chapter 1

C H A P T E R 1

Introduction to Multimedia Learning

Richard E. MayerUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

Abstract

People can learn more deeply from wordsand pictures than from words alone. Thisseemingly simple proposition which canbe called the multimedia learning hypoth-esis is the main focus of The CambridgeHandbook of Multimedia Learning 1 . Eachof the 35 chapters in this handbook ex-amines an aspect of the multimedia learn-ing hypothesis. In particular, multimediaresearchers are interested in how peoplelearn from words and pictures, and inhow to design multimedia learning envi-ronments that promote learning. In thischapter, I provide a definition of multi-media learning, offer a rationale for mul-timedia learning, outline the research basefor multimedia learning, and draw distinc-tions between two approaches to multi-media design, three metaphors of multi-media learning, three kinds of multimedialearning outcomes, and two kinds of activelearning.

What Is Multimedia Learning?

Table 1 .1 summarizes definitions of multi-media, multimedia learning, and multime-dia instruction.

Multimedia

The term multimedia conjures up a varietyof meanings. You might think of sitting ina room where images are presented on oneor more screens and music or other soundsare presented using speakers that is, multi-media as a live performance. Alternatively,you might think of sitting in front of a com-puter screen that presents graphics on thescreen along with spoken words from thecomputers speakers that is, multimedia asan online lesson. Other possibilities includewatching a video on a television screen whilelistening to the corresponding words, mu-sic, and sounds, or watching a PowerPoint

1

www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press

Cambridge University Press0521838738 - The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia LearningEdited by Richard E. MayerExcerptMore information
http://www.cambridge.org/0521838738http://www.cambridge.orghttp://www.cambridge.org

2 the cambridge handbook of multimedia learning

Table 1 .1 . Definitions

Term Definition

Multimedia Presenting words (such asprinted text or spoken text)and pictures (such asillustrations, photos,animation, or video)

Multimedialearning

Building mentalrepresentations from wordsand pictures

Multimediainstruction

Presenting words and picturesthat are intended to promotelearning

presentation along with listening to thespeakers corresponding commentary. Low-tech examples of multimedia include achalk-and-talk presentation where a spea-ker draws or writes on a blackboard (or usesan overhead projector) while presenting alecture, or a textbook lesson consisting ofprinted text and illustrations.

I define multimedia as presenting bothwords (such as spoken text or printed text)and pictures (such as illustrations, photos,animation, or video). By words, I mean thatthe material is presented in verbal form, suchas using printed text or spoken text. By pic-tures, I mean that the material is presentedin pictorial form, such as using static graph-ics, including illustrations, graphs, diagrams,maps, or photos, or using dynamic graphics,including animation or video. This definitionis broad enough to include all of the scenar-ios I described in the previous paragraph ranging from multimedia encyclopedias toonline educational games to textbooks. Forexample, in a multimedia encyclopedia,words may be presented as narration, andpictures may be presented as animation.In a textbook, words may be presented asprinted text and pictures may be presentedas illustrations.

If multimedia involves presenting mate-rial in two or more forms, then an importantissue concerns how to characterize a form ofpresentation. Three solutions to this prob-lem are the delivery media view, the presen-tation modes view, and the sensory modal-ities view. According to the delivery media

view, multimedia requires two or more de-livery devices, such as computer screen andamplified speakers or a projector and a lec-turers voice. According to the presentationmodes view, multimedia requires verbal andpictorial representations, such as on-screentext and animation or printed text and illus-trations. According to the sensory modalitiesview, multimedia requires auditory and vi-sual senses, such as narration and animationor lecture and slides.

