The main objective of this study was to investigate the importance of visual and verbal channel capacity for learning outcome from visual and verbal presentation forms. The study is based on a survey of 396 students at bachelor level (officers, student teachers and psychology students). The results show that there is a significant correlation between channel capacity and learning outcome from film and text, especially in the learning of details. Visual channel capacity has the greatest impact on learning details from text, while verbal channel capacity is most important for learning details from film. Furthermore, the results indicate that individuals with a high visual channel capacity have an advantage when learning context from film, while individuals with a high verbal channel capacity may have a benefit when learning contexts from text. While previous studies have concluded that some individuals have a higher verbal or visual capacity and thus learn better from either film or text (Paivio, 1986; Clark & Mayer, 2008), this study shows that the verbal or visual capacity specifically consists of various types of short term memory capacity differences. This applies primarily to the ability to process information presented successively (progressive capacity). The capacity for simultaneous presentation through several channels concurrently (multi-capacity), is also important for learning from both film and text, although multi-capacity seems to have had less impact than expected. The effect of divided attention (split-attention effect) may have compensated for the strain of the information processing. An estimated multimedia oriented compensation and proximity effect may also have had some significance when learning contexts, especially for individuals with low to medium channel capacity. In a pedagogical perspective the results indicate that teaching which included multimedia and separate text presentations should be organized according to the participants’ channel capacity and also to the content of the educational material.
KeywordsMulti-Media LearningVisual and Verbal Channel CapacitySplit-Attention EffectLearning OutcomeShort Time MemorySTMWorking Memory
Artino Jr., A. R. (2008). Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners. AACE Journal, 16, 425-439.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shifferin, R. M. (1968). Human Memory: A Proposed System and Its Control Process. In K. W. Spence, & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 89-195). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 135-146). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The Phonological Loop as a Language Learning Device. Psychological Review, 105, 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158
Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2001). Developmental Increase in Working Memory Span: Resource Sharing or Temporal Decay? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2767
Bayraktar, S. (2002). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Instruction in Science Education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34, 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2001.10782344
Boekaerts, M. (1982). Individual Differences in the Use of Visual and Verbal Mediators. Research in Education, 27, 49-62.
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York: Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/10037-000
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.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The Split-Attention Effect as a Factor in the Design of Instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Cohen, G. (1983). The Psychology of Cognition. London: Academic Press.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working Memory Span Tasks: A Methodological Review and User’s Guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769-786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Day, W. F., & Beach, B. R. (1950). A Survey of the Research Literature Comparing the Visual and Auditory Presentation of Information. Air Force Technical Report 5921, Contract No. W33-039-AC-21269, Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Doolittle, P. E., & Altstaedter, L. L. (2009). The Effect of Working Memory Capacity on Multimedia Learning: Does Attentional Control Result in Improved Performance? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 2, 7-25.
Engelskamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1994). The Human Memory: A Multi-Modal Approach. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe& Huber Publishers.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The Multimedia Principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 117-134). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.008
Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What Contributes to the Split-Attention Effect? The Role of Text Segmentation, Picture Labeling, and Spatial Proximaty. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating Information: Meta-Analyses of the Spatial Contiguity and Temporal Contiguity Effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010
Hartman, F. R. (1961a). Recognition Learning under Multiple Channel Presentation and Testing Condition. Audiovisual Communication Review, 9, 24-43.
Hartman, F. R. (1961b). Single and Multiple Channel Communication: A Review of Research and a Proposed Model. Audiovisual Communication Review, 9, 235-262.
Howard, D. V. (1983). Cognitive Psychology: Memory, Language, and Thought. New York: Macmillian.
