How Effective is Multimedia in Online Training?
By David Kahn
To remain competitive in today’s tight labor market, online training has become a
prevalent means through which organizations can train employees more rapidly, more
effectively, and at less expense than the past (Mcrea, Gay, & Bacon, 2000; Urdan & Weggen,
2000). Nevertheless, as the implementation of online training has become widespread, many
unfounded beliefs persist with regards to the effectiveness of particular delivery methods. One
example is the perception that integrating multimedia into course delivery is undeniably
beneficial.
What is Multimedia?
Multimedia is often considered to be the most misused term in online learning.
Multimedia refers to computer-mediated information that is presented concurrently in more than
one medium. It consists of some, but not necessarily all, of the following elements: text; still
graphic images; motion graphics; animations; hypermedia; photographs; video; and audio, i.e.,
sounds, music, and narration (Kleen & Shell, 1994; Najjar, 1996; Tannenbaum, 1998).
The Significance of Evaluating Multimedia
A primary reason why the assessment of multimedia is important relates to the fact that
most people believe that to have effective online training, multimedia must be integrated into
course delivery (Najjar, 1996). For instance, in a study of organizations that offered its
employees online training (Kleen & Shell, 1994), 88% reported to have multimedia capability,
and 47% of those without capability had solid plans to obtain it. However, when asked why they
included (or intended to include) multimedia, the most frequent response involved a “but
everyone else is doing it” stance. Is this the way courses should be designed?
Over the last twenty years, most of the related literature has not attempted to quantify the
actual advantages of incorporating multimedia in online training (Lookatch, 1997). Very few
questioned the “overly optimistic multimedia paradigm change and asked for a more realistic
assessment of multimedia-assisted instruction” (Hoogeveen, 1995). Only now are critics
chastising those who jumped on an unproven bandwagon without careful consideration of the
benefits (Bollentin, 1998; Oppenheimer, 1997; Pepi & Scheurman, 1996; Schrage, 1998).
The Effectiveness of Multimedia
Comprehension. To assess the effectiveness of multimedia in online training courses, it
can be compared to text-only based courses, a non-multimedia mode of delivery, to determine
what effect, if any, it has on the level of participants’ comprehension. In a study comparing
courses involving text-only, complete audio with full text, and complete audio with partial text,
all of the groups achieved acceptable levels of learning and there were no statistical differences
in test scores, thereby demonstrating no learning advantage with the addition of audio (Barron &
Kysilka, 1993).
Similar studies have found no differences in test scores between participants who took
courses that incorporated a) text-only, text with video clips, and text with audio of the video clips
(Schmeeckle, 2000); b) text-only, video-only, and text with video (Jones, 2002); c) text-only,
text with video, and text with still graphic images (Cofield, 2001); or text-only and hypermedia
(Dillon & Gabbard, 1998). These research results reveal that the use of audio, video, still
graphic images, and/or hypermedia do not strengthen or enhance learning at a deeper level of
understanding. More specifically, this research indicates that immediate retention of the material
was the same regardless of whether multimedia was integrated.
Recall and Retention. In determining how well information is learned, recall and
retention are important factors. Luna and McKenzie (1997) and Wegner and Payne (1994)
revealed no differences in recall or retention in learners using a multimedia-enhanced online
training program versus those using an exclusively text-based system. In addition, when four
groups were tested (text with pictures, words only, text only, and control), a test of recall also did
not demonstrate significant differences (Najjar, 1996).
The Efficiency of Multimedia
Time on Task. Another variable with which to assess online training is efficiency, i.e.,
the ratio of useful work to energy expended. In a training sense, time on task is most often
measured by the amount of time spent in a particular course. In a study comparing text, audio,
and video in online instruction, Schmeeckle (2000) found the text-only group to be the most
efficient, taking 12% to 13% less time than the other two groups with no decrease in learning
value. Additionally, the inclusion of audio or video did not affect motivation or positive
attitudes towards the course.
In a study by Barron and Kysilka (1993), the text-only group completed the training
course in significantly less time than the audio-only group and audio with full text group.
Understandably, the text-only group was not slowed by listening to the audio version of the text.
Reminiscent of Schmeeckle’s (2000) study, there was no learning advantage with the addition of
audio. Similar findings have been ascertained by Leh, Sleezer, and Anderson (1998); Spann,
Cronan, and Kreie (1998); and Baek and Layne (1988) who included the addition of graphics and
animation.
These findings provide several incentives for designing text-only courses. First, job
productivity can be maintained by decreasing time away from the job. Not all businesses or
institutions can afford to have lengthy training courses (Schmeeckle, 2000). Second, more
training can be conducted to increase the skills of the labor force. Third, the decrease in training
time can free up training staff to focus on content that requires hands-on demonstrations and
practice.
Cost. In measuring the efficiency of multimedia in online training, cost is a key factor.
The standard rule is that the greater the complexity of course delivery, the greater the cost of
development. An online multimedia-dependent course is likely to be 200% to 500% more
expensive than a text-only course (Curtain, 2002). One reason for this significant difference
involves the cost of the software. With every delivery mode incorporated into a course, new
computer programs must be purchased; and, the more intricate the multimedia, the higher the
price of the software. Plus, in addition to the one-time price to buy the software, designers and
developers must also purchase an individual licensing fee pay for each additional user and pay
for upgrades, which are available for most software on a semi-frequent basis and can be quite
expensive.
The additional costs of multimedia are attributed to the increase in time it takes to
develop, produce, deliver, and maintain them (Moonen, 1997). Like the software costs, the more
intricate the multimedia, the more time it takes to create and maintain the course. The time
involved in creating heavily enriched multimedia courses has been found to be five to ten times
greater than for developing text-only courses (Curtain, 2002). The attempt to keep complex,
multimedia courses current also leads to more costly expenditures.
Bandwidth. The efficiency of multimedia in online training can also be measured by
evaluating the bandwidth, i.e., the speed through which data is transferred. Basically, the larger
the multimedia file, the more time it will take to download. The amount of information that can
be sent over an analog telephone line is limited by the bandwidth of the transmission. Most
consumer telephone lines have very limited bandwidth so, consequently, they are too slow to
deliver large files acceptably. At a price, faster telephone alternatives (ISDN, T-1, etc.) are
available, but an online training course must be designed and developed for all individuals, not
just the ones with quicker connections.
Conclusion
At some point in recent history, word got around that education without entertainment
was worthless. But isn’t it actually compelling content that engages users? And if this is the
case, can’t a text-only delivery mode provide the best solution? With all of the delivery modes
available, the most important component in producing an effective learning experience continues
to be in the quality of the instructional design and content, not the media itself. A well-organized
and skillfully written course offers learners accessibility and adaptability not available by other
mediums.
Now does this mean that multimedia is never necessary? Of course not. There are many
instances where visual and/or auditory depictions could enhance the learning experience.
However, in many cases, multimedia actually hinders learning by acting as a distraction or
unnecessary supplement to an already satisfactory course. Don’t fall into the trap. Don’t design
or purchase courses that are reliant on multimedia because “that’s what you’re suppose to do,” it
does not always make training better.
References
1. Baek, Y. K., & Layne, B. H. (1988). Color, graphics, and animation in an online-assisted
learning tutorial lesson. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(4), 131-135.
2. Barron, A. E., & Kysilka, M. L. (1993). The effectiveness of digital audio in online-based
training. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 277-289.
3. Bollentin, W. (1998). Can information technology improve education? Educom Review 33(1),
50-54.
4. Cofield, J. L. (2001). The effectiveness of streaming video in web-based instruction. Published
doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama.
5. Curtain, R. (2002). Online delivery in the vocational education and training sector: Improving
cost effectiveness. Leabrook, Australia: Australian National Training Authority.
6. Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the
quantitative research literature in learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Education
Research, 68(3), 322-349.
7. Hoogeveen, M. (1995). Towards a new multimedia paradigm: Is multimedia assisted instruction
really effective? Proceedings of the Annual Conference of ED-MEDIA, Austria.
8. Jones, S. P. (2002). A comparison of online text and subject video in relation to learning
strategy. Published doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
9. Kleen, B. A., & Shell, L. W. (1994). Multimedia management issues in higher education.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the IACIS, 107-113.
10. Leh, A., S. C., Sleezer, C. M., & Anderson, V. A. (1998). Measuring the value of educational
technology in different contexts. Education Technology, 4, 28-33.
11. Lookatch, R. (1997). Multimedia improves learning- apples, oranges, and the Type I error.
Contemporary Education 68(2), 110-112.
12. Luna, C.J. & McKenzie, J. (1997). Testing multimedia in the community college classroom.
T.H.E. Journal, 24(7), 78-81.
13. McCrea, F., Gay, R. K., & Bacon, R. (2000). Riding the big waves: A white paper on B2B elearning industry. San Francisco: Thomas Weisel Partners LLC.
14. Moonen, J. (1997). The efficiency of telelearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
1(2).
15. Najjar, L. J. (1996). The effects of multimedia and elaborative encoding on learning. Atlanta,
GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
16. Oppenheimer, T. (1997) The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 45-62.
17. Pepi, D., & Scheurman, G. (1996). The emperor’s new computer: A critical look at our appetite
for computer technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 229-236.
18. Schmeeckle (2000). Online training: An evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of training
law enforcement personnel over the Internet. Published doctoral dissertation, The University of
Nebraska, Lincoln.
19. Schrage, M. (1998). An interview with Educom Review: Technology, silver bullets and big lies.
Educom, 33(1), 32-37.
20. Spann, S., Cronan, T., & Kreie, J. (1998). Multimedia as an instructional medium: Can it
replace the lecture? Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the IACIS, 629-635.
21. Tannenbaum, R. S. (1998). Theoretical foundations of multimedia. New York: Computer
Science Press.
22. Urdan, T. A., & Weggen C. C. (2000). Corporate e-learning: Exploring a new frontier. WR
Hambrecht & Co.
23. Wenger, M.J. & Payne, D.G. (1994). Effects of a graphical browser on readers' efficiency in
reading hypertext. Technical Communication, 41(2), 224-234.