Skip to main content
placeholder image

When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning

Journal Article


Abstract


  • It is frequently assumed that presenting the same material in written and spoken

    form benefits learning and understanding. The present work provides a theoretical

    justification based on cognitive load theory, and empirical evidence based on controlled

    experiments, that this assumption can be incorrect. From a theoretical

    perspective, it is suggested that if learners are required to coordinate and simultaneously

    process redundant material such as written and spoken text, an excessive

    working memory load is generated. Three experiments involving a group of

    25 technical apprentices compared the effects of simultaneously presenting the

    same written and auditory textual information as opposed to either temporally

    separating the two modes or eliminating one of the modes. The first two experiments

    demonstrated that non-concurrent presentation of auditory and visual explanations

    of a diagram proved superior, in terms of ratings of mental load and test

    scores, to a concurrent presentation of the same explanations when instruction

    time was constrained. The 3rd experiment demonstrated that a concurrent presentation

    of identical auditory and visual technical text (without the presence of diagrams)

    was significantly less efficient in comparison with an auditory-only text.

    Actual or potential applications of this research include the design and evaluation

    of multimedia instructional systems and audiovisual displays.

Authors


  •   Kalyuga, Slava (external author)
  •   Chandler, Paul A.
  •   Sweller, John (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2004

Citation


  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46 (3), 567-581.

Number Of Pages


  • 14

Start Page


  • 567

End Page


  • 581

Volume


  • 46

Issue


  • 3

Place Of Publication


  • United States

Abstract


  • It is frequently assumed that presenting the same material in written and spoken

    form benefits learning and understanding. The present work provides a theoretical

    justification based on cognitive load theory, and empirical evidence based on controlled

    experiments, that this assumption can be incorrect. From a theoretical

    perspective, it is suggested that if learners are required to coordinate and simultaneously

    process redundant material such as written and spoken text, an excessive

    working memory load is generated. Three experiments involving a group of

    25 technical apprentices compared the effects of simultaneously presenting the

    same written and auditory textual information as opposed to either temporally

    separating the two modes or eliminating one of the modes. The first two experiments

    demonstrated that non-concurrent presentation of auditory and visual explanations

    of a diagram proved superior, in terms of ratings of mental load and test

    scores, to a concurrent presentation of the same explanations when instruction

    time was constrained. The 3rd experiment demonstrated that a concurrent presentation

    of identical auditory and visual technical text (without the presence of diagrams)

    was significantly less efficient in comparison with an auditory-only text.

    Actual or potential applications of this research include the design and evaluation

    of multimedia instructional systems and audiovisual displays.

Authors


  •   Kalyuga, Slava (external author)
  •   Chandler, Paul A.
  •   Sweller, John (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2004

Citation


  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46 (3), 567-581.

Number Of Pages


  • 14

Start Page


  • 567

End Page


  • 581

Volume


  • 46

Issue


  • 3

Place Of Publication


  • United States