Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on the modality effect

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on cognitive load theory and the transient information effect, this paper investigated the modality effect while interpreting a contour map. The length and complexity of auditory and visual text instructions were manipulated. Experiment 1 indicated that longer audio text information within a presentation was inferior to the equivalent longer visual text information demonstrating a reversal of the modality effect due to transient information imposing a heavy working memory load. However, the expected modality effect was not obtained from the equivalent shorter auditory text presentation compared to shorter visual text information. It was hypothesised that the shorter text still contained too much auditory information for working memory to readily process. Experiment 2 further decreased the shorter auditory text information which then resulted in a traditional modality effect including a modality by text length interaction in which shorter, audio-visual information was better than visual only information but longer, audio-visual information was worse than visual only information.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389–400. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psycholog. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Stemberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopher, D., & Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors, 26, 519–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951. doi:10.1002/acp.1787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual-processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 3(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayrath, M. C., Nihalani, P. K., & Robinson, D. H. (2011). Varying tutorial modality and interface restriction to maximize transfer in a complex simulation environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 257–268. doi:10.1037/a0022369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number of 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 

  • Moreno, R. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, D. (2004). Middle years geography. Sydney: Blake Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1975). Modality effects in short-term verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term memory retention of verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198. doi:10.1037/h0049234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Oxford: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295–325). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merrienboer, J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81. doi:10.1348/000709904322848824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. R. (1998). Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction. In proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 42nd annual meeting (pp. 1447–1451).

  • Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Wayne Leahy

  2. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    John Sweller

Authors
  1. Wayne Leahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Sweller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne Leahy.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The 10 questions used in Ex 1 & Ex 2

Appendix 2

Subjective cognitive load rating scale used in Ex 1 & 2.

Rate how easy/difficult you found this presentation to understand with an X

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Very easy

Easy

Moderately easy

Not easy nor difficult

Moderately difficult

Difficult

Very difficult

Appendix 3

For the longer audio text and longer visual text groups times in seconds (s) and number of words for each slide viewing time in Experiments 1 & 2 (to nearest whole number).

Slide 1: 60 s (74 wds), Slide 2: 15 s (16 wds), Slide 3: 24 s (26 wds), Slide 4: 34 s (39 wds), Slide 5: 70 s (55 wds), Slide 6: 90 s (75 wds), Slide 7: 90 s (75 wds), Slide 8: 190 s (10 wds—a question) and Slide 9: 90 s (75 wds—the answer).

Appendix 4

For the shorter audio text and shorter visual text groups. Times in seconds (s) and number of words for each slide viewing time- (to nearest whole number) in Experiment 1.

Slide 1: 11 s (10 wds), Slide 2: 12 s (17 wds), Slide 3: 13 s (14 wds), Slide 4: 12 s (19 wds), Slide 5: 12 s (13 wds), Slide 6: 15 s (16 wds), Slide 7: 10 s (7 wds), Slide 8: 13 s (20 wds), Slide 9: 13 s (13 wds), Slide 10: 12 s (18 wds), Slide 11: 10 s (9 wds), Slide 12: 25 s (23 wds), Slide 13: 10 s (21 wds), Slide 14: 35 s (24 wds), Slide 15: 7 s (10 wds—a question), Slide 16: 16 s (15 wds), Slide 17: 35 s (23 wds), Slide 18: 14 s (14 wds), Slide 19: 18 s (11 wds),

Slide 20: 7 s (10 wds—a question), Slide 21: 16 s (15 wds), Slide 22: 35 s (23 wds), Slide 23: 14 s (14 wds), Slide 24: 18 s (11 wds), Slide 25: 190 s (10 wds—a question), Slide 26: 18 s (15 wds), Slide 27: 38 s (23 wds), Slide 28: 16 s (14 wds) and Slide 29: 18 s (11 wds).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leahy, W., Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and the effects of transient information on the modality effect. Instr Sci 44, 107–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9362-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9362-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation