, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 66–74 | Cite as

Using Time-Compression To Make Multimedia Learning More Efficient: Current Research and Practice

  • Raymond Pastore
  • Albert D. RitzhauptEmail author


It is now common practice for instructional designers to incorporate digitally recorded lectures for Podcasts (e.g., iTunes University), voice-over presentations (e.g., PowerPoint), animated screen captures with narration (e.g., Camtasia), and other various learning objects with digital audio in the instructional method. As a result, learners are spending more time learning from audio-enhanced digital learning materials for both formal and informal purposes. In this paper, we present digital time-compression as a way to reduce the amount of time learners will spend on a learning task, while still maintaining acceptable intelligibility, pitch, and scores on important dependent measures (e.g., recall, recognition, comprehension, satisfaction). Research dating back to the 1950s is reviewed and framed in the context of multimedia learning environments. Recent research developments are reviewed and a discussion is provided emphasizing several design principles for this technology. Recommendations for future research are provided.


time-compression multimedia learning research design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adesope, O. O. (2010). The cognitive effects of verbal redundancy and animated concept maps on learning (Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Education-Simon Fraser University).Google Scholar
  2. Barabasz, A. F. (1968). A study of recall and retention of accelerated lecture presentation. Journal of Communication, 18(3), pp. 283-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron, A. E. (2004) Auditory Instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (ed., pp. 949-978), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004).Google Scholar
  4. Barron, A. E., & Atkins, D. (1994). Audio instruction in multimedia education: Is textual redundancy important?. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(3), 295-306.Google Scholar
  5. Benz, C. R. (1971). Effects of time compressed speech upon the comprehension of a visual oriented television lecture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, T. (2003). Design principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 46-58.Google Scholar
  7. Carney, R. N. & Levin J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5-26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, J. M. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwyer, F. M., & Lamberski, R. (1983). The instructional effect of coding (color and black and white) in facilitating students’ information acquisition and retrieval. Educational Communication & Technology Journal, 31, 9-21.Google Scholar
  11. Fairbanks, G., Guttman, N., & Miron, M. S. (1957). Auditory comprehension of repeated high-speed messages. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 22, 23-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foulke, E., A. & Sticht, T. G. (1967). The intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech. Proceedings of the Louisville Conference on Time Compressed Speech, Louisville, KY, pp. 21-28.Google Scholar
  13. Goldhaber, G. M. (1970). Listener comprehension of compressed speech as a function of the academic grade level of the subjects. Journal of Communication, 20(1), 167-173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191.Google Scholar
  15. Honing, H. (2006). Evidence for Tempo-Specific Timing in Music Using a Web-Based Experimental Setup. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(3), 780–786. Google Scholar
  16. Janse, E., Nooteboom, S., & Quene, H. (2001). Word-level intelligibility of time-compressed speech: Porsodic and segmental factors. The Netherlands: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Jester, R. E., & Travers, R. M. W. (1967). The effect of various presentation patterns on the comprehension of speeded speech. American Educational Research Journal, 353-360.Google Scholar
  18. Junor, L. (1992). Teaching by tape: Some benefits, problems, and solutions. Distance Education, 13(1), 93-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kullhavey, R. W., Lee, B. J., & Caterino, L. C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, J. R. (1981). On functions of pictures in prose. In Pirozzolo, F. J., and Wittrock, M. C. (eds.), Neuropsychological and Cognitive Processes in Reading, Academic Press, New York, pp. 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297-313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When in an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDaneial, M. A., Pressley, M. (1987). Imagery and Related Mnemonic Processes: Theories, Individual Differences, and Applications. New York City, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 85-99.Google Scholar
  27. Nichols, R. G., & Stevens, L. A. (1957). Are you listening? New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Omoigui, N., He, L., Gupta, A., Grudin, J., & Sanocki, E. (1999). Time-compression: systems concerns, usage, and benefits. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 136 – 143.Google Scholar
  29. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pastore, R. S. (2010). The effects of diagrams and time-compressed instruction on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 485-505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pastore, R. (2012). The effects of timecompressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Computers & Education, 58(1), 641-651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pastore, R. (In Review) Learners’ Perceptions of Time Compressed Instruction.Google Scholar
  34. Richaume, A., Steenkeste, F., Lecocq, P., & Moschetto, Y. (1988, November). Intelligibility and comprehension of French normal, accelerated and compressed speech. In Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1988. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE (pp. 1531-1532). IEEE.Google Scholar
  35. Reid, R. H. (1968). Grammatical complexity and comprehension of compressed speech. Journal of Communication, 18(3), 236-242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2010). Learning Object Systems and Strategy: A description and discussion. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 6(1), 217-238.Google Scholar
  37. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Gomes, N. D., & Barron, A. E. (2008). The effects of time-compressed audio and verbal redundancy on learner performance and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 2434-2445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. (2008). Effects of time-compressed narration and representational adjunct images on cuedrecall, content recognition, and learner satisfaction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 161-184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Barron, A. E., & Kealy, W. A. (2011). Conjoint processing of timecompressed narration in multimedia instruction: The effects on recall, but not recognition. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 203-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In: Mayer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 49-69.Google Scholar
  41. Schnotz, W., Bannert, M. (1999). Supports and interference effects in learning from multiple representations. In Bangera, S. (Ed.), European Conference on Cognitive Science, 27-30 Oct. 1999, Instituto di Psicologia, Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy, pp.447-452.Google Scholar
  42. Standing, L. G., Conezio, J., Haber, N. (1970). Perception and memory for pictures: Single trial learning for 2500 visual stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 19, 73-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taylor, S. E. (1964). Listening: What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North Carolina WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations