SECTION 5

Conclusion

T he final chapter summarizes 15 principles of multimedia instruction that are based on

evidence and grounded in theory, summarizes types of boundary conditions, and looks
back to see how far we have come and looks forward to the future.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 395 16/04/20 1:56 PM

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 396 16/04/20 1:56 PM
 20 Principles of Multimedia Design

CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter summarizes 15 principles of multimedia design, including five princi-
ples for reducing extraneous processing – coherence, signaling, redundancy, spa-
tial ­contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles; three principles for managing
­essential processing – s­ egmenting, pre-training, and modality principles; and seven
principles for fostering ­generative processing – multimedia, personalization, voice,
image, embodiment, immersion, and generative activity. In addition, this chapter
introduces possible boundary conditions for some of the principles – individual
differences conditions, instructional content conditions, and instructional context
conditions. Next, this chapter looks back to reflect on the progress that has been
made and looks forward to addresses two possible new directions involving emo-
tional design and motivational design. Finally, the chapter closes with comments
concerning suggestions for future research on what works for improving multime-
dia learning, when it works, and how it works.

CHAPTER OUTLINE
Fifteen Principles of Multimedia Design
Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing
Principles for Managing Essential Processing
Principles for Fostering Generative Processing
Boundary Conditions for Design Principles
Looking Back at How Far We Have Come
Looking Forward to Possible New Directions
Emotional Design Principles
Motivational Design Principles
The Future of Multimedia Learning
What Works?
When Does It Work?
How Does It Work?
Conclusion

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 397 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 398 Principles of Multimedia Design

Fifteen Principles of Multimedia Design

My goal in writing this book is twofold: on the theoretical side, my goal is to

improve our understanding of how people learn from words and pictures (that
is, to contribute to the science of multimedia learning); and on the practical side,
to improve the design of multimedia presentations (that is, to contribute to the
science of multimedia instruction). Concerning contributions to theory, I began
with a cognitive theory of multimedia learning – as described in Chapter 2 – that
made specific predictions concerning 15 kinds of design effects. My colleagues
and I tested the predicted design effects in a series of more than 200 experimental
comparisons – with a special focus on assessing learning outcomes with measures
of transfer. Overall, the results are generally consistent with the predictions of
the cognitive theory of multimedia learning – lending support to our concep-
tion of how people learn from instruction involving words and graphics, and
more broadly supporting the idea that learning is a generative activity (Fiorella
& Mayer, 2015). They have also prompted us to expand and clarify aspects of the
cognitive theory of multimedia learning.
In particular, we have been able to arrange our 15 multimedia design principles
according to the theoretical function they serve – reducing extraneous processing
(summarized in Table 20.1), managing essential processing (summarized in Table
20.2), and fostering generative processing (summarized in Table 20.3). This triar-
chic framework has proven to be a useful way to arrange and understand our prin-
ciples. In addition, the cognitive theory of multimedia learning suggests various
boundary conditions under which our principles tend to apply.
Concerning contributions to practice, the results offer a set of 15 basic principles
for the design of multimedia presentations. Tables 20.1–20.3 define each of the 15
principles of multimedia design that I have documented in this book. The princi-
ples are presented as prescriptions for how to design a multimedia presentation,
but I do not intend the principles to stand alone as a list of rules to be memorized
for instructional design. Rather, I intend for each principle to be implemented in
light of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning that I presented in Chapter
2, with an eye toward possible boundary conditions for when it works and with
adjustments made in light of what we know about how it works. In short, the prin-
ciples should be used in ways that are consistent with what we know about how
people learn from words and pictures.
The evidence concerning each of the 15 design principles is based on transfer
effects in which we compare the transfer test performance of two groups. One
group learns from a multimedia presentation that is based on the design princi-
ple and the other learns from a multimedia presentation that is not based on the
design principle, as described in Chapter 3. On a typical problem-solving transfer

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 398 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 Fifteen Principles of Multimedia Design 399

test the learner is asked to write as many solutions as possible to new problems,
such as described in Chapter 4. To standardize the comparison, I convert the dif-
ference in scores into an effect size using Cohen’s d, as described in Chapter 3. In
short, I examine the effect on transfer tests of implementing the design principle,
and I search for substantial and consistent effect sizes.
The right side of Tables 20.1–20.3 summarizes the empirical evidence based on
transfer tests that my colleagues and I have collected concerning each of the 15
principles: the column labeled “ES” lists the median effect size based on Cohen’s
d and the column labeled “Tests” lists how many experimental comparisons
favored the treatment group out of the total number of experimental comparisons
conducted.

