CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,160Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsOnline and Blended Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding.

Mayer, Richard E., Heiser, Julie, Lonn, Steve·2001·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 4 experiments, college students viewed an animation and listened to concurrent narration explaining the formation of lightning. When students also received concurrent on-screen text that summarized (Experiment 1) or duplicated (Experiment 2) the narration, they performed worse on tests of retention and transfer than did students who received no on-screen text. This redundancy effect is consistent with a dual-channel theory of multimedia learning in which adding on-screen text can overload the visual information-processing channel, causing learners to split their visual attention between 2 sources. Lower transfer performance also occurred when the authors added interesting but irrelevant details to the narration (Experiment 1) or inserted interesting but conceptually irrelevant video clips within (Experi-ment 3) or before the presentation (Experiment 4). This coherence effect is consistent with a seductive details hypothesis in which the inserted video and narration prime the activation of inappropriate prior knowledge as the organizing schema for the lesson. Multimedia scientific explanations—in CD-ROMs, on the World Wide Web, and in classroom demonstrations—are po-tentially valuable instructional tools. For example, Figure 1 shows selected slides from a 140-s multimedia explanation intended to help students understand how lightning storms develop. The multimedia explanation uses animation to depict the steps in lightning formation along with corresponding narration to describe them. Our research has documented that well designed multimedia explanations formatted like the one in Figure 1 can be highly effective in promoting students' understanding, as indicated by their ability to generate accept-able answers to open-ended transfer questions (Mayer, 1997,

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mayer, 1999b, The promise of educational psychology.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,160

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
ORCID
Mayer, Richard E.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001-03
Volume
93
Issue
1
Pages
187-198
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
OpenAlex
W2000885037
Semantic Scholar
c17e261a20efe4601b5b7e0e3e47c833271068c0
Cited by
1,029
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 66 · 2012: 54
FWCI
20.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
multimedia learning, redundancy effect, coherence effects, seductive details, visual attention, screen text, narration, animation, retention, transfer, prior knowledge, lightning formation, instructional design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review