Cited by 478Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsOnline and Blended Learning

Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing

Tabbers, Huib K., Martens, Rob L., Van Merriënboer, Jeroen J. G.·2004·British Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

Background: Recent research on the influence of presentation format on the effectiveness of multimedia instructions has yielded some interesting results. According to cognitive load theory (Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998) and Mayer's theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2001), replacing visual text with spoken text ( the modality effect ) and adding visual cues relating elements of a picture to the text ( the cueing effect ) both increase the effectiveness of multimedia instructions in terms of better learning results or less mental effort spent. Aims: The aim of this study was to test the generalisability of the modality and cueing effect in a classroom setting. Sample: The participants were 111 second‐year students from the Department of Education at the University of Gent in Belgium (age between 19 and 25 years). Method: The participants studied a web‐based multimedia lesson on instructional design for about one hour. Afterwards they completed a retention and a transfer test. During both the instruction and the tests, self‐report measures of mental effort were administered. Results: Adding visual cues to the pictures resulted in higher retention scores, while replacing visual text with spoken text resulted in lower retention and transfer scores. Conclusions: Only a weak cueing effect and even a reverse modality effect have been found, indicating that both effects do not easily generalise to non‐laboratory settings. A possible explanation for the reversed modality effect is that the multimedia instructions in this study were learner‐paced, as opposed to the system‐paced instructions used in earlier research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/000709904322848824

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.
Affiliations
Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
Corresponding author
Tabbers, Huib K.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
71-81
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
OpenAlex
W2108309120
Cited by
478
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 35
FWCI
19.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of California, Santa Barbara
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 teaching, cognitive load theory, modality effects, cueing effects, visual cues, retention, transfer, cognitive effort, instructional design, web-based learning
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Cues, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Mental Recall, Research Design, Teaching, Educational Technology, Multimedia

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