Principles for Reducing Extraneous Processing

Table 20.1 lists five principles that are intended to reduce extraneous processing
during learning – coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and tem-
poral contiguity principles. As you can see, there is generally substantial and con-
sistent support for the principles, with three principles yielding median effect sizes
that are high (i.e., above 0.8) and one principle yielding a median effect size in the
medium to large range (i.e., between 0.5 and 0.8). The redundancy principle yields
a medium to large effect favoring no printed text when the lesson is fast-paced;
furthermore, across all the studies the evidence does not support adding printed
text to narrated graphics (with a negligible effect favoring no printed text). The
principles for reducing extraneous processing are the most long-standing, with
four of them dating back to the first edition of this book (Mayer, 2001).

Table 20.1 Principles for reducing extraneous processing

Principle ES Tests
1. Coherence Principle: People learn better when extraneous material is excluded 0.86 18 of 19
rather than included
2. Signaling Principle: People learn better when cues are added that highlight the 0.70 26 of 28
organization of the essential material
3. Redundancy Principle: People do not learn better when printed text is added to 0.10 8 of 12
graphics and narration
People learn better from graphics and narration than from graphics, narration, and 0.72 5 of 5
printed text, when the lesson is fast-paced
4. Spatial Contiguity Principle: People learn better when corresponding words and 0.82 9 of 9
pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screen
5. Temporal Contiguity Principle: People learn better when corresponding words 1.31 8 of 8
and pictures are presented simultaneously rather than successively

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 399 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 400 Principles of Multimedia Design

In summary, in designing multimedia instruction such as illustrations and

printed text, static graphics and narration, animation and narration, instructional
video, or simulation games, five ways to reduce the learner’s extraneous process-
ing and thereby enable better learning outcomes are:

1. Weed out extraneous material (coherence principle).

2. Highlight important material (signaling principle).
3. Do not add printed text that duplicates narration (redundancy principle).
4. Place printed text next to the corresponding part of the graphic (spatial conti-
guity principle).
5. Present corresponding graphics and narration at the same time (temporal con-
tiguity principle).

An important first step in multimedia instructional design is to not overload the

learner’s information processing system with extraneous processing, so the learner
has cognitive capacity available for appropriate cognitive processing of the incom-
ing material. The design features in Table 20.1 are relevant to that goal.

Principles for Managing Essential Processing

Table 20.2 lists three principles that are intended to manage essential processing
during learning – segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. As you can
see, there is substantial and consistent support for each principle with median
effect sizes that are well above the medium level of 0.5. This set of three principles
for managing essential processing made its first appearance in the second edition
of this book (Mayer, 2009), but they now are backed by substantially more sup-
porting experiments, especially the segmenting principle.
In summary, three ways to help learners manage their essential processing are:

1. Break a lesson into learner-paced parts (segmenting principle).

2. Provide pre-training in the names and characteristics of the key terms
(pre-training principle).
3. Present words in spoken form (modality principle).

Table 20.2 Principles for managing essential processing

Principle ES Tests
6. Segmenting Principle: People learn better when a multimedia lesson 0.67 7 of 7
is presented in user-paced segments rather than as a continuous unit
7. Pre-training Principle: People learn better from a multimedia lesson 0.78 10 of 10
when they know the names and characteristics of the main concepts
8. Modality Principle: People learn better from graphics and narration 1.00 18 of 19
than from graphics and onscreen text

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 400 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 Fifteen Principles of Multimedia Design 401

Once the learner has cognitive capacity available, the next step in multimedia
instructional design is to encourage the learner to come into contact with the core
material in the lesson, which is the goal of principles for managing essential pro-
cessing. Thus, the design features in Table 20.2 are intended to help the learner to
manage the cognitive processes needed to get the presented words and graphics
represented in working memory.

Principles for Fostering Generative Processing

Table 20.3 lists seven principles aimed at fostering generative processing during
learning – multimedia, personalization, voice, image, embodiment, immersion,
and generative activity principles. I put the multimedia principle in this section
because it is intended to prime the learner to make connections between words
and graphics – that is, to engage in the generative process of integrating. Two of
the principles tell what does not work – placing a static image of the instructor
on the screen and displaying the lesson in immersive virtual reality. The other
five principles garner median effect sizes above the medium cutoff of 0.50. There
are new principles that did not appear in previous editions of the book (Mayer,
2001, 2009): the embodiment principle, the immersion principle, and the genera-
tive activity principle.
The final step in instructional design is to encourage learners to exert effort to
make sense of the incoming information, which I call engaging in generative pro-
cessing. Five principles that foster generative processing are:

Table 20.3 Principles for fostering generative processing

Principle ES Tests
9. Multimedia Principle: People learn better from words and pictures than from 1.35 13 of 13
words alone
10. Personalization Principle: People learn better from multimedia of 15 lessons 1.00 13 of 15
when words are in conversational style rather than formal style
11. Voice Principle: People learn better when the narration in multimedia lessons is 0.74 6 of 7
spoken in a friendly human voice rather than a machine voice
12. Image Principle: People do not necessarily learn better from a multimedia lesson 0.20 4 of 7
when the speaker’s image is added to the screen
13. Embodiment Principle: People learn more deeply from multimedia presentations 0.58 16 of 17
when an onscreen instructor displays high embodiment rather than low embodiment
14. Immersion Principle: People do not necessarily learn better in 3D immersive –0.10 6 of 9
virtual reality than with a corresponding 2D desktop presentation
15. Generative Activity Principle: People learn better when they are guided in 0.71 37 of 44
­carrying out generative learning activities during learning

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 401 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 402 Principles of Multimedia Design

1. Use corresponding words and graphics to explain the material (multimedia

principle).
2. Put words in conversational language (personalization principle).
3. Present spoken words in an appealing human voice (voice principle).
4. Have instructors display human-like gestures, eye contact, facial expressions,
and body movements (embodiment principle).
5. Add prompts to engage in generative activities such as summarizing, mapping,
drawing, imagining, self-testing, self-explaining, teaching, and enacting (gen-
erative activity principle).

Two additional principles for what not to do are:

6. Do not put the instructor’s static image on the screen (image principle).
7. Do not convert lessons into 3D immersive virtual reality (immersion principle).

Fostering generative processing is an important last step in instructional design

because it encourages learners to build learning outcomes that will support trans-
fer test performance, which is a primary goal of our research program. As you can
see from Table 20.3, we are making progress in identifying techniques to achieve
this goal.

Boundary Conditions for Design Principles

Not only are we gaining a clear idea of what works (and what doesn’t work) in
multimedia instructional design, we also are beginning to have a much better idea
of when each principle works. Each principle can be subjected to one or more
boundary conditions, such as individual differences conditions, instructional con-
tent conditions, and instructional context conditions, as summarized in Table 20.4.
Individual differences conditions are based on the characteristics of the learner,
such as learners with low versus high prior knowledge or low versus high spatial
ability. Instructional content conditions are based on the characteristics of the

Table 20.4 Boundary conditions for design principles

Boundary condition Example
Individual differences The multimedia effect is stronger for low-knowledge learners
than for high-knowledge learners
Instructional content The signaling effect is stronger with complex material than
simple material
Instructional context The modality effect is stronger for fast-paced lessons than for
slow-paced lessons

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 402 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 Looking Back at How Far Have We Have Come 403

information in the lesson, such as simple versus complex material or concepts ver-
sus procedures or science material versus humanities material. Instructional con-
text conditions are based on the situation under which the material is presented,
such as whether the lesson is slow- or fast-paced, whether the study is done in
a laboratory or a classroom, or whether the test is immediate or delayed. These
boundary conditions can be considered to be moderators of multimedia design
effects, so that the principles apply more strongly under certain conditions.
It is important to note that the boundary conditions are not arbitrary, but rather
can be explained by the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (and also can
aid in clarifying the theory). For example, concerning individual differences,
high-knowledge learners may be able to learn from text alone because they can
generate their own images while learning; in contrast, low-knowledge learners
may need corresponding graphics to help them clarify the meaning of a text.
Concerning instructional content, when a graphic is simple and organized stu-
dents do not need help in knowing where to look in a graphic; in contrast, when a
graphic has many parts and lacks a clear structure, students may benefit from cues
that show them where to look. Concerning instructional context, when a lesson
is slow-paced, learners have enough time to be able to read the words printed on
screen and view the graphics; in contrast, when a lesson is fast-paced, students
may miss part of a graphic because they are looking at printed words, or may
miss part of the printed words because they are looking at a graphic. The cover
page for each principle chapter contains a summary of that principle’s boundary
conditions.
As the field of research on multimedia learning matures, new research can be
expected to clarify the boundary conditions under which the principles apply.
Sometimes researchers may frame such results as a “failure to replicate,” but a
more productive approach is to interpret them as boundary conditions based on
cognitive theory, such as the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In short,
instead of saying there are “mixed results,” a more helpful approach is to deter-
mine whether the situations where a principle does or does not apply can be
explained by learning theories.