I reject the delivery media view becauseit focuses on the technology rather than onthe learner. Instead, I opt for the presenta-tion modes view, and to some extent thesensory modalities view. The presentationmodes view allows for a clear definition ofmultimedia presenting material in verbaland pictorial form and is commonly usedby multimedia researchers (Mayer, 2001a).The presentation modes view is also the ba-sis for Paivios (1986) dual-code theory aswell theories of multimedia learning pre-sented in this handbook (Mayer, chapter 3 ;Schnotz, chapter 4 ; Sweller, chapter 2 ; vanMerrienboer & Kester, chapter 5). The sen-sory modalities view is also relevant becausewords can be presented as printed text (ini-tially processed visually) or as spoken text(initially processed auditorily), whereas pic-tures are processed visually. In conclusion,as shown in Table 1 .1 , multimedia refers tousing words and pictures.

Multimedia Learning

Multimedia learning occurs when peoplebuild mental representations from words(such as spoken text or printed text) andpictures (such as illustrations, photos, ani-mation, or video). As you can see in thisdefinition, multimedia refers to the presen-tation of words and pictures, whereas learn-ing refers to the learners construction ofknowledge. The process by which peoplebuild mental representations from wordsand pictures is the focus of Mayers cogni-tive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer,chapter 3), Swellers cognitive load the-ory (Sweller, chapter 2), and Schnotzs



introduction to multimedia learning 3

integrative model of text and picture com-prehension (Schnotz, chapter 4).

Multimedia Instruction

Multimedia instruction (or a multimedialearning environment) involves presentingwords and pictures that are intended topromote learning. In short, multimedia in-struction refers to designing multimedia pre-sentations in ways that help people buildmental representations. The instructionaldesign principles described in parts 2 and 3 ofthis handbook suggest ways of creating mul-timedia presentations intended to promotemultimedia learning.

What Is the Rationale forMultimedia Learning?

What is the value of adding pictures towords? Do students learn more deeply fromwords and pictures than from words alone?These questions are essential to the study ofmultimedia learning. For example, suppose Iasked you to listen to a short explanation ofhow a bicycle tire pump works: When thehandle is pulled up, the piston moves up,the inlet valve opens, the outlet valve closes,and air enters the lower part of the cylinder.When the handle is pushed down, the pistonmoves down, the inlet valve closes, the out-let valve opens, and air moves out throughthe hose. Then, I ask you to write downan explanation of how a bicycle tire pumpworks (i.e., retention test) and to write an-swers to problem-solving questions such asSuppose you push down and pull up thehandle of a pump several times but no aircomes out. What could have gone wrong?(i.e., transfer test). If you are like most ofthe students in our research studies (Mayer& Anderson, 1991 , 1992), you rememberedsome of the words in the presentation (i.e.,you did moderately well on retention) butyou had difficulty in using the material toanswer problem-solving questions (i.e., youdid poorly on transfer).

In contrast, suppose I showed you an ani-mation of a bicycle tire pump that depicts

the actions in the pump as the handle ispulled up and then as the handle is pusheddown. Frames from the animation are shownin Figure 1 .1 . If you are like most studentsin our research studies (Mayer & Anderson,1991 , 1992), you would not do well on a re-tention test or on a transfer test.

Finally, consider the narrated animationsummarized in Figure 1 .2 . In this situation,you hear the steps described in words and seethe steps depicted in the animation. Whenwords and pictures are presented togetheras in a narrated animation, students performwell both on retention and transfer tests(Mayer & Anderson, 1991 , 1992). In partic-ular, when we focus on tests of problem-solving transfer which are designed tomeasure the students understanding of thepresented material students perform muchbetter with words and pictures than fromwords alone. My colleagues and I found thispattern in nine out of nine studies, yieldinga median effect size of 1 .50 (Mayer, 2001a).I refer to this finding as the multimedia prin-ciple and it is examined in detail by Fletcherand Tobias in chapter 7.

The multimedia principle epitomizes therationale for studying multimedia learning.There is reason to believe that undercertain circumstances people learn moredeeply from words and pictures than fromwords alone. For hundreds of years, the ma-jor format for instruction has been words including lectures and books. In general, ver-bal modes of presentation have dominatedthe way we convey ideas to one anotherand verbal learning has dominated educa-tion. Similarly, verbal learning has been themajor focus of educational research.

