Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- 11 The Multimedia Principle
- 12 The Multiple Representations Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 13 The Expertise Reversal Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
12 - The Multiple Representations Principle in Multimedia Learning
from Part III - Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Background
- Part II Theoretical Foundations
- Part III Basic Principles of Multimedia Learning
- 11 The Multimedia Principle
- 12 The Multiple Representations Principle in Multimedia Learning
- 13 The Expertise Reversal Principle in Multimedia Learning
- Part IV Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part V Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning
- Part VI Principles Based on Social and Affective Features of Multimedia Learning
- Part VII Principles Based on Generative Activity in Multimedia Learning
- Part VIII Multimedia Learning with Media
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
In this chapter, I propose three distinct purposes of multiple representations and suggest that these lead to different design principles and learning activities. Multiple representations can play a complementary role when learners exploit differences in their form and content by switching between and selecting the appropriate representation for the task at hand. Constraining benefits are achieved when learners can profit from the support of a familiar representation to understand a new and complex representation. Finally, if learners abstract across multiple representations, they can construct a deeper understanding of the nature of the representations and the domain they represent. This chapter updates a review of studies that have used multiple representations for these purposes and identifies some of the circumstances that influence the effectiveness of using multiple representations in these ways.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 158 - 170Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E. (2014). The multiple representation principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 464–486). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Evaluating principles for multi-representational learning environments. Paper Presented at the 7th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction, 1997, Athens.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 25–61.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669–681.Google Scholar
Anzai, Y. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In Anders-Ericsson, K., & Smith, J. (eds.), Towards a General Theory of Expertise: Prospects and Limits (pp. 64–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., & Renkl, A. (2008). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345–363.Google Scholar
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps (trans. Berg, W. J.). Madison, WI: University of Madison Press.Google Scholar
Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95(4), 700–719.Google Scholar
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Bruchmuller, K., & Hacker, S. (2005). Supporting learning with interactive multimedia through active integration of representations. Instructional Science, 33(1), 73–95.Google Scholar
Boshuizen, H., & van der Wiel, W. (1998). Using multiple representations in medicine: How students struggle with them. In Van Someren, M. W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (eds.), Learning with Multiple Representations (pp. 237–262). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. C.-H. (1996). Functional roles for the cognitive analysis of diagrams in problem solving. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1996, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Chua, H. F., Yates, J. F., & Shah, P. (2006). Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 399–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, M. M., Corley, L. M., & Underwood, S. M. (2013). An investigation of college chemistry students’ understanding of structure–property relationships. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 699–721.Google Scholar
Corradi, D., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Understanding and enhancing the use of multiple external representations in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
Danielson, R. W., Schwartz, N. H., & Lippmann, M. (2015). Metaphorical graphics aid learning and memory. Learning and Instruction, 39, 194–205.Google Scholar
Danielson, R. W., & Sinatra, G. M. (2016). A relational reasoning approach to text-graphic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 55–72.Google Scholar
de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Paas, F. (2020). Learning from split-attention materials: Effects of teaching physical and mental learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101873.Google Scholar
Dienes, Z. (1973). The Six Stages in the Process of Learning Mathematics. Slough: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, Learning, and Visual Literacy: The Dual Role of Visual Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 41–64.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239–244.Google Scholar
Green, T. R. G., Petre, M., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (1991). Comprehensibility of visual and textual programs: A test of superlativism against the “match–mismatch” conjecture. In Koenemann-Belliveau, J., Moher, T. G., & Robertson, S. P. (eds.), Proceedings of Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (pp. 121–146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hannus, M., & Hyona, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(2), 95–123.Google Scholar
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 446–474.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717–742.Google Scholar
Hegedus, S. J., & Roschelle, J. (2013). The SimCalc Vision and Contributions. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Hilton, A., & Nichols, K. (2011). Representational classroom practices that contribute to students conceptual and representational understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2215–2246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
Kaput, J. J. (1992). Technology and mathematics education. In Grouws, D. A. (ed.), Handbook of Teaching and Learning Mathematics (pp. 515–556). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.Google Scholar
Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In Gilbert, J. K. (ed.), Visualization in Science and Education (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram Is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–99.Google Scholar
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 902–913.Google Scholar
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64.Google Scholar
Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In Saul, E. W. (ed.), Crossing Borders in Literacy and Science Instruction: Perspectives on Theory and Practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In Willows, D. M., & Houghton, H. A. (eds.), The Psychology of Illustration: I. Basic Research (pp. 51–85). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lohse, G. L., Biolsi, K., Walker, N., & Rueler, H. (1994). A classification of visual representations. Communications of the A.C.M., 37(12), 36–49.Google Scholar
Lowe, R., Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2010). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 452–459.Google Scholar
Madden, S. P., Jones, L. L., & Rahm, J. (2011). The role of multiple representations in the understanding of ideal gas problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(3), 283–293.Google Scholar
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. [Article]. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Second edition (pp. 43–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). How visual displays affect cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 623–639.Google Scholar
McDermott, L. C., Rosenquist, M. L., & van Zee, E. H. (1987). Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Examples from kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(6), 503–513.Google Scholar
McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H.-Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2014). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, J., Shinar, D., & Leiser, D. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors, 39(2), 268–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minogue, J., & Borland, D. (2015). Investigating students’ ideas about buoyancy and the influence of haptic feedback. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 187–202.Google Scholar
Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body motion and graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.Google Scholar
Olympiou, G., Zacharias, Z., & de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41(3), 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paik, E. S., & Schraw, G. (2013). Learning with animation and illusions of understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 278–289.Google Scholar
Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251–280.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist, 16, 492–546.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283.Google Scholar
Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773.Google Scholar
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi‐modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rau, M. A. (2018). Sequencing support for sense making and perceptual induction of connections among multiple visual representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 811–833.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A. (2020). Cognitive and socio-cultural theories on competencies and practices involved in learning with multiple external representations. In Van Meter, P., List, A., Lombardi, D, & Kendeou, P. (eds.), Handbook of Learning from Multiple Representations and Perspectives (pp. 17–32). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2015). Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 30–46.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Pardos, Z. (2013). How should intelligent tutoring systems sequence multiple graphical representations of fractions? A multi-methods study. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 24(2), 125–161.Google Scholar
Rau, M., Aleven, V., Rummel, N., & Rohrbach, S. (2012). Sense making alone doesn’t do it: Fluency matters too! ITS support for robust learning with multiple representations. In Cerri, S., Clancey, W., Papadourakis, G., & Panourgia, K. (eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (Vol. 7135, pp. 174–184). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Rau, M. A., Bowman, H. E., & Moore, J. W. (2017). An adaptive collaboration script for learning with multiple visual representations in chemistry. Computers & Education, 109, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O’Malley, C. (ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.Google Scholar
Russell, J., Kozma, R., Becker, D., & Susskind, T. (2000). SMV: Chem; Synchronized Multiple Visualizations in Chemistry. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.Google Scholar
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(4), 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45(2), 185–213.Google Scholar
Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2009). The effects of realism in learning with dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 481–494.Google Scholar
Schneider, S., Dyrna, J., Meier, L., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2018). How affective charge and text–picture connectedness moderate the impact of decorative pictures on multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2002). Commentary – Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 101–120.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student’s evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In Glaser, R. (ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 55–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1227–1243.Google Scholar
Seufert, T. (2019). Training for coherence formation when learning from text and picture and the interplay with learners’ prior knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 193.Google Scholar
Shah, P., & Freedman, E. G. (2011). Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top‐down and bottom‐up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(3), 560–578.Google Scholar
Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition and Instruction, 29(1), 123–145.Google Scholar
Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4), 404–434.Google Scholar
Suthers, D. D. (2014). Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Sherborne, T. (eds.), Knowledge Cartography: Software Tools and Mapping Techniques (pp. 1–22). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C.-Y. (2013). Contributions of multiple representations to biology education. In Treagust, D. F., & Tsui, C.-Y. (eds.), Multiple Representations in Biology Education (pp. 349–367). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (2013). Constructing Representations to Learn in Science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199–212.Google Scholar
van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 411–423.Google Scholar
van Joolingen, W. R., & de Jong, T. (2003). SIMQUEST: Authoring educational simulations. In Murray, T., Blessing, S., & Ainsworth, S. E. (eds.), Tools for Advanced Technology Learning Environments (pp. 1–32). Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
van Labeke, N., & Ainsworth, S. (2003). A microgenetic approach to understanding translation between representations. Paper presented at the 10th EARLI Conference, 2003, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
Virk, S., Clark, D., & Sengupta, P. (2015). Digital games as multi-representational environments for science learning: Implications for theory, research, and design. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 284–312.Google Scholar
Ware, C. (2008). Visual Thinking for Design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547.Google Scholar
Wilder, A., & Brinkerhoff, J. (2007). Supporting representational competence in high school biology with computer-based biomolecular visualizations. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Won, M., Yoon, H., & Treagust, D. F. (2014). Students’ learning strategies with multiple representations: Explanations of the human breathing mechanism. Science Education, 98(5), 840–866.Google Scholar
Wu, S. P. W., & Rau, M. A. (2018). Effectiveness and efficiency of adding drawing prompts to an interactive educational technology when learning with visual representations. Learning and Instruction, 55, 93–104.Google Scholar
Yore, L., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93–101.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. J. (1996). A representational analysis of relational information displays. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 45(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by