The Role of Working Memory in Multimedia Instruction: Is Working Memory Working During Learning from Text and Pictures?

Abstract

A lot of research has focused on the beneficial effects of using multimedia, that is, text and pictures, for learning. Theories of multimedia learning are based on Baddeley's working memory model (Baddeley 1999). Despite this theoretical foundation, there is only little research that aims at empirically testing whether and more importantly how working memory contributes to learning from text and pictures; however, a more thorough understanding of how working memory limitations affect learning may help instructional designers to optimize multimedia instruction. Therefore, the goal of this review is to stimulate such empirical research by (1) providing an overview of the methodologies that can be applied to gain insights in working memory involvement during multimedia learning, (2) reviewing studies that have used these methodologies in multimedia research already, and (3) discussing methodological and theoretical challenges of such an approach as well as the usefulness of working memory to explain learning with multimedia. KeywordsMultimedia learning . Working memory . Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning . Cognitive Load Theory . Dual-task methodology . Working memory capacity In the last two decades, a lot of educational research has focused on the beneficial effects of using multimedia for learning by referring to the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer 2009) and/or the Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al. 1998). Both theories suggest that multimedia learning can be best explained by paying close attention to how information is processed and stored in the human mind. In particular, working memory is assumed to be crucial in multimedia learning, because all information needs to be processed

Student use and pedagogical impact of a mobile learning application

“…Working memory is active while learning from text and pictures (i.e. multimedia) [36], and due to the highly individualized nature of mobile learning, it is possible that students who accessed the app more often had a higher ability to recall content in testing environments. In order to draw significant conclusions about the relationship between frequency of use and grades, more research with a larger sample size is warranted.…”

Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures?

“…Unfortunately, this dual task is likely to induce higher demands related to early (sensory) visual attention processes, because it requires visually monitoring the letter, and hence does not allow investigating WM involvement in an unambiguous manner. Accordingly and unsurprisingly, this dual task interfered with multimedia learning especially in conditions with written instead of spoken text, because with written text, visual attention (but not VSSP resources) is required not only for processing the pictorial but also the verbal input (note that a similar problem appeared in the study conducted by Brünken et al, 2004; for a more thoroughly discussion of this problem see Cierniak, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2009;Schüler, Scheiter, & van Genuchten, 2011). Therefore, the described methodology is not appropriate to provide unambiguous evidence for the visuo-spatial load explanation.…”

“…Moreover, the choice and implementation of an appropriate dual task in a standard multimedia learning scenario may be difficult for a variety of reasons (cf. Schüler et al, 2011), which is why we preferred the experimental approach discussed before. Moreover, this paradigm has been used before, however, with materials that do not allow for an unambiguous interpretation of results as will be discussed in the following.…”

“…Interestingly, the results of Seufert et al (2009) showed an opposite pattern: Learners with low capacity showed worse performance with written than with spoken texts, whereas for learners with high capacity it was the other way around. This might be explained by the fact that Seufert et al did not use a pure PL capacity measure but used a composite measure that assessed both PL and central executive processes (i.e., the Numerical Memory Updating subtest of the WM Capacity test by Oberauer, Süß, Schulze, Wilhelm, & Wittmann, 2000; for a discussion of different WM tasks see Schüler et al, 2011). Based on Baddeley's model of WM (Baddeley, 1992) one might argue that the PL is responsible for storing and rehearsing text information, which might be more demanding with transient spoken text.…”

Input modality and working memory: Effects on second language text comprehension in a multimedia learning environment

“…Based on (a) the modality effect studies that favor audiovisual presentation over visual-only presentation (e.g., Kalyuga et al, 2000;Leahy et al, 2003), and that point to the modality effect in self-paced learning environments (e.g., Harskamp et al, 2007); (b) the beneficial effects of WM capacity on language comprehension and other higher-level cognitive skills (e.g., Daneman & Carpenter, 1980;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993;Hambrick & Engle, 2002;Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;Harrington & Sawyer, 1992;Juffs & Harrington, 2011;Miyake & Friedman, 1998;Walter, 2004) as well as the relationship between multimedia learning and WM (e.g., Austin, 2009;Brunye, Taylor, Rapp, & Spiro, 2006;Gyselinck, Cornoldi, Dubois, De Beni, & Ehrlich, 2002;Gyselinck et al, 2008;Schüler, Scheiter, & van Genuchten, 2011;Tardieu & Gyselinck, 2003); (c) previous research pointing to the deteriorating effect of time (e.g., Banikowski & Mehring, 1999;Cepeda, Vul, Rohrer, Wixted, & Pashler, 2008), a significant interaction effect of time, input modality, and WM capacity was expected in terms of both retention and transfer of information.…”