10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
MULTIMEDIA IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
PROLIFERATION OF TOOLS + PAUCITY OF RESEARCH = OPPORTUNITIES
Authors
Janette Moody, Ph.D., The Citadel
(contact author)
843-953-6947
and
Gregory L. Krippel, Ph.D., Coastal Carolina University
843-349-2643
ABSTRACT
Investments in what is termed “classroom technology” take many forms today, ranging from
synchronous and asynchronous distance learning systems to interactive smart boards to VCR
players and interactive computer simulations. Each of these delivery methods could be construed
as providing some form of multimedia. The reasons for these investments vary, but seldom if
ever are the decisions to purchase made on the basis of pedagogical research supporting the
acquisition.
This paper provides a framework for viewing and organizing research on the use of one major
component of classroom technology, e.g. multimedia, for educational purposes. This framework
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
1
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
highlights under-researched areas to illustrate opportunities for future studies that could help
clarify the appropriate use of multimedia by educators. The paper begins with a review of what
educators and researchers consider multimedia and its importance to the learning process. We
next provide a representative review of recent research findings across a variety of disciplines,
and conclude with a discussion of promising areas of additional research to guide educators
wishing to utilize multimedia tools.
INTRODUCTION
Universities have invested significant resources in classroom technologies, ranging from
synchronous and asynchronous distance learning systems to interactive smart boards to VCR
players and interactive computer simulations. One reason given for the expenditures is that
instruction can be tailored to each student’s learning needs, allowing for mass customization as
well as substantial productivity increases by faculty (Taylor and Schmidtlein, 2000). However,
while installation of state-of-the art technology has been viewed as a competitive tool for
attracting students, faculty (Parker and Burnie, 2009) and possibly donors, few faculty or
administrators can articulate the pedagogical research supporting a specific technology’s
contribution to learning effectiveness. Furthermore, surveys within the last decade indicated that
the technology of choice was actually very “low tech” for a significant number of faculty who
preferred the use of overhead transparencies and projectors which they believed “greatly
enhanced their teaching effectiveness” (Peluchette and Rust, 2005, p. 202). Factors commonly
cited as necessary in order for faculty to adopt new instructional tools are organizational support
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
2
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
and training resources (Keengwe, Kidd, and Kyei-Blankson, 2009), rather than evidence of the
effectiveness of the tools.
Given the speed of innovation in, and the diversity of, technological instructional tools, an
examination of the pedagogical research supporting their use can provide insight into those areas
of mature research and those areas ripe for new insights.
MULTIMEDIA DEFINED
Humans receive data through multiple channels, i.e. media, including audio and visual channels
(Paivio, 1969) as well as touch, taste and smell. To date, little if any research in the educational
use of multimedia has considered the channels of touch, taste or smell. Clark and Feldon (2005)
indicate that while touch, taste and smell are sensory modes, there are limitations on the media
by which they can be represented. Although at its most basic definition, the term multimedia
would imply the use of more than one medium (Yu, et al., 2009), other definitions are more
stringent such as Tannenbaum’s (1998) definition that multimedia must include an interactive
component which allows the user to interact with the material, influencing the course of a
computer-controlled presentation. More typically the term implies conveying information
through some combination of two or more forms of text, graphics, animations, and video with
images and voices (Woo, 2009).
Swisher (2007) indicates that the use of media for instructional purposes can be traced back to
1919 in the United States, and media comparison studies since the 1950’s under the auspices of
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
3
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Yale University’s Communication Research Program. Unfortunately these early studies left
much to be desired in that they focused on the delivery mechanism rather than the instructional
methods, and often the instructional methods failed to understand the cognitive processes
involved in learning. To address this void, research developed to provide a deeper understanding
of the “cognitive architecture”, i.e., the cognitive processes at work (Reed, 2006).
Regardless of whether one utilizes a basic definition or a more stringent one, the implication in
the literature is that regardless of the “combinations or permutations of common media formats,
the whole should be greater than the sum of the parts.” (Zhang, et al., 2008, p.156). It is in fact
this very wealth of combinations of audio, animation, video, simulations, interactive diagrams,
etc. that fosters the development of a myriad of instructional designs that yield mixed research
outcomes regarding the effectiveness of multimedia to enhance learning. The following section
provides research examples that have examined the effectiveness of multimedia as a learning
tool.
MULTIMEDIA RESEARCH: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND RESEARCH RESULTS
Swisher (2007) provides an overview of the two major theories of learning used in current
research as a basis for instructional designs: Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2005) and Mayer’s
(2005) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) based on Paivio’s (1969) Dual
Coding Theory. The CTML utilizes the concept of dual modalities to denote the two major
delivery means (e.g., visual and/or auditory formats) whereby the senses of seeing and hearing
can perceive information. Additional theories of multimedia learning processes have been
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
4
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
proposed by Samaras, et al., (2006) that incorporate variables such as content, learner’s prior
knowledge, learning styles, etc.
