Multimedia Learning: An Analysis of Research Findings and Studies

This report offers a comprehensive analysis of multimedia learning, drawing from various research papers and studies. It explores the cognitive theory of multimedia learning, emphasizing the impact of words and graphics on information retention. The report delves into the role of emotions in multimedia learning, the significance of interactivity, and the influence of design elements. It examines studies on eye-tracking behavior, signaling effects, and modality effects, providing insights into how these factors affect learning outcomes. Furthermore, it discusses the planning, design, development, and evaluation of multimedia learning systems, highlighting the importance of well-planned content and effective instructional design. The report also presents findings on the interactivity effect, emphasizing the benefits of interactive elements in multimedia presentations. Finally, it explores solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement and coherence in hypermedia learning environments.

Introduction
Multimedia learning generally refers to the form of learning which is generally assisted
by a numerous information sources and this are handled jointly so as to understand aw well as
memorizing the contents that are provided (Clark & Mayer, 2016). According to the cognitive
theory of multimedia learning it can be stated that whenever a student is presented with words
and graphics, then they are capable of retaining the information at a higher level when a well-
designed format is used.
Um, E., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in
multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology, 104(2), 485.
This paper mainly discusses the roles that are played by emotions in the process of
multimedia learning. According to the authors, the cognitive load theory in which the
emotion is considered to be an extraneous variable runs counter to this proposition. Due
to the fact that this variables interfere with the learning process so they should be
controlled. The article disagrees with the premises and along with this it also states in the
hypothesis that “the use of design features to induce positive emotions in learners will
result in increased learning…and higher satisfaction with the learning experience”. A
research conducted amongst 118 undergraduate students, helps in understanding the fact
that if aspects related to emotion are added then the experiences are much more positive
when compared to the non-emotion design. The authors concluded to the fact when
positive interactions are added by the designers to the multimedia presentation then the
learning process can have a much more positive influence. This positive integration
might include providing of encouraging feedbacks and coaching for success.

Muller, D. A., Bewes, J., Sharma, M. D., & Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong
thing:improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 144–155.
The article mainly consists of the summarization of the results of the six studies of the
eye-tracking behavior of the learners and what are the possible ways of applying those
behaviors on the design and the application of multimedia presentations so as to favor the
process of learning. The main variables studied in this paper were “signaling
effect”, “prior knowledge effect”, and “modality effect”. The results of the study included
the correlation between the “signaling effect”, “prior knowledge”, “modality variables”
and “eye fixation time measurements”. More time is spent by the learners on focusing on
certain areas having maximum interest. Learning environments which is associated with
the utilization of contents related to multimedia should base their design principles of
how people would learn and what would be required materials for their learning. A way
of verifying the learning and design process have been provide by the reviews of the eye
tracking studies. This articles and the studies which has been used as references in this
paper can provide valuable new research evidence which are related to the use of
multimedia learning techniques in online learning environments.
Low, A. L. Y., Low, K. L. T., & Koo, V. C. (2003). Multimedia learning systems: a future
interactive educational tool. The internet and higher education, 6(1), 25-40.
The planning, design, development, implementation, and evaluation of the multimedia
learning are discussed in this report. According to the author if the system is considered
to be pedagogically sound then it “requires well-planned and skillfully written content,
attractive and functional graphic design and rapid implementation at a reasonable and

affordable cost”. The paper also consists of the discussion about the instructional design
process for the construction of multimedia products. The main things included in the
descriptions are “needed analysis, learner analysis, content analysis, formative
evaluation, course framework design, and lastly the implementation”. The main focus of
the pedagogic aspect is the satisfaction obtained from the learning objectives and along
with this it also discusses how to “set the criteria for measuring the learning outcomes.”
According to the authors an exemplary micro design is something which is “easy to use,
interactive, stimulating, inspiring, and serves some practical purpose” and is considered
to be the overall aesthetics, interactivity, and functionality of the product.
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia
learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147-1160.
This is a study of the 33 university level students of the UK which is mainly associated
with the testing for the presence of an interactivity effect present within a multimedia
presentation. This interactivity effect main takes place when the multimedia products get
added up to the interactive element and this is followed by the engagement of the learners
in the process. Due to this reason, the learning experience tends to be much more
successful. In the experiment discussed in this paper, the participants were divided into
two groups one of which was the control group and another one was the tested group.
Followed by the division of the groups the researcher administrated a program which was
computer-based and consisted of either an interactive or non-interactive element. When
the experiment was completed it was concluded that the “test scores suggest that adding
interactivity to a computer-based lesson increase[s] the depth of learning or
understanding”.

Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An
integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024-1033.
According to the authors of this paper the term interactivity has been considered to be
“reciprocal activity between a learner and a multimedia learning system, in which the
[re]action of the learner is dependent upon the [re]action of the systems and vice versa”.
The paper also presents the INTERACT or “the integrated model of multimedia
interactivity”. The authors also stated that this holistic model is a “new model…which
integrates the affordances of the medium and the activities of the learner”. Along with
this the model also consists of the six important elements which plays a very important
role in the designing process of an interactive multimedia environment and they
are“learning environment, behavioral activities, cognitive and metacognitive activities,
motivation and emotion, learner variables, and the learner’s mental model”. The
conclusion part of the paper consists of the statement of the author which states that the
“model provides educators and educational designers with a process approach that allows
them to design and evaluate specific interactive components for their multimedia
applications”.
Cairncross, S., & Mannion, M. (2001). Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the
benefits. Innovations in education and teaching international, 38(2), 156-164.
The main constituents of this paper are the potential benefits obtained by the use of
interactive multimedia so as to create a learning environment of high quality. The main
premises of the paper states that in the educational system multimedia has not been used
properly. This is due to the fact that some of the important elements like the elements of
design, “such as delivery control, access routes, individual differences, and interactivity”

have been overlooked. After the completion of the final analysis, the author stated that
“interactivity in learning applications merits more detailed investigation and the issue of
how best to design learning activities that engage the user needs to be addressed”.
McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for
promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1-29.
This paper consists of the solutions of the coherence and the metacognition of the
hypermedia which has been introduced in this paper. The main reason lying behind the
interventions is due to the fact that many of the learners get confused when they are not
organized in a coherent way. Proper metacognition of the elements is prevented by this
incoherence which initially affects the learning process. One is to “provide well-defined,
goal appropriate global structure for domain novices”. Another valuable tip is to
“highlight links that denote very important inter-document relationships”. The conclusion
of this article has enlightened due to the reason that it illustrated the importance of
coherence and metacognition in the design of hypermedia documents and offered some
solutions. As the author’s summarized, “in an ideal world, all learners would have
enough metacognitive skill to create coherence between documents, but that simply is not
reality for a vast majority of learners”.

References:
Cairncross, S. & Mannion, M. (2001). Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the
benefits. Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 38(2), 156-164.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Domagk, S., Schwartz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010). Interactivity in multimedia learning: An
integrated model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1024-1033.
Evans, C. & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers &
Education, 49, 1147-1160.
Low, A. L., Low, K. L., Koo, V. C. (2003). Multimedia learning systems: A future interactive
educational tool. Internet and Higher Education, 6, 25-30.
McNamara, D. S. & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting
metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 33(1), 1-29.
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 87-98.
Um, E. R., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia
learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485-498.