• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Redundancy Principle

Redundancy Principle



Covers the Redundancy Principle as it relates to multimedia instruction

Covers the Redundancy Principle as it relates to multimedia instruction



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



5 Embeds 47

http://www.scholarsconnection.com 20
http://thereferencebox.jimdo.com 19
http://web.nmsu.edu 3
http://www66.jimdo.com 3
http://www.slideshare.net 2



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Redundancy Principle Redundancy Principle Presentation Transcript

    • Chapter 10: The Redundancy Principle
      "The redundancy principle suggests that redundant material interferes with rather than facilitates learning"
    • What Is the Redundancy Principle?
      Presented info results in less learning compared to less presented info
      Additional info has negative effect on learning
      Two Variations
      Identical info presented in different ways (same medium)
      Additional info such as a summary (different media)
    • Cognitive Load Theory & Redundancy Principle
      Assumption that intent of education is to alter the contents of long-term memory
      Working-memory has limitations when processing new information
      Instruction should be designed to keep in mind the human cognitive architecture
      Working memory is limited in respect to capacity and duration
      Redundancy in instruction increases cognitive load
      To reduce cognitive load, redundant information must be coordinated with essential information
    • Experimental Evidence for the Redundancy Principle
      Evidence is obtained when elimination of information results in improved learning
      Miller (1937) studied young children learning how to read
      Learning new words accompanied with a picture (cow with a picture of a cow)
      Learned new words and speaking the word (no picture included
      Students learned better without the pictures
      Task of looking at picture requires cognitive resources (takes away from learning of words)
    • Activity
    • Answers to Activity
    • Experimental Evidence 2
      Reder & Anderson (1980, 1982)
      Presented learners with chapters from textbooks in a variety of areas
      Provided second group with summaries of the original text
      Students learned better and retained information longer from summarized texts
    • Experimental Evidence 3
      Carroll (1