Hsia, H. J. (1968). Effects of Noise and Difficulty Level of Input Information in Auditory, Visual, and Audiovisual Information Processing. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 26, 99-105. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1968.26.1.99
Jäger, A. O., & Althoff, K. (1983). Der WILDE-Intelligenz-Test (WIT) [The WILDE Intelligence-Test (WIT)] (2nd revised ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Jahn, V. (2011). Lernen mit Multimedia: Die Spezifizierung des Modalitätsprinzips unter Berücksichtigung individueller und gestaltungsdidaktischer Faktoren. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades doctor philosophiae (Dr.Phil.), Chemnitz: Philosophischen Fakultät der Technischen Universität Chemnitz.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A Testing Effect with Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 621-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing Split-Attention and Redundancy in Multimedia Learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4 3.0.CO;2-6
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The Management of Cognitive Load during Complex Cognitive Skill Acquisition by Means of Computer Simulated Problem Solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X19254
Kirby, J., Moore, P., & Schofield, N. (1988). Verbal and Visual Learning Styles. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 169-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90017-3
Koroghlanian, C. M., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Audio and Text Density in Computer-Based Instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 217-230. https://doi.org/10.2190/5QVQ-3XXQ-X1JC-T2F2
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002179
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus Quality: A New Approach to Examine the Relationship between Technology Use and Student Outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 455-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00961.x
Lusk, D. L., Evans, A. D., Jeffrey, T. R., Palmer, K. R., Wikstrom, C. S., & Doolittle, P. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning and Individual Differences: Mediating the Effects of Working Memory Capacity with Segmentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 636-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00848.x
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603
Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning: Segmenting, Pretraining, and Modality. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 169-182). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.012
Mayer, R. E. (2006). Ten Research-Based Principles of Multimedia Learning. In F. O. O’Neil, & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-Based Learning: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 371-390). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When Is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousands Words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-726. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Coding Hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.484
Mayer, R. E., & Simms, V. K. (1994). For Whom Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Extensions of a Dual Coding Theory of Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389
Miller, G. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, plus minus Two. Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
Morey, C. C. (2009). Integrated Cross-Domain Object Storage in Working Memory: Evidence from a Verbal-Spatial Memory Task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2235-2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902763382
Norman, D. A. (1969). Memory and Attention: An Introduction to Human Information Processing. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Nugent, G. (1982). Pictures, Audio, and Print: Symbolic Representation and Effect on Learning. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 163-174.
Paivio, A. (1968). Why Are Pictures Easier to Recall than Words? Psychonomic Science, 11, 137-138. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03331011
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Redick, T. S., Calvo, A., Gay, C. E., & Engle, R. W. (2011). Working Memorycapacity and Go/No-Go Task Performance: Selective Effects of Updating, Maintenance, and Inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 308-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022216
Salomon, G. (1984). Television Is Easy and Print Is Tough: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort in Learning as a Function of Perceptions and Attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An Examination of the Seductive Details Effect in Terms of Working Memory Capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344-355. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193412
Severin, W. (1967a). Another Look at Cue Summation. Audiovisual Communication Review, 15, 233-245.
Severin, W. (1967b). Pictures as Relevant Cues in Multi-Channel Communications. Journalism Quarterly, 44, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906704400103
Severin, W. (1967c). The Effectivess of Relevant Pictures in Multiple-Channel Communications. Audiovisual Communication Review, 15, 386-400.
Simatos, A., & Spencer, K. (1992). Children and Media: Learning from Television. Liverpool: Manutius Press.
Skaalvik, E. (1977). Læremidler og undervisningsformer. Psykologisk grunnlag for og bruk av AV-midler. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Spencer, K. A. (1996). Media and Technology in Education: Raising Academic Standards. Liverpool: Manutius Press.
Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How Pacing of Multimedia Instructions Can Influence Modality Effects: A Case of Superiority of Visual Texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 184-203. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1149
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural Information Processing Systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490600400135
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.003
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When Two Sensory Modes Are Better than One. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.3.4.257
Torgersen, G. E., & Barlaug, D. (2004). Short-Term Memory Test—Testing of Capacity in a Digital Learning Environment. Oslo: Norwegian Defence University College.
Torgersen, G. E., & Vavik, L. (2005). Forskningsmetodei IKT-pedagogikk [Research Method in ICT-Based Education]. Stjørdal: Læringsforlaget.
Torgersen, G. E. (2012). Multimedialæring. Læringsutbytte fra multimdia vs. analog tekst og betydningen av individuelle forskjeller i korttidsminnekapasitet [Multimedia Learning. Learning Outcome from Multimdia vs. Analogue Text and the Importance of Individual Differences in Short-Term Capacity]. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology, The Department of Psychology.
Travers, R. M. W. (1964). The Transmission of Information to Human Receivers. Audio Visual Communication Review, 12, 373-385.
Travers, R. M. W. (1967). Research and Theory Related to Audiovisual Information Transmission. Project No. 3-20-003, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education.
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The Nature of Individual Difference in Working Memory Capacity: Active Maintenance in Primary Memory and Controlled Search from Secondary Memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J., & Engle, R. W. (2009).Complex Working Memory Span Tasks and Higher-Order Cognition: A Latentvariable Analysis of the Relationship between Processing and Storage. Memory, 17, 635-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210902998047
Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary Memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021797