As noted above, some have concluded that placing more items into the multimedia mix for
instructional delivery is better than fewer items and thus proceed to do so now that technological
advances have made doing so more affordable and accessible than ever. Unfortunately, the
mixed results in learning outcomes from applying multimedia instruction would indicate that a
deeper understanding of the variables at work is warranted. Thus the representative review
presented in Table 1 of research testing various aspects of multimedia instructional design
features can provide a starting point for those wishing to respond to under-researched areas
and/or interested in adding selected multimedia features to their academic programs. Although
additional research has been conducted in K-12 environments, all research studies cited in Table
1 were in college and university settings.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Various authors have proposed the fundamental principles of effective multimedia instructional
design (Zhang, et al., 2008; Swisher, 2007), some of which have been successfully implemented
(Thompson & McGill, 2008) while others have not (Muller, et al., 2008). As seen in Table 1, the
myriad of factors that can affect the research outcomes in instructional use of multimedia
projects continue to lead to mixed results, providing numerous opportunities for additional, welldesigned, theoretically-based research projects. One under-researched topic involves the use of
animated pedagogical agents (APA) to extend online learning from merely content enhancement
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
5
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
to include a “human” presence (Woo, 2009). Another unexplored area suggested by Bishop, et
al. (2007) is to move beyond the use of sound for literal informative conveyance to produce a
deeper and more sustained level of learning.
A practical and insightful guide to developing effective research projects is provided by Muller,
et al. (2006). Additional guidance can be found in Ke, et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis that focuses
on the learning outcomes associated with animations as a specific form of multimedia. In order
to provide actionable research results that informs the academic community, researchers are
cautioned to focus on the critical issues of the paradigm of inquiry and the methodological issues
associated with the myriad of variables (Kennedy, 2000).
Finally, with the emergence of the mobile phone as the computing platform of choice for many
students (Crow, et al., 2010) and the increased use of iPods (Doolittle & Mariano, 2008) and
iPads, an expanded view of what constitutes an enhanced learning environment is becoming
increasingly necessary and will itself expand the need for more focused research to promote
effective learning outcomes.
REFERENCES
Austin, K.A. (2009). Multimedia learning: cognitive individual differences and display design
techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education,
53, 1339-1354.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
6
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Bishop, M.J., Amankwatia, T. B. & Cates, W.M. (2007). Sound’s use in instructional software to
enhance learning: a theory-to-content analysis. Education Tech Research Dev. 58, 467-486.
Bridgemohan, C.F., Levy, S., Veluz, A. & Knight, J. (2005). Teaching paediatric residents about
learning disorders: use of standardized case discussion versus multimedia computer tutorial.
Medical Education. 39, 797-806.
Clark, R.E. & Feldon, D. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia
learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 97-115.
Crowe, R., Santos, I., McFadden, A., LeBaron, J. & Osborne, C. (2010). Switching gears:
moving from e-learning to m-learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.
6(1), 268-278.
Doolittle, P.E. & Mariano, G.J. (2008). Working memory, capacity and mobile multimedia
learning environments: individual differences in learning while mobile. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia. 17(4), 511-530.
Doymus, K. Karacop, A. & Simsek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on
students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electrochemistry. Education Tech Research
Dev. Published online by Springer, 17 April 2010.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
7
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Dunsworth, Q. & Atkinson, R.K. (2007). Fostering multimedia learning of science: exploring the
role of an animated agent’s image. Computers & Education. 49, 677-690.
Ellis, T. (2004). Animating to build higher cognitive understanding: A model for studying
multimedia effectiveness in education. Journal of Engineering Education. 93(1), 59-64.
Evan, C. & Gibbons, N. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning, Computers &
Education. 49, 1147-1160
Ke, F., Huifen, L. & Ching, Y. (2006). Effects of animation on multi-level learning outcomes for
learners with different characteristics: a meta-analytic assessment and interpretation. Journal of
Visual Literacy. 26(1), 15-40.
Keengwe, J., Kidd, T. & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009).Faculty and technology: implications for
faculty training and technology leadership. Journal of Science Education Technology. 18, 23-28.
Kennedy, G. E. (2000). Assessing the efficacy of new multimedia teaching technologies.
Presentation at Veterinary Comparative Respiratory Society (VCRS) Conference. Melbourne,
Australia. Retrieved from www.the-vcrs.org on 5-28-10.
Koehler, M., Yadav, A., Phillips, M. & Cavazos-Kottke, S. (2005). What is video good for?
Examining how media and story genre interact. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia. 14(3), 249-272.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
8
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. 1-635.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist. 760-769
Moundridou, M & Virvou, M. (2002). Evaluating the persona effect of an interface agent in a
tutoring system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 18, 252-261.
Muller, K., Kester, J. & Sharma, J. (2008). Coherence or interest: which is most important in
online multimedia learning? Australasian Journal of educational Technology. 24(2), 211-221.
Paivio, A. (1969). Mental imagery in association learning and memory. Psychological Review,
Vol. 76, 241-263.
Parker, B. & Burnie, D. (2009). Classroom technology in business schools: a survey of
installations and attitudes toward teaching and learning. Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education Journal. 17(1), 45-60.
Peluchette, J. & Rust, K. (2005). Technology use in the classroom: preferences of management
faculty members. Journal of Education for Business. 80(4), 200-205.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
9
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 87-98.
Samaras, H., Giouvanakis, T., Dousiou, D. & Tarabanis, K. (2006). Towards a new generation of
multimedia learning design and research: broadening established theories of multimedia
learning. IADIS International Conference Applied Computing.
Sanchez, E. & Garcia-Rodicio, H. (2008). The use of modality in the design of verbal aids in
computer-based learning environments. Interacting With Computers. 20, 545-561.
Stelzer, T., Gladding, G., Mestre, J. & Brookes, D. (2009). Comparing the efficacy of
multimedia modules with traditional textbooks for learning introductory physics content.
American Journal of Physics. 77(2), 184-190.
Swisher, D. (2007). Does multimedia truly enhance learning? Moving beyond the viual media
bandwagon toward instructional effectiveness. Presentation at Kansas State University at Salina,
Professional Day Program.
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R.
(Ed). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press. 19-30.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
10
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Taylor, A.L. and F. A. Schmidtlein. 2000. Creating a cost framework for instructional
technology. Technology Source November/ December 2000.
http://technologysource.org/article/creating_a_cost_framework_for_instructional_technology.
Tannenbaum, R. S. (1998). Theoretical foundations of multimedia. New York: Computer
Science Press.
Thompson, N. & McGill, T. (2008). Multimedia and cognition: examining the effect of applying
cognitive principles to the design of instructional materials. Journal of Educational Computing
Research. 39(2). 143- 159.
Woo, H. (2009). Designing multimedia learning environments using animated pedagogical
agents: factors and issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 25, 203-218.
Yu, C., Jannasch-Pennell, A., Digangi, S., & Kaprolet, C. (2009). An exploratory crossover
study of learner perceptions of use of audio in multimedia-based tutorials. Journal of Educational
Computing Research. 40(1), 23-46.
Zhang, H., Want, Y., Zhao, B, Li, G., & Lou, Y. (2008).Multimedia instructional design
corresponded to cognitive psychology. In E.W.C. Leung et al. (Eds.), Advances in Blended
Learning. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer., 155-164.
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
11
10th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9830452-1-2
Table 1: Multimedia research and learning outcomes
Media
Theoretical
Research
Outcome
Channel
Basis Cited
Performed
and Content Area
Audio
Dual coding
Yu, et al.
No difference between performances under
theory (Mayer & 2007
human audio and non-audio, but both outMoreno, 2002)
performed the computer-audio (Instruction on
“Item Response Theory”)
Visual
Dual coding
Koehler, et
Equivalent information recall from video
- Video
(Paivio, 1990)
al., 2005
versus text for stories (Education)
- Animation
Dual modality
Stelzer, et al., Multimedia learning out-performed textbook
(Mayer, 2001)
2009
learning (Physics)
Dual coding
Doymus, et
Learners with animation working in groups out(Paivio, 1990);
al., 2010
performed the control (Electrochemisty)
Social
constructivists
(Wu, 2003)
Constructivist
Ellis, 2004
Learners with animation out-performed textlearning (Smock,
only learners in application knowledge
1981)
(Boolean algebra)
Visual
Social agency
Dunsworth & No learning improvement in audio over text.
- Animated
theory (Atkinson Atkinson,
Audio + agent effect out-performed written
with agent
et al., 2005);
2007
text, but not for long-term retention (Human
Dual modality
circulatory system)
(Mayer, 2001)
None cited.
Visual
- Nonanimated
- Animation
with
interactivity
Audio/Visual
None cited.
Moundridou
& Virou,
2002
Bridgemohan,
et al., 2005
Constructivist
learning model
(Jonassen, 1992)
Dual modality
(Mayer, 2001)
Evans &
Gibbons,
2007
Sanchez &
Garcia, 2008
CTML (Mayer,
2001, 2002)
Austin, 2009
October 15-16, 2010
Rome, Italy
No difference in learning outcomes with or
without an agent (Mathematics)
No learning improvement in multimedia
presentation versus live facilitated case
discussion (Pediatrics)
Interactive learners out-performed on deep
learning but not retention (Bicycle pumps)
Those with visual aids for explanations outperformed audio aids (Geology)
Learners with animation and expository text
out-performed animation, text, and narration
learners. Placement of text and individual
differences also considered (Basis of lightning)
12