Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments

Special Issue on Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What are interactive multimodal learning environments and how should they be designed to promote students’ learning? In this paper, we offer a cognitive–affective theory of learning with media from which instructional design principles are derived. Then, we review a set of experimental studies in which we found empirical support for five design principles: guided activity, reflection, feedback, control, and pretraining. Finally, we offer directions for future instructional technology research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In previous writing we have used the adjective multimedia rather than multimodal to refer the use of words and pictures, that is, verbal and non-verbal modes of presentation (Mayer 2001, 2005a; Mayer and Moreno 2003). For continuity with our previous work, the terms can be used interchangeably.

  2. In our work, the non-verbal mode is the pictorial mode, which includes static graphics (such as photos, illustrations, graphs, drawings, and maps) and dynamic graphics (such as video and animation).

  3. To reduce confusion, we could substitute “words/pictures” for “mode” and “sounds/images” for “modality.”

  4. It is important to distinguish between conceptions of how learning works (e.g., information acquisition versus knowledge construction) and conceptions of how to foster constructivist learning through instruction. Although we favor the knowledge construction view of learning, this does not necessarily mean that active methods of instruction (such as interactive multimedia simulations) are more effective than passive methods of instruction (such as static multimedia presentations). We have conducted research aimed at determining the conditions under which static multimedia presentations can lead to constructivist learning, but our focus in this review is on the conditions under which interactive multimedia simulations can lead to constructivist learning.

  5. Interactivity and the need for learners to make inferences is often not as effective as direct instruction in promoting meaningful learning (Mayer 2004), so it is especially important to determine the conditions under which interactivity promotes knowledge construction.

References

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective meta-cognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning. Educational Psychologist, 40, 193–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, R. J., King, A., & Marshall, S. K. (2002). Effects of videocase construction on preservice teachers’ observations of teaching. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 345–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L., Gilliland-Swetland, A. J., Leazer, G. H., Mayer, R. E., Gwynn, D., Gazan, R., et al. (2000). Evaluating digital libraries for teaching and learning in undergraduate education: A case study of the Alexandria Digital Earth Prototype (ADEPT). Library Trends, 49, 228–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, R., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & La Vancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C. (1999). Developing technical training (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 467–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215–228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Reconceptualizing teacher education: Supporting case-based instructional problem solving on the World Wide Web. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.) Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 21–38). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, A., & Jobst, J. (2005). Multimedia learning with hypermedia. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 569–588). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gredler, M. E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 571–582). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., Gibbs, B. J., McKenzie, C. R. M., & Marquis, M. A. (1991). Learning from feedback: Exactingness and incentives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 734–752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, M. J., & Kozma, R. B.(Eds.). (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Jacobson, M. J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design, and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 239–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. F. (1998). Interactivity: Tracing a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19, 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J., & Guzdial, M. (2000). Theory and practice of case-based learning aids. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 215–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P. (Ed.). (2000). Computers as cognitive tools: No more walls. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. E. (1997). The metaphorical structure of mathematics: Sketching out cognitive foundations for a mind-based mathematics. In L. D. English (Ed.), Mathematical reasoning: Analogies, metaphors, and images (pp. 21–89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Investigating teaching: New pedagogies and new technologies for teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, J. C., Stone, B. A., & Stelling, J. D. (1999). Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 9, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundeberg, M. A., Levin, B. B., & Harrington, H. L. (Eds.) (1999) Who learns what from cases and how? The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Marchionini, G., & Long, J. (1997). Information seeking in electronic environments. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (1990). Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfeld (Eds.), Organization and Communication Technology (pp. 194–218). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005c). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002a). Fostering understanding in multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P., & Prothero, W. (2002b). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual information processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire M., & Vagge S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuinness, C. (1990). Talking about thinking: The role of metacognition in teaching thinking. In K. Gilhooly, M. Deane & G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of thinking (vol. 2, pp. 310–312). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, S. J. (2002). Exploring models of interactivity from multiple research traditions: users, documents, and systems. In L. Lievrouw, & S. Livingston (Eds.), Handbook of New Media (pp. 162–182). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback on discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2005a). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.) Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2005b). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–524). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006a). Learning with high tech and multimedia environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 63–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006b). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method affects learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 149–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2006c). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 1–17. DOI 10.1002/acp.1348.

  • Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 492–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Flowerday, T. (2006). Students’ choice of animated pedagogical agents in science learning: A test of the similarity attraction hypothesis on gender and ethnicity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999a). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999b). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000a). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000b). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002a). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002b). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2007). Using cases as thinking tools in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Educational Technology Research and Development. DOI 10.1007/s11423-006-9027-0.

  • Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed learning effects of presenting classroom cases in teacher education: Are video cases or case narratives more effective? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. (1998). A look at interactivity from a consumer perspective. In J. B. Ford & E. J. D. Honeycutt, Jr. (Eds.) Developments in Marketing Science (vol. 21, pp. 149–154). Norfolk, VA: Academy of Marketing Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nass, C., & Brave, S. B. (2005). Wired for speech. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.). Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (pp. 103–122). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Hübscher, R. (2003). Improving navigation and learning in hypertext environments with navigable concept maps. Human Computer Interaction, 18, 395–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgway, J. S., Titterington, L., & McCann, W. S. (1999). Best practices in science education. The ERIC Review, 6(2), 30–35 (Fall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. (2005). Multimedia learning with games, simulations, and microworlds. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549–567). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouet, J., & Potelle, H. (2005). Navigational principles in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 297–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. L., & Deci, E. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (2002). Designing world-class e-learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning & Instruction, 14, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 642–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, Education, and Multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabbers, H. (2002). The modality of text in multimedia instruction: Refining the design guidelines. Doctoral dissertation. Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen.

  • Tulving, E. (1977). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving and W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 6–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Bridging problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., Tabbers, H., & Paas, F., (2007). Interactivity in video-based models. Educational Psychology Review. DOI 10.1007/s10648-007-9045-4.

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the PECASE 0238385 grant from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology Program, University of New Mexico, 123 Simpson Hall, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Roxana Moreno

  2. Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Richard Mayer

Authors
  1. Roxana Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roxana Moreno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moreno, R., Mayer, R. Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 309–326 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation