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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Simultaneously, this explanation may induce extraneous cognitive load for the high-ability student, because this student is already aware of this information (i.e., it is redundant; see Mayer et al. 2001).”
From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Mayer et al. 2001
Citations
Cites
Baddeley, A. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736359 · Cited by 5,258
Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach
Paivio, A. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,087
Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 · Cited by 2,894
Dual coding theory and education
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf01320076 · Cited by 2,445
The Role of interest in Learning and Development
Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S. E., Krapp, A., & Renninger, A. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315807430 · Cited by 1,611
Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358 · Cited by 1,539
Self-citationMultimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?
Mayer, R. E. (1997) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1 · Cited by 1,533
Self-citationWhy Some Material Is Difficult to Learn
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1 · Cited by 1,455
Interest and effort in education.
DEWEY, J. M. (1913) · Houghton Mifflin eBooks · doi:10.1037/14633-000 · Cited by 1,449
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312 · Cited by 1,315
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Mayer, 1999b, The promise of educational psychology.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mayer, R. E. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678 · Cited by 7,800
Self-citationMayer, R. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781316941355 · Cited by 7,777
Self-citationNine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_6 · Cited by 4,207
Self-citationEducation for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012) · Cited by 2,038
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E. (2014) · The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005 · Cited by 1,976
Self-citation
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
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 187-198
- ISSN
- 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2176
- 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