With the recent advent in powerful com-puter graphics and visualization technolo-gies, instructors have the ability to sup-plement verbal modes of instruction withpictorial modes of instruction. Advances incomputer technology have enabled an ex-plosion in the availability of visual ways ofpresenting material, including large librariesof static images as well as compelling dy-namic images in the form of animations andvideo. In light of the power of computergraphics, it may be useful to ask whether




Figure 1 .1 . Frames from a pumps animation.

it is time to expand instructional messagesbeyond the purely verbal. What are theconsequences of adding pictures to words?What happens when instructional messagesinvolve both verbal and visual modes oflearning? What affects the way that peoplelearn from words and pictures? In short, howcan multimedia presentations foster mean-ingful learning? These are the kinds of ques-tions addressed in this handbook.

The case for multimedia is based on theidea that instructional messages should bedesigned in light of how the human mindworks. Lets assume that humans have twoinformation-processing systems one forverbal material and one for visual material, asdescribed more fully in part 1 of this hand-book. Lets also acknowledge that the ma-jor format for presenting instructional ma-terial is verbal. The rationale for multimediapresentations that is, presenting material inwords and pictures is that it takes advan-

tage of the full capacity of humans for pro-cessing information. When we present mate-rial only in the verbal mode, we are ignoringthe potential contribution of our capacity toalso process material in the visual mode.

Why might two channels be better thanone? Two possible explanations are thequantitative rationale and the qualitative ra-tionale. The quantitative rationale is thatmore material can be presented on two chan-nels than on one channel just like moretraffic can travel over two lanes than onelane. In the case of explaining how a bicy-cle tire pump works, for example, the stepsin the process can be presented in words orcan be depicted in illustrations. Presentingboth is like presenting the material twice giving the learner twice as much exposure tothe explanation. While the quantitative ra-tionale makes sense as far as it goes, I rejectit mainly because it is incomplete. In partic-ular, I am concerned about the assumption




When the handle is pulled up the piston moves up the inlet valve opens, the outlet valve closes

and air enters the lowerpart of the cylinder.

When the handle is pushed down the piston moves down the inlet valve closes,the outlet valve opens

and air moves out throughthe hose.

Figure 1 .2 . Frames from a pumps animation with corresponding narration.

that the verbal and visual channels are equiv-alent, that is, that words and pictures aresimply two equivalent ways for presentingthe same material.

In contrast, the qualitative rationale isthat words and pictures, while qualita-tively different, can complement one an-other and that human understanding is en-hanced when learners are able to mentallyintegrate visual and verbal representations.As you can see, the qualitative rationale as-sumes that the two channels are not equiva-lent. Words are useful for presenting certainkinds of material perhaps representationsthat are more abstract and require more ef-fort to translate, whereas pictures are moreuseful for presenting other kinds of mate-rial perhaps more intuitive, more naturalrepresentations. In short, one picture is notnecessarily equivalent to 1 ,000 words (or anynumber of words).

The most intriguing aspect of the quali-tative rationale is that understanding occurs

when learners are able to build meaningfulconnections between visual and verbal rep-resentations such as being able to see howthe words the inlet valve opens relate tothe forward motion of the inlet valve in thecylinder of the pump. In the process of try-ing to build connections between words andpictures, learners are able to create a deeperunderstanding than from words or picturesalone. This idea is at the heart of the theoriesof multimedia learning described in part 1 ofthis handbook.

In summary, the rationale for the studyof multimedia learning is that students maylearn more deeply from words and picturesthan from words alone. Thus, the motiva-tion for this handbook is to explore the pro-posal that adding pictures to words may bea way of helping people understand bet-ter than by simply presenting words alone.However, not all pictures are equally ef-fective. It is important to understand howbest to incorporate pictures with words.




Just because technologies are available thatallow for state-of-the-art visualizations, thisdoes not mean that instructors are well ad-vised to use them. What is needed is aresearch-based understanding of how peo-ple learn from words and pictures andhow to design multimedia instruction thatpromotes learning.