Looking Back at How Far Have We Have Come

In looking across the three editions of Multimedia Learning, it is clear that we are
making progress. As summarized in Table 20.5, the first edition of Multimedia
Learning (Mayer, 2001) offered seven principles of multimedia design based on
45 experiments carried out by my colleagues and me. The second edition (Mayer,
2009) converted one principle to a boundary condition (i.e., the individual differ-
ences principle in which some effects were strong for certain types of learners but

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 403 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 404 Principles of Multimedia Design

Table 20.5 Progress across three editions of Multimedia Learning

Edition Number of principles Number of experimental tests
Multimedia Learning (2001) 7 45
Multimedia Learning: Second 12 93
Edition (2009)
Multimedia Learning: Third 15 209
Edition (2020)

not for other types of learners) and added six new principles, yielding 12 princi-
ples of multimedia design based on 93 experiments carried out by my colleagues
and me. The first edition focused mainly on principles for reducing extraneous
processing, whereas the second edition added principles for managing essential
processing and, to a lesser extent, for fostering generative processing.
The present edition adds three new principles – the immersion principle, the
embodiment principle, and the generative activity principle – all under the head-
ing of fostering generative processing. As you can see, the research base doubled
from the first edition to the second (from 45 to 93), and doubled again from the
second to the third (from 93 to 209), allowing us to base our conclusions on
more than 200 experimental comparisons. In addition, the theoretical foundation
expanded from mainly focusing on techniques for reducing extraneous process-
ing to include a focus on techniques for managing essential processing and most
recently to broadening how we think about fostering generative processing.
The introduction to the book has also developed into separate chapters on the
science of learning (Chapter 2), the science of instruction (Chapter 3), and the sci-
ence of assessment (Chapter 4), as well as an introductory chapter (Chapter 1) and
a chapter devoted exclusively to the multimedia principle (Chapter 5), which is the
starting pointing for our research program. The addition of a chapter focusing on
the assessment of learning outcomes highlights the recognition of the importance
of how we test for understanding of multimedia lessons based on transfer tests.
Overall, a comparison among the three editions of this book signals the growing
number of evidence-based principles and supporting evidence concerning them,
and a broadening of the theoretical focus beyond reducing extraneous processing,
to include managing essential processing and, most recently, fostering generative
processing. In addition to examining the role of the cognitive process of selecting
information for processing, we are making progress in examining how to guide
the cognitive processes of organizing and integrating. The underlying theoretical
basis has expanded to include social processes in learning (such as social agency
theory described in Chapter 14) and motivational processes in learning (such as
interest theory described in Chapter 6 and Chapter 18 as well as self-efficacy the-
ory described in this chapter).

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 404 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 Looking Forward to Possible New Directions 405

Parallel advancements are being made in the wider literature on the design of
multimedia instructional messages, as reflected in growth in the research base
between the first edition of The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
(Mayer, 2005) and the second edition (Mayer, 2014). Similarly, the four editions of
e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (Clark & Mayer, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2016)
reflect a continual broadening of the research base to support multimedia design
principles for practitioners.

Looking Forward to Possible New Directions

Looking to the future, what will be some possible new principles? Most of the
principles summarized in Tables 20.1–20.3 are based on a cognitive approach
(involving reducing extraneous processing or managing essential processing) or
a social approach (involving fostering generative processing). An emerging next
step is to incorporate emotional and motivational features that promote learning.
My colleagues and I have been exploring possible principles based on emotional
design and motivational design, which I share in this section.

Emotional Design Principles

According to the coherence principle, adding emotion-arousing details to a lesson
is likely to distract the learner and lead to poorer learning outcomes. For example,
showing color photos or video clips of lightning strikes around an airplane or on a
golf course does not help people learn from a multimedia lesson on lightning for-
mation (Harp & Mayer, 1997, 1998; Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001). Harp and Mayer
(1997, 1998) used the term seductive details to refer to interesting but irrelevant
graphics or words that are added to a multimedia lesson, building on earlier work
on learning from text by Garner, Gillingham, and White (1989).
Can we use emotion-arousing graphics or words in a way that fosters learning
rather than hinders it? In order to address this issue, Mayer and Estrella (2014)
asked college students to view a computer-based slideshow on how a virus causes
a cold that was presented with bland black-and-white line drawings (control
group) as shown in the top panel of Figure 20.1 or with the virus and host cell
rendered in color with facial expressions (emotional design group) as shown in the
bottom panel of Figure 20.1. In this case, we intended that the added color and
facial expressions would not serve as seductive details, because the added material
was interesting and relevant rather than interesting but irrelevant. The fierce look
of the virus is consistent with the storyline that the virus attacks the host cell, and
the change from a confused look by the host cell followed by a sick look also is
consistent with this storyline. Across two experiments, the emotional design group
performed better than the control group on a subsequent transfer test, yielding

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 405 16/04/20 1:56 PM

 406 Principles of Multimedia Design

Step 3: Injecting Genetic Material into the Host Cell

Once attached to the host cell, a virus injects its genetic

instructions into the cell through the cell membrane. Enveloped
viruses simply release their contents when they get inside.

STEP 3: Injecting
genetic material
into the host cell.

Step 3: Injecting Genetic Material into the Host Cell

Once attached to the host cell, a virus injects its genetic

instructions into the cell through the cell membrane. Enveloped
viruses simply release their contents when
whe they get inside.

STEP P33: Injecting

genetic material
into the host cell.

Figure 20.1 Screenshot from control version (top) and emotional design version (bottom) of the virus
lesson

an effect size of d = 0.69 in Experiment 1 and d = 0.65 in Experiment 2 favor-

ing added details. In related work, similar results were reported by Plass, Heidig,
Hayward, Homer, and Um (2014) and Um, Plass, Hayward, and Homer (2012).
Overall, this line of research suggests a promising direction for future research on
how to use emotion-arousing features to promote learning.

Motivational Design Principles

Suppose we have designed an online multimedia lesson on statistics based on the
key principles summarized in Tables 20.1–20.3, but students lack the motivation
to exert effort to make sense of the material – perhaps because they feel incom-
petent and anxious when they have to deal with mathematical fields. We could
say the students have low self-efficacy for statistics; that is, they believe they lack

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 406 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 Looking Forward to Possible New Directions 407

competence in solving statistics problems. Bandura (1997) and others (Schunk

& DiBenedetto, 2016) have shown that self-efficacy can affect student learning.
What can we do to help motivate students to engage with the lesson; that is, to
improve their feelings of competence and reduce their anxiety?
To address this issue, Huang and Mayer (2016, 2019) explored the effects of
adding a number of motivational features to an online statistics lesson. For
example, in one study (Huang & Mayer, 2016) some students learned statistics
from the standard online lesson (control group) and others learned from the
same lesson with added motivational aids (motivational design group), con-
sisting of a coping message from an onscreen pedagogical agent about how to
manage negative feelings (as shown at the top of Figure 20.2) and an expressive

Figure 20.2 Frame for coping message (top) and expressive writing prompt (bottom) in online statistics lesson

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 407 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 408 Principles of Multimedia Design

writing prompt asking students to type in some sentences about their feelings
and thoughts (as shown at the bottom of Figure 20.2). On a subsequent trans-
fer test, the motivational design group outperformed the control group with an
effect size of d = 0.28. Importantly, the motivational design group also reported
less anxiety (d = –0.18) and greater self-efficacy (d = 0.30). In another study with
a motivation design group that included these and additional features intended
to improve self-efficacy based on Bandura’s (1997) theory of the sources of
self-efficacy, the motivational design group performed better on a transfer test
than the control group (d = 0.42), and also reported less anxiety (d = –0.45)
and greater self-efficacy (d = 0.44). Overall, this line of research points to the
potential of incorporating motivational features in multimedia lessons. Research
on the instructional features that prime motivational processes represents an
important direction for future research, because motivation is an important part
of a complete theory of multimedia learning.

The Future of Multimedia Learning

As noted at the start of this chapter, research on multimedia learning has twin
goals: (1) the theoretical goal of constructing an evidence-based theory of how
people learn from words and graphics, and (2) a practical goal of discovering
evidence-based principles of how to design multimedia instructional messages.
Writing this third edition of Multimedia Learning has helped me see that much
progress has been made and has given me insights into what remains to be done.
Where should the field go from here? In this book, my focus is on systematizing
and disseminating our progress to date in achieving these goals, but in this section
I take the liberty of offering my vision for the future of research on multimedia
learning. In short, I foresee work aimed at determining what works, when it works,
and how it works.

What Works?
The 15 multimedia design principles highlighted in this book represent a systematic
review of what works (and what doesn’t work) in the design of multimedia instruc-
tional materials based on our 30 years of research. As summarized in Table 20.6, three
future directions involve replication, extension, and expansion of the principles.
First, concerning replication, there is a need to determine whether the effects
reported in this book can be replicated. In their landmark book, Scientific Research
in Education, Shavelson and Towne (2002, p. 70) list “Replicate and Generalize
Across Studies” as one of the six guiding principles for scientific inquiry in educa-
tion. Here is the case for replication (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, p. 70):

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 408 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 The Future of Multimedia Learning 409

Table 20.6 Three future directions for research on multimedia learning

Direction Description Example
Replication Can we obtain the same effect Across several experiments, adding seductive details to
under the same circumstances? the lightning lesson hurts learning
Extension Can we obtain the same effect Summarizing is effective for video lectures on statistics,
under different circumstances? online lessons, and learning in immersive virtual reality
Expansion Can we find new effects? In preliminary research, adding motivational prompts
can improve learning from an online statistics lesson

Replication and generalization strengthen and clarify the limits of scientific

conjectures and theories. By replication we mean, at an elementary level, that if one
investigator makes a set of observations, another investigator can make a similar set of
observations under the same conditions. Replication in this sense comes close to what
psychometricians call reliability – consistency of measurements from one observer to
another.

Although some journal editors and reviewers may seek to marginalize replication
studies, there is reason to argue that replication serves a crucial role, especially
given the current interest in what has been called the replication crisis (Maxwell,
Lau, & Howard, 2015) – the degree to which classic effects in psychology can be
replicated. In the case of multimedia learning, we get a much better picture of what
works in multimedia instructional design when there are enough studies investi-
gating the same effect to be able to conduct a meta-analysis. In short, there is no
substitute for a rich evidence base.
Second, concerning extension, most of the studies reported in this book are
short-term laboratory studies with immediate tests. It would be useful to know the
extent to which the effects reported in this book are observed when the lessons
are longer, administered in educational contexts, and/or subjected to delayed tests.
Most of the foundational studies in this field involved paper-based lessons, and
then were followed up with computer-based lessons such as narrated slideshows
or narrated animations. It would be useful to know the extent to which the effects
observed with these media apply to other media, such as interactive simulation
games, video, intelligent tutoring systems, immersive virtual reality, augmented
reality, and mobile technology. Most of the effects reported in this book involve a
small subset of topics mainly in the sciences. It would be useful to know the extent
to which the effects apply to other topics. Most of the studies reported in this
book involve beginning college students (with an average age of 18–19 years). It
would be useful to know the extent to which the observed effects extend to other
populations.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 409 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 410 Principles of Multimedia Design

Third, concerning expansion, as noted in this chapter, the number of

e­vidence-based principles has been growing (from seven principles in 2001 to
15 in this volume), and I foresee that new principles will be added in the future.
For example, I expect to see additions in the areas of emotional design and moti-
vational design, as exemplified by studies reviewed in the foregoing section on
“Looking Forward to Possible New Directions.” Although the cognitive theory of
multimedia learning began with a focus on cognitive processes in learning, it
has been enriched by adding social processes, and in this edition, by looking at
the processes involved with embodiment, immersion, and generative activities,
which has led to new principles being added. The next step is to better incorporate
motivational and affective processes, which I suspect will lead to important new
principles being added.

When Does It Work?

The boundary conditions proposed in this book represent our continuing efforts to
identify key moderating variables for basic multimedia design principles. Future
work is needed to better pinpoint the boundary conditions for each principle. Three
areas of particular interest concern which kinds of learners, which kinds of mater-
ials, and under which conditions. These three areas are summarized in Table 20.7.
First, concerning the question of what works for which kinds of learners, several
of the principles reported in this book apply to low-knowledge learners but not
to high-knowledge learners. This pattern is in line with Kalyuga’s (2014) expertise
reversal principle – the idea that instructional techniques that help one kind of
learner may not help or may even hurt another kind of learner. Currently, there is
solid evidence that the most important individual difference variable in multime-
dia learning is the learner’s existing knowledge. In the future, research is needed
to determine the degree to which other individual difference variables might mod-
erate multimedia design effects in consistent ways.

Table 20.7 Three directions for research on when multimedia learning design principles work
Direction Description Example
Which kinds of learners Do individual difference variables Does a principle hold for older and
moderate multimedia design younger learners?
effects?
Which kinds of materials Does the type of instructional topic Does a principle hold for lessons on
or objective moderate multimedia science principles and technical
design effects? procedures?
Under which conditions Does the instructional context or Does a principle hold in laboratory
environment moderate multimedia studies and classroom studies?
design effects?

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 410 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 The Future of Multimedia Learning 411

Second, concerning the question of what works for which kinds of instructional
materials and objectives, most of the instructional materials examined in this book
involve a small set of scientific principles. For example, our work has examined
how people learn how various scientific systems work, such as pumps, brakes,
lightning, electric motors, electrical circuits, Doppler Effect, the human respiratory
system, the human circulatory system, and the human ear. Future work is needed
to determine whether the principles apply to other topics, kinds of knowledge, and
instructional objectives.
Third, concerning the question of what works under which conditions, we see
that the pace of the presentation can moderate multimedia design effects. For
example, in this book we see that the redundancy principle works well for fast-
paced lessons but not for slow-paced lessons or lessons under learner control.
Future research is needed to pinpoint the conditions and contexts that affect the
applicability of our multimedia design principles, including whether the effects
remain on delayed tests, when the lessons are presented in actual educational
contexts, and when the lesson lasts more than a few minutes.

How Does It Work

A major goal of research on multimedia learning is to build a useful model of
how people learn from words and graphics. Each of the 15 multimedia design
principles examined in this book is grounded in and contributes to the cognitive
theory of multimedia learning. Theories of multimedia learning seek to determine
how instructional methods affect learning processes, which in turn affect learning
outcomes. For example, effective instructional methods, such as using segmenting,
leads to deeper cognitive processing during learning, which is reflected in superior
performance on transfer problems.
Overall our results are most consistent with a cognitive theory of multimedia
learning which is based on three assumptions – that people have separate visual
and auditory channels, that the channels are limited in capacity, and that mean-
ingful learning involves actively selecting, organizing, and integrating incoming
visual and auditory information. Each of the design effects summarized in Tables
20.1–20.3 is consistent with the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The cog-
nitive theory of multimedia learning is evolving to incorporate not only cognitive
processes in learning, but also social, affective, and motivational processes in
learning.
In no case did we find support for the information delivery theory in which
visual and verbal modes of presentation are viewed as two delivery channels. The
information delivery metaphor does not seem to be a productive one for the design
of effective multimedia messages. Instead, I view multimedia learners as active
sense-makers who actively process the incoming words and pictures through visual
and auditory channels that are highly limited in capacity. My theoretical approach

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 411 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 412 Principles of Multimedia Design

is based on the idea that learning is a generative activity in the sense that learners
actively select important information from the lesson, mentally organize it into
a coherent structure, and integrate it with relevant prior knowledge. In order to
understand multimedia design, it is helpful to begin with a research-based theory
of how people learn from words and pictures.
My focus throughout the book has been on instructional methods (i.e., based
on the 15 multimedia design principles) and measures of learning outcome (i.e.,
performance on a transfer test). Instructional methods concern what was added
to a lesson (such as signaling or segmenting or conversational style). Learning
outcome measures are intended to tell us what was learned. An important step for
future research is to insert a focus on learning processes – cognitive, social, affec-
tive, and motivational processes during learning – between instructional methods
and learning outcomes. We want to know what is going on inside the learner’s
head during learning, and how that is related to the instructional method and the
learning outcome.
Five common techniques for measuring learning processes are self-report sur-
veys, data mining of learner behavior, eye-tracking monitoring, biometric moni-
toring, and brain activity monitoring. Self-report measures involve asking learners
to indicate their cognitive, affective, and motivational processes during learning,
usually by completing a rating scale after the lesson. For example, students given
motivational aids during learning from an online multimedia statistics lesson gave
higher ratings of self-efficacy and lower ratings of anxiety than students who were
not given the aids (Huang & Mayer, 2016, 2019). Self-report surveys are the most
commonly used measures because they are easy to administer and score. However,
their interpretation is problematic to the extent that people may not be able or
willing to retrospectively report on their mental state during learning. In short,

Table 20.8 Five ways to measure learning processes for research on how multimedia learning works
Measure Type Description
Self-report survey Subjective Construct scales based on surveys asking for ratings of agreement
to statements or multiple choice
Data mining Objective Construct metrics based on computer logs of time-stamped key
presses or based on smart-pen logs of time-stamped pen strokes
Eye tracking Objective Construct metrics based on the place and duration of eye-fixations
and transitions
Biometric monitoring Objective Construct metrics based on physiological activity such as
­electrodermal activity and heart rate variability
Brain monitoring Objective Construct metrics based on brain activity such as electrical activity
measured with portable EEG technology

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 412 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 The Future of Multimedia Learning 413

subjective measures – such as self-report surveys – may not be the most accurate
way to assess learning processes.
Let’s consider the potential of objective measures that have potential to contrib-
ute to our understanding of “how it works,” including data mining, eye-tracking,
biometric monitoring, and brain monitoring. Data mining involves trying to find
useful metrics in a large corpus of learner behavior during learning, such as log
files of every time-stamped key press during a computer-based tutoring episode.
For example, time spent looking at feedback may be an indication of effort or
time spent before selecting an answer may be an indication of depth of thinking.
As another example, Rawson, Stahovich, and Mayer (2017) used smart-pen tech-
nology to record every pen stroke that students in an engineering course made in
doing their homework assignments, in order to find the relation between certain
homework behaviors and course grades. Future research can use data mining of
student behavior during learning, such as key presses or pen strokes, to identify
diagnostic metrics of learning processes.
Eye-tracking was used in some of the studies reported in this book (e.g., Ponce
& Mayer, 2014a, 2014b), with a specific focus on duration of eye fixations on rel-
evant material and the number of transitions between corresponding parts of les-
sons, and their relation to transfer test score. Future research can expand its use of
eye-tracking during learning to pinpoint diagnostic metrics of learning processes
based on fixations and transitions.
Biometric monitoring includes the use of sensors for measuring electrodermal
activity (EDA), which involves the electrical conductance of the skin, and heart
rate (HR) and heart-rate variability (HRV), which involves the mean number of
heartbeats per time period and the variance in this measure, respectively. A chal-
lenge for future research is to determine which biometric measures best tap affec-
tive processes during learning, and how they are related to instructional features
and learning outcomes.
Brain monitoring involving portable electroenphalogram (EEG) technology was
used in a few of the studies reported in this book (e.g., Makransky, Borre-Gude,
& Mayer, in press; Makransky, Terkildsen, & Mayer, 2019), with a specific focus
on measures of cognitive load and distraction, and their relation to transfer test
score. Portable EEG technology is less intrusive than fMRI technology in which
learners have to lay still on their backs while in a confined and noisy enclosure. A
challenge for future research is to identify useful measures of cognitive processing
during learning that are related to instructional methods and learning outcome
measures.
Overall, future advances in theories of learning can be supported by more useful
measures of learning processes, including cognitive, social, affective, and motiva-
tional processes during learning. This allows us to better understand the mecha-
nism by which instructional methods affect learning outcomes.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 413 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 414 Principles of Multimedia Design

Conclusion

This book offers a scientific approach to the development of multimedia design

principles. The advantage of this approach is that it allows us to determine whether
principles work, when they work, and how they work, but a disadvantage is that it
causes us to narrow our focus. In this book, I attempt to systematize a program of
research aimed at understanding how people learn from words and pictures. Much
of the work is limited to short, causal explanations; to learning by college stu-
dents; and to a few fundamental principles. Yet, even this modest examination has
required approximately 30 years of sustained study by a team of educational and
cognitive psychologists. This project demonstrates that it is possible to formulate
testable questions about multimedia learning, it is possible to conduct scientifi-
cally rigorous research to answer the questions, and it is possible to develop a cog-
nitive theory of multimedia learning to guide the research. An important outcome
of this project is a demonstration of how it is possible to create multimedia design
principles based on empirical research and cognitive theory.
In summary, multimedia learning offers a potentially powerful way for people
to understand things that would be very difficult to grasp from words alone. This
book demonstrates the potential benefits of learning that involves the integration
of words and pictures. It offers a glimpse of how we can improve upon verbal
messages that have become the basis for most instruction. It offers a vision of
the potential of multimedia to improve human understanding. More broadly, the
research program summarized in this book provides an example of one sustained
attempt to apply the science of learning to education (Mayer, 2011), and it demon-
strates the value of experimental research in addressing educational issues. I will
consider this book to be a success if it helps to promote a better understanding of
how to foster meaningful learning through the integration of words and pictures.

SUGGESTED READINGS
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction (4th ed.). San
Francisco: Wiley.
Jenlink, P. M. (Ed.). (2019). Multimedia learning theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
­Littlefield.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London: Macmillan.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 414 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 References 415

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the science of instruction (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Wiley.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of ‘seductive details’ on mac-
roprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6,
41–57.
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. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.
Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of
cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.
Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Benefits of adding anxiety-reducing features to a com-
puter-based multimedia lesson. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 293–303.
Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding self-efficacy features to an online statistics lesson.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57, 1003–1037.
Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.; pp. 576–597). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (in press). Motivational and cognitive ben-
efits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning.
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to
a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction,
60, 225–236.
Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a repli-
cation crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70,
487–498.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Estrella, G. (2014). Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction.
Learning and Instruction, 33, 12–18.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:
When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 187–198.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 415 16/04/20 1:57 PM

 416 Principles of Multimedia Design

Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design
in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and
Instruction, 29, 128–140.
Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during
online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,
121–130.
Ponce, H., & Mayer, R. E. (2014b). An eye-movement analysis of highlighting and graphic
organizer study aids for learning from expository text. Computers in Human Behavior,
41, 21–32.
Rawson, K., Stahovich, T. F., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Homework and achievement: Using
smartpen technology to find the connection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109,
208–219.
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2016). Self-efficacy theory in education. In K. R.
Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed.; pp. 34–54). New
York: Routledge.
Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 485–498.

9781107187504c20_p395-[Link] 416 16/04/20 1:57 PM