Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Assessment (CTMMA)

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

Abstract

Much is known about assessment in all its forms and the corpus of theory, and knowledge is growing daily. In a similar vein, the use of multimedia for learning also has a sound basis in research and theory, such as the cognitive load theory (CLT; Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, (1998). Educational Psychological Review, 10, 251–296), human information processing (e.g., Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–192). New York: Academic Press; Miller (1956). Psychological Review, 63, 81–97; Paivio (1986) Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press), and praxis in the form of evidence-informed design principles often based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTMML; Mayer (2005b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press). However, the combination of the two lacks both theoretical underpinnings and practical design principles. Multimedia assessment (MMA) is, at best, either a translation of paper-based assessment and assessment principles to the computer screen or an attempt to make use of the theory and principles underlying multimedia learning (i.e., CTMML). And this is the problem. In the first place, MMA needs, just as multimedia learning (MML), its own theory and principles. Just as MML was not simply the translation of paper-based learning to the computer screen, MMA requires its own place. In the second place, the application of CTMML and its principles to assessment leads to problems. The CTMML is based upon the idea that learning should be facilitated by the proper use of CTMML principles and its underlying theories (CLT, human information processing). In cognitive load terms, germane load is increased, while extraneous load is avoided so as to facilitate effective and efficient learning. But the goal of assessment is not learner facilitation, but rather separating the wheat from the chaff. Those who do not possess the knowledge and skills need to not be able to answer the question, while those who do have the knowledge and skills need to answer correctly. This may mean that certain forms of extraneous load need to be increased, while germane load needs to be minimized. This chapter will kick off the road to a cognitive theory of multimedia assessment (CTMMA).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–192). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balslev, T., Jarodzka, H., Holmqvist, K., De Grave, W. S., Muijtjens, A., Eika, B., et al. (2012). Visual expertise in paediatric neurology. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 16, 161–166. doi:10.1016/j.ejpn.2011.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2013). Forschungsmethoden und evaluation [Research methods and evaluation]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Schmidt, H. G. (1992). Biomedical knowledge and clinical expertise. Cognitive Science, 16, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Schnotz, W., & Leutner, D. (2001). Mentale Modelle und Effekte der Präsentations- und Abrufkodalität beim Lernen mit Multimedia [Mental models and effects of presentation and retrieval coding when learning with multimedia]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 16–27. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.15.1.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119. doi:10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021812.96911.c5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). Cambridge, UK: University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2006). Two approaches to the study of experts’ characteristics. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R. R. Hoffman, & P. Feltovich (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 21–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, N. (2009). De computer bij de centrale examens. Duidelijk digitaal 2 [The computer at the national exams. Clearly digital 2]. http://www.cito.nl/VO/ce/compex/introductie/cve_comp_bij_ce_duidelijk_digitaal_2.pdf

  • DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennick, R., Wilkinson, S., & Purcell, N. (2009). Online eAssessment: AMEE guide no. 39. Medical Teacher, 31, 192–206. doi:10.1080/01421590902792406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 273–305. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits in the empirical study of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38). Cambridge, MA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Hoffman, R. R., & Feltovich, P. (Eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Waibel, M., & Wecker, C. (2005). Nutzenorientierte Grundlagenforschung im Bildungsbereich [Benefit-oriented basic research in the field of education]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 8, 427–442. doi:10.1007/s11618-005-0149-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamm, S., & Robertson, I. (2010). Preferences for deep-surface learning: A vocational education case study using a multimedia assessment activity. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 951–965. doi:10.14742/ajet.1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartig, J., & Klieme, E. (Eds.). (2007). Möglichkeiten und Vorraussetzungen technologiebasierter Kompetenzdiagnostik [Possibilities and prerequisites of technology-driven competence diagnostics]. Bonn, Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, N. J., Huys, R., & Starkes, J. L. (2007). Methodological review and evaluation of research in expert performance in sport. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 161–183). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaarsma, T., Jarodzka, H., Nap, M., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Expertise in clinical pathology: Bridging the gap. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20, 1089–1106. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9589-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: How experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Journal of Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2015). Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 803–817. doi:10.1111/bjet.12174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurecka, A., & Hartig, J. (2007). Computer- und netzwerkbasiertes Assessment [Computer- and network-based assessment]. In J. Hartig & E. Klieme (Eds.), Möglichkeiten und Voraussetzungen technologiebasierter Kompetenzdiagnostik (pp. 37–48). Bonn, Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–32. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knörzer, L., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2016). Facilitators or suppressors: Effects of experimentally induced emotions on multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 44, 97–107. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2016). Learner characteristics and information processing in multimedia learning: A moderated mediation of the seductive details effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavioral Research, 45, 1058–1072. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, G. A. (1969). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis] (3., durch einen Anh. über Faktorenanalyse erg. Aufl.). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1994). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis] (5. völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, S., & Brünken, R. (2013). Assessment of driving expertise using multiple choice questions including static vs. animated presentation of driving scenarios. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 51, 112–119. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, S. P. (2002). The index of cognitive activity: Measuring cognitive workload. Proceeding of the 2002 I.E. 7th Conference, Human Factors and Power Plants, 2002. doi: 10.1109/HFPP.2002.1042860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357–371. doi:10.1007/BF01463939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. A. (1992). What’s the difference between authentic and performance assessment? Educational Leadership, 49, 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi:10.1037/h0043158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Test theory and questionnaire design]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In R. M. R. B. J. L. Plass (Ed.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Münzer, S. (2012). Facilitating spatial perspective taking through animation: Evidence from an aptitude-treatment-interaction. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 505–510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münzer, S. (2015). Facilitating recognition of spatial structures through animation and the role of mental rotation ability. Learning and Individual Differences, 38, 76–88 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 481–485. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ögren, M., Nyström, M., & Jarodzka, H. (2016, online). There’s more to the multimedia effect than meets the eye: Is seeing pictures believing? Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-016-9397-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B. (2010). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory (Doctoral dissertation, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany). Retrieved from http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2010/3478/.

  • Park, B., & Brünken, R. (2015). The rhythm method: A new method for measuring cognitive load: An experimental dual-task study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 232–243. doi:10.1002/acp.3100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Knörzer, L., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2015). Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: An eyetracking study on the use of antropomorphisms. Computers & Education, 86, 30–42. doi:.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2015). Do learner characteristics moderate the seductive-details-effect? A cognitive-load-study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 24–36 http://www.ifets.info/journals/18_4/3.pdf, Creative Commons CC-BY-ND-NC 3.0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2016). The role of spatial ability when fostering mental animation in multimedia learning: An ATI-study. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 497–506. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert? In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reingold, E. M., & Sheridan, H. (2011). Eye movements and visual expertise in chess and medicine. In S. P. Liversedge, I. D. Gilchrist, & S. Everling (Eds.), Oxford handbook of eye movements (pp. 523–550). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1976). The representation of knowledge in memory. San Diego, CA: Center for Human Information Processing, Department of Psychology, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, N. E., & Mitchell, D. C. (1985). Word recognition in a functional context: The use of scripts in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 253–270. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(85)90027-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychological Review, 10, 251–296. doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000021808.72598.4d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • The International Test Commission. (2006). International guidelines on computer-based and internet-delivered testing. International Journal of Testing, 6, 143–171. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., Ericsson, K. A., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 73–81. doi:10.1007/BF02504799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Meeuwen, L. W., Jarodzka, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., Kirschner, P. A., De Bock, J. J. P. R., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Identification of effective visual problem solving strategies in a complex visual domain. Learning and Instruction, 32, 10–21. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Mierlo, C. M., Jarodzka, H., Kirschner, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Cognitive load theory and e-learning. In Z. Yan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cyber behavior. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, C. E., Jarodzka, H., Van den Bogert, N., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). Teacher vision: Comparing expert and novice teachers’ perception of problematic classroom management scenes. Instructional Science, 44(3), 243. doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9367-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was – in part – supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01PL12057).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    P. A. Kirschner & H. Jarodzka

  2. Oulu University, Oulu, Finland

    P. A. Kirschner

  3. Saarland University, Campus A4 2, 66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    B. Park & S. Malone

  4. Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    H. Jarodzka

Authors
  1. P. A. Kirschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Malone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. Jarodzka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. A. Kirschner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Info, Ste G150, Univ of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Michael J Spector

  2. School of Education, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Barbara B Lockee

  3. School of Education, Baker University, Overland Park, Kansas, USA

    Marcus D. Childress

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kirschner, P.A., Park, B., Malone, S., Jarodzka, H. (2016). Toward a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Assessment (CTMMA). In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_53-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_53-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation