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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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).

  2. Barabasz, A. F. (1968). A study of recall and retention of accelerated lecture presentation. Journal of Communication, 18(3), pp. 283-287.

    Article  Google 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).

  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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark, J. M. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149-170.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  18. Junor, L. (1992). Teaching by tape: Some benefits, problems, and solutions. Distance Education, 13(1), 93-107.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85-139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mayer, R. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297-313.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 85-99.

  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.

  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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pastore, R. (In Review) Learners’ Perceptions of Time Compressed Instruction.

  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.

  35. Reid, R. H. (1968). Grammatical complexity and comprehension of compressed speech. Journal of Communication, 18(3), 236-242.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taylor, S. E. (1964). Listening: What research says to the teacher. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Albert D. Ritzhaupt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pastore, R., Ritzhaupt, A.D. Using Time-Compression To Make Multimedia Learning More Efficient: Current Research and Practice. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 59, 66–74 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0841-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • time-compression
  • multimedia learning
  • research
  • design