What Is the Research Base forMultimedia Learning?

Although research on verbal learning has along and fruitful history in psychology andeducation, corresponding research on mul-timedia learning is just beginning to flour-ish. The Cambridge Handbook of MultimediaLearning is the worlds first comprehensivesummary of research on multimedia learn-ing. In an attempt to organize the researchbase in multimedia learning, this handbookis divided into five parts.

Part 1 : Theoretical Foundations containschapters that describe the theories of mul-timedia learning that have had the greatestimpact on research: Swellers cognitive loadtheory (CLT) (chapter 2), Mayers cognitivetheory of multimedia learning (CTML)(chapter 3), Schnotzs integrative model oftext and picture comprehension (chapter4), and van Merrienboer and Kestersfour-component instructional design(4C-ID) model for multimedia learning(chapter 5).

Part 2 : Basic Principles of MultimediaLearning begins with a chapter document-ing mistaken principles of multimedia learn-ing, that is, principles that are commonly ac-cepted but for which supporting evidence islacking (Clark & Feldon, chapter 6) The re-maining chapters explore the research evi-dence concerning basic principles for how todesign multimedia learning environments:

multimedia principle People learn bet-ter from words and pictures than fromwords alone (Fletcher & Tobias, chap-ter 7).

split-attention principle People learn bet-ter when words and pictures are phys-

ically and temporally integrated (Ayres& Sweller, chapter 8). This is similar toMayers (chapter 1 2) spatial contiguityand temporal contiguity principles.

modality principle People learn bet-ter from graphics and narration thangraphics and printed text (Low &Sweller, chapter 9). This is similarto Mayers modality principle (chap-ter 1 1 ).

redundancy principle People learn bet-ter when the same information is notpresented in more than one format(Sweller, chapter 10). This is similarto Mayers redundancy principle (chap-ter 1 2).

segmenting, pretraining, and modality prin-ciples People learn better when amultimedia message is presented inlearned-paced segments rather than asa continuous unit, people learn bet-ter from a multimedia message whenthey know the names and characteris-tics of the main concepts, and peoplelearn better from a multimedia messagewhen the words are spoken rather thanwritten (Mayer, chapter 1 1 ).

coherence, signaling, spatial contiguity, tem-poral contiguity, and redundancy prin-ciples People learn better when ex-traneous material is excluded ratherthan included, when cues are addedthat highlight the organization of theessential material, when correspond-ing words and pictures are presentednear rather than far from each otheron the screen or page or in time, andpeople learn better from graphics andnarration than from graphics, narra-tion, and on-screen text (Mayer, chap-ter 1 2).

personalization, voice, and image prin-ciples People learn better when thewords of a multimedia presentationare in conversational style rather thanformal style and when the words arespoken in a standard-accented humanvoice rather than a machine voiceor foreign-accented human voice; butpeople do not necessarily learn better




when the speakers image is on thescreen (Mayer, chapter 1 3).

Part 3 : Advanced Principles of MultimediaLearning contains chapters that explore theresearch evidence for advanced principles ofmultimedia learning:

guided-discovery principle People learnbetter when guidance is incorporatedinto discovery-based multimedia envi-ronments (de Jong, chapter 1 4).

worked-out example principle Peoplelearn better when they receive worked-out examples in initial skill learning(Renkl, chapter 1 5).

collaboration principle People can learnbetter with collaborative online learn-ing activities (Jonassen, Lee, Yang, &Laffey, chapter 16).

self-explanation principle People learnbetter when they are encouragedto generate self-explanations duringlearning (Roy & Chi, chapter 1 7).

animation and interactivity principles People do not necessarily learn betterfrom animation than from static dia-grams (Betrancourt, chapter 1 8).

navigation principles People learn betterin hypertext environments when ap-propriate navigation aids are provided(Rouet & Pottelle, chapter 19).

site map principle People can learn betterin an online environment when the in-terface includes a map showing wherethe learner is in the lesson (Shapiro,chapter 20).

prior knowledge principle Instructionaldesign principles that enhance multi-media learning for novices may hindermultimedia learning for more expertlearners (Kalyuga, chapter 21 ).

cognitive aging principle Instructionaldesign principles that effectively ex-pand working memory capacity areespecially helpful for older learners(Paas, van Gerven & Tabbers, chap-ter 22).

