and forms a cloud.” As the air in this updraft cools, water vapor condenses into water droplets and forms a cloud. x Presenting a text accompanying an animation or a picture both on-screen and as a narration or adding explanatory text to a diagram that could be understood on its own. “As the air in this updraft cools, water vapor condenses into water droplets and forms a cloud.” e.g., Mayer, Heiser & Lonn (2001); Chandler, & Sweller (1991); Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (1999); Mousavi, Low, & Sweller (1995), etc.

3. Minimize the visual search process. Present on-screen text next to corresponding part of the picture, so that learners do not have to search the text or picture. When two parallel lines intersect with a third line, four pairs of corresponding angles are equal. In the diagram, two parallel lines, AB and CD, intersect with a third line, XY. The following four pairs of angles are corresponding angles: - Present on-screen text next to corresponding part of the picture, so that learners do not have to search the text or picture. - Use visual cues (e.g., color coding) that link on-screen text with appropriate part of the picture. In multimedia instructions, present information elements that refer to each other as close together as possible, so that learners do not have to split their attention between the different information sources. This principle is known in cognitive load theory as the split-attention effect and in Mayer’s theory as the contiguity principle. The explanation for the effect is that the integration of different elements like a picture and a text will be much easier when these elements are presented next to each other. Unnecessary visual search is prevented and the time to keep information elements actively represented is shortened, so that working memory resources are used more efficiently. The results of the empirical studies show that preventing split attention is especially effective when two information elements like a text and a picture are presented at the same time, which is mostly the case in multimedia learning. The extraneous load caused by the visual search and the mental effort needed to integrate text and picture can be minimized by placing the text inside the picture next to the part it is referring to. e.g., Chandler, & Sweller (1991); Tindall-Ford, Chandler, & Sweller (1997), etc.

3. Minimize the visual search process. Split instructional format for teaching co-ordinate geometry Source: Sweller, Chandler, Tierney & Cooper (1990)

3. Minimize the visual search process.

3. Minimize the visual search process.

3. Minimize the visual search process. Use visual cues (e.g., color coding) that link on-screen text with appropriate part of the picture. using color-coding appears to minimize learners’ cognitive load by reducing their visual search processes in a complex visual only presentation (text and picture). Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1998) used color-coding to link on-screen text with corresponding parts of the picture (diagram) in their experiment. This resulted in better test scores when compared to instructions without any visual cues. Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller (1998); Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merrienboer, J. (2004)

4. Use concrete words for narration & on-screen text. Learners are more likely to remember concrete than abstract information. Narration WORDS On-screen Text Learners are more likely to remember concrete than abstract information. Paivio, Clark and Kahn (1988), people are more likely to remember concrete than abstract information thus emphasizing the use of concrete words when presenting information in narration and on-screen text. Similarly, Furnham, Gunter, and Green (1990) argue that paragraphing and other textual chunking available to text readers are likely to facilitate the encoding of material. This idea was supported by another finding that students who read summaries of scientific processes perform better on problem-solving transfer than do students who read full lessons, presumably because summaries reduce cognitive load and direct the learner’s attention in multimedia presentations (Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapaangco, 1996). e.g., Paivio, Clark & Kahn, 1988; Furnham, Gunter, and Green (1990)

4. Use concrete words for narration & on-screen text. Paragraphing and other textual chunking enhances encoding of the material being presented. Summarized Text Full Text Learners are more likely to remember concrete than abstract information. Paivio, Clark and Kahn (1988), people are more likely to remember concrete than abstract information thus emphasizing the use of concrete words when presenting information in narration and on-screen text. Similarly, Furnham, Gunter, and Green (1990) argue that paragraphing and other textual chunking available to text readers are likely to facilitate the encoding of material. This idea was supported by another finding that students who read summaries of scientific processes perform better on problem-solving transfer than do students who read full lessons, presumably because summaries reduce cognitive load and direct the learner’s attention in multimedia presentations (Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapaangco, 1996). e.g., Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990; Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, & Tapaangco, 1996

5. Consider learner’s knowledge level and give them choices over their preferred presentation mode. NOVICE EXPERT VS. More info Less info more knowledgeable readers found the additional material redundant and so preferred the less complete text while the less knowledgeable readers required the additional material for comprehension. Information that the learner is already familiar with is redundant. As a learner develops expertise in a learning domain, information that was at first necessary to understand the multimedia instructions might become superfluous. In a number of experiments, Kalyuga et al. (1998, 2000) showed that over time, adding an explanatory text to a diagram was helpful at the start of a learning trajectory, but a t a later stage led to worse performance compared to diagram-only instructions. Mayer and his colleagues (1990, 1994, 2002) propose that multimedia presentation is effective for low knowledge learners and high spatial learners. The rationale for this is that low-knowledge learners require more guidance than high-knowledge learners in processing information, and that low spatial learners require more cognitive capacity than high-spatial learners to integrate the pictorial and verbal information. Visualizer Verbalizer VS. Graphic mode Text mode Kalyuga et al. (1998, 2000); Mayer and his colleagues (1990, 1994, 2002)

Guidelines for Effective Multimedia Presentations  Provide pictures (video) that closely match the content of narration. (e.g., Educational Television or film)  Avoid irrelevant and/or repetitive information.  Minimize the visual search process.  Based on theories, and extensive empirical research. Applied to various learning settings Use concrete words for narration & on-screen text.  Consider learner’s knowledge level and give them choices over their preferred presentation mode.

Thank you! Contact Info: Jung Lim: limj@nsula.edu Sang Park: parks@nsula.edu