Author

  • Khayrazad Kari Jabbour

    • Lebanese University, Hammana, Lebanon
    • Lebanon

Abstract

Multimedia instructions refer to presentations that contain graphics and texts information. The graphics can include pictures, drawings, diagram, chart, animation, video, or simulations. In addition, texts can include printed texts or spoken texts. Multimedia education occurs when learners create mental representations caused by combining texts and relevant graphics simultaneously in lessons. Research evidence shows that not all multimedia instructions are equally useful. How can we use multimedia instructional to help learners to grasp knowledge? Do learners learn better when multimedia instructions present spoken text in multimedia instructions as an alternative to printed text principle? This article examines whether there is any benefit on supplementing spoken text with multimedia. Specifically, do learners learn more from spoken text and graphics, rather than from printed text and graphics? Meaningful learning engages the learner into excessive cognitive load processing during learning; on the other hand, the learner’s cognitive capacity is limited. For that, reasons multimedia instructional designers must take into account the learner's cognitive load processing. One of the obstacles of multimedia instructions is the possibility of overloading the learners’ cognitive capacity. Multimedia instructional designers must design multimedia instruction in ways that minimize the possibility of overloading the learners’ cognitive capacity. Also will examines the limitations of presenting spoken rather than printed texts; Reasons for presenting spoken rather than printed texts; Evidence for Using Spoken Rather Than Printed Text; And when this principle applies.

Keywords

References

  • Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction , 8, 293–332.
  • Clark, R. C. (1999). Developing technical training (2nd Ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.
  • Clark, R. & Mayer, R. (2011). E Learning and the Science of Instruction (3rd Ed.) San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
  • Craig, S. D., Gholson, B. & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia learning environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology , 94, 428–434.
  • Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction , 15, 313–331.
  • Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E. & Suhre, C. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms? Learning and Instruction , 17, 465–477.
  • Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N. & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: The role of spatial contiguity and dual attention guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 23, 1215–1226.
  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 13, 351–372.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology , 90, 312–320.
  • Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (45–61). New York: Macmillan.
  • Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology , 91, 358–368.
  • Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2002a). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology , 94, 156–163.
  • Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. & Lester, J. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction , 19, 177–214.
  • O’Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K. & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In H.F. O’Neil & D.H. Andrews (Eds.), Aircrew training and assessment (105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A. & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split attention in system- and selfpaced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction , 20, 100–110.
  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A. & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 24, 226–237.
  • Seufert, T., Schutze, M. & Brunken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment interaction study. Learning and Instruction , 19, 28–42.
  • Van-Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Press.

Downloads

No downloads have been recorded for this article yet. Figures appear here once readers begin downloading the full text.

How to Cite

Jabbour, K. K. (2012). Presents Spoken Texts in Multimedia Instructions as an Alternative to Printed Texts. Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 3(9), 297-302. https://doi.org/10.22610/jevr.v3i9.81

Share this article

License

Copyright (c) 2012 Khayrazad Kari Jabbour (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author (s) should affirm that the material has not been published previously. It has not been submitted and it is not under consideration by any other journal. At the same time author (s) need to execute a publication permission agreement to assume the responsibility of the submitted content and any omissions and errors therein. After submission of revised paper in the light of suggestions of the reviewers, the editorial team  edits and formats manuscripts to bring uniformity and standardization in published material.

This work will be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) and under condition of the license, users are free to read, copy, remix, transform, redistribute, download, print, search or link to the full texts of articles and even build upon their work as long as they credit the author for the original work. Moreover, as per journal policy author (s) hold and retain copyrights without any restrictions.

Keywords

Section

Research Paper

Published in

Vol. 3 No. 9 (2012) Pedagogy, Enterprise & Digital Learning View issue contents

Published

2012-09-15

Submissions

Have research to publish? Journal of Education and Vocational Research welcomes submissions.

Make a Submission