Part 4 : Multimedia Learning in ContentAreas takes a somewhat different cut by ex-

amining research on how to design mul-timedia learning environments in variouscontent areas. The chapters summarize re-search on multimedia learning in content ar-eas that have generated the most researchon multimedia learning including reading(Reinking, chapter 23), history (Wiley &Ash, chapter 24), mathematics (Atkinson,chapter 25), chemistry (Kozma & Russell,chapter 26), meteorology (Lowe, chapter27), complex physical systems (Hegarty,chapter 28), second language learning (Plass& Jones, chapter 29), and cognitive skills(Lajoie & Nakamura, chapter 30).

Finally, in Part 5 : Multimedia Learningin Advanced Computer-Based Contexts, thechapters examine multimedia learning re-search involving emerging new technologies.The chapters summarize research on multi-media learning with advanced technologiesthat have generated the most research, suchas animated pedagogical agents (Moreno,chapter 31 ); virtual reality (Cobb & Fraser,chapter 32); games, simulations, and mi-croworlds (Rieber, chapter 33); hypermedia(Dillon & Jobst, chapter 34); and e-courses(Clark, chapter 35).

In each of the chapters the focus is onempirical research evidence, including im-plications of research for theory and prac-tice. Overall, each chapter in this handbookis intended to showcase the research base in asubarea of multimedia learning, note its lim-itations, and offer suggestions for future re-search.

Two Approaches to MultimediaLearning: Technology CenteredVersus Learner Centered

Multimedia represents a potentially power-ful learning technology that is, a system forenhancing human learning. A practical goalof research on multimedia is to devise designprinciples for multimedia presentations. Inaddressing this goal, it is useful to distinguishbetween two approaches to multimedia de-sign a technology-centered approach and alearner-centered approach.




Technology-Centered Approaches

The most straightforward approach to mul-timedia design is technology centered.Technology-centered approaches begin withthe functional capabilities of multimediaand ask, How can we use these capabilitiesin designing multimedia presentations? Thefocus is generally on cutting-edge advancesin multimedia technology, so technology-centered designers might focus on how toincorporate multimedia into emerging com-munications technologies such as wirelessaccess to the World Wide Web or the con-struction of interactive multimedia repre-sentations in virtual reality. The kinds of re-search issues often involve media research(i.e., determining which technology is mosteffective in presenting information). For ex-ample, a media research issue is whether stu-dents learn as well from an online lecture in which the student can see a lecturer ina window on the computer screen as theycan from a live lecture in which the studentis actually sitting in a classroom.

Whats wrong with technology-centeredapproaches? A review of educational tech-nologies of the twentieth century shows thatthe technology-centered approach generallyfails to lead to lasting improvements in ed-ucation (Cuban, 1986). For example, whenthe motion picture was invented in the early20th century hopes were high that this vi-sual technology would improve education.In 1922 , the famous inventor Thomas Edisonpredicted that the motion picture is des-tined to revolutionize our educational sys-tem and that in a few years it will supplantlargely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks(cited in Cuban, 1986, p. 9). Like cur-rent claims for the power of visual me-dia, Edison proclaimed that it is possibleto teach every branch of human knowledgewith the motion picture (cited in Cuban,1986, p. 1 1 ). In spite of the grand pre-dictions, a review of educational technol-ogy reveals that most teachers used filmsinfrequently in their classrooms (Cuban,1986, p. 1 7). From our vantage point be-yond the close the 20th century it is clearthat the predicted educational revolution in

which movies would replace books has failedto materialize.

Consider another disappointing examplethat may remind you of current claims forthe educational potential of the World WideWeb. In 1932 , Benjamin Darrow, founder ofthe Ohio School of the Air, proclaimed thatradio could bring the world to the class-room, to make universally available the ser-vices of the finest teachers, the inspirationof the greatest leaders . . . (cited in Cuban,1986, p. 19). His colleague, William Leven-son, the director of the Ohio School of theAir predicted in 1945 that a radio receiverwill be as common in the classroom as theblackboard and radio instruction will be in-tegrated into school life (cited in Cuban,1986, p. 19). As we rush to wire our schoolsand homes for access to the educational con-tent of the Internet, it is humbling to recog-nize what happened to a similarly motivatedmovement for radio: Radio has not been ac-cepted as a full-fledged member of the edu-cational community (Cuban, 1986, p. 24).

Third, consider the sad history of educa-tional television a technology that com-bined the visual power of the motion picturewith the worldwide coverage of radio. By the1950s, educational television was touted as away to create a continental classroom thatwould provide access to richer education atless cost (Cuban, 1986, p. 33). Yet, a re-view shows that teachers used television in-frequently, if at all (Cuban, 1986).

Finally, consider the most widely ac-claimed technological accomplishment ofthe 20th century computers. The tech-nology that supports computers is differ-ent from film, radio, and television, but thegrand promises to revolutionize educationare the same. Like current claims for themind-enhancing power of computer tech-nology, during the 1960s computer tutor-ing machines were predicted to eventuallyreplace teachers. The first large-scale im-plementation occurred under the bannerof computer-assisted instruction (CAI) inwhich computers presented short frames,solicited a response from the learner, andprovided feedback to the learner. In spiteof a large financial investment to support




CAI, sound evaluations showed that thetwo largest computer-based systems in the1970s PLATO and TICCIT failedto produce better learning than tradi-tional teacher-lead instruction (Cognitionand Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1996).

What can we learn from the humblinghistory of the 20th centurys great edu-cational technologies? Although differenttechnologies underlie film, radio, television,and computer-assisted instruction, they allproduced the same cycle. First, they beganwith grand promises about how the technol-ogy would revolutionize education. Second,there was an initial rush to implement thecutting-edge technology in schools. Third,from the perspective of a few decades laterit became clear that the hopes and expecta-tions were largely unmet.

What went wrong with these technolo-gies that seemed poised to tap the potentialof visual and worldwide learning? I attributethe disappointing results to the technology-centered approach taken by the promot-ers. Instead of adapting technology to fitthe needs of human learners, humans wereforced to adapt to the demands of cutting-edge technologies. The driving force behindthe implementations was the power of thetechnology rather than an interest in pro-moting human cognition. The focus was ongiving people access to the latest technologyrather than helping people to learn throughthe aid of technology.

Are we about to replicate the cycle ofhigh expectations, large-scale implementa-tion, and disappointing results in the realmof multimedia technology? In my opin-ion, the answer to that question dependson whether or not we continue to takea technology-centered approach. When weask, What can we do with multimedia? andwhen our goal is to provide access to tech-nology, we are taking a technology-centeredapproach with a 100-year history of failure.

Learner-Centered Approaches

Learner-centered approaches offer an im-portant alternative to technology-centeredapproaches. Learner-centered approaches

begin with an understanding of how the hu-man mind works and ask, How can weadapt multimedia to enhance humanlearning? The focus is on using multime-dia technology as an aid to human cognition.Research questions focus on the relation be-tween design features and the human infor-mation processing system, such as, compar-ing multimedia designs that place light orheavy loads on the learners visual informa-tion processing channel. The premise under-lying the learner-centered approach is thatmultimedia designs that are consistent withthe way the human mind works are more ef-fective in fostering learning than those thatare not. This premise is the central themeof part 1 of this handbook, which lays outtheories of multimedia learning.

Norman (1993 , p. xi) eloquently makesthe case for a learner-centered approach totechnology design, which he refers to ashuman-centered technology: Today we servetechnology. We need to reverse the machine-centered point of view and turn it intoa person-centered point of view: Technol-ogy should serve us. Consistent with thelearner-centered approach, Norman (1993 ,p. 3) shows how technology can make ussmart that is, technology can expand ourcognitive capabilities. Norman (1993 , p. 5)refers to tools that aid the mind as cogni-tive artifacts: anything invented by humansfor the purpose of improving thought or ac-tion counts as an artifact. Examples includemental tools such as language and arithmeticas well as physical tools such as paper andpencils. As the 20th centurys most impor-tant new cognitive artifact, computer tech-nology represents a landmark invention thathas the potential to assist human cognitionin ways that were previously not possible.

Normans (1993 , p. 9) assessment is thatmuch of science and technology takes amachine-centered view of the design of ma-chines so that the technology that is in-tended to aid human cognition . . . more of-ten interferes and confuses. In contrast,Normans (1993 , p. 1 2) vision of a learner-centered approach to technology design isthat technology . . . should complement hu-man abilities, aid those activities for which



1 0 the cambridge handbook of multimedia learning

Table 1 .2 . Two Approaches to the Design of Multimedia Instruction

Design Approach Starting Point Goal Issues

Technologycentered

Capabilities ofmultimediatechnology

Provide access toinformation

How can we use cutting-edgetechnology in designing multimediainstruction?

Learner centered How the humanmind works

Aid humancognition

How can we adapt multimediatechnology to aid human cognition?

we are poorly suited, and enhance and helpdevelop those for which we are ideallysuited. The design of multimedia technol-ogy to promote human cognition representsone exemplary component in the larger taskof creating what Norman (1993 , p. xi) callsthings that make us smart.

In his review of computer technology,Landauer (1995 , p. 3) proclaims that thecomputer and information revolution iswidely predicted to be as consequential asthe industrial revolution of the previous twocenturies. Further, he describes two ma-jor phases in the use of computer technol-ogy automation and augmentation. In theautomation phase, computers are used to re-place humans on certain tasks ranging fromrobots in manufacturing to imaging devices(e.g., CAT scans and MRIs) in medicine tocomputer-based switching in telecommuni-cations. However, Landauer (1995 , p. 6) ob-serves that the automation phase is runningout of steam because almost all of the easyto automate tasks have been computerized.

The second phase of computer applica-tion augmentation involves the use ofcomputers to enhance human performanceon various cognitively complex tasks. Aug-mentation involves designing computer sys-tems to act as assistants, aids, and powertools (Landauer, 1995 , p. 7). However,Landauer (1995 , p. 7) is disappointed withprogress in the augmentation phase: It ishere . . . that we have failed. A major chal-lenge in making the augmentation phasework involves the learner-centered design ofcomputer-based technologies: They are stilltoo hard to use (Landauer, 1995 , p. 7). Thedesign of multimedia learning environmentsthat promote meaningful human learning isan example of using computers to augment

or aid human cognition and thus one ele-ment in Landauers augmentation phase.

The differences between the technology-centered and learner-centered approachesto multimedia design are summarized inTable 1 .2 .

Three Metaphors of MultimediaLearning: Response Strengthening,Information Acquisition, andKnowledge Construction

In making decisions about how to design orselect a multimedia learning environment,you may be influenced by your underlyingconception of learning. Table 1 .3 comparesthree views of multimedia learning multi-media learning as response strengthening, mul-timedia learning as information acquisitionand multimedia learning as knowledge con-struction. If you view multimedia learning asresponse strengthening, then multimedia isa feedback delivery system. If you view mul-timedia learning as information acquisition,then multimedia is an information deliverysystem. If you view multimedia learning asknowledge construction, then multimedia isa cognitive aid.

Multimedia Learning asResponse Strengthening

According to the response strengtheningview, learning involves increasing or decreas-ing the connection between a stimulus anda response. The underlying principle is thatthe connection is strengthened if a responseis followed by reward and is weakened if theresponse is followed by punishment. This



Documents

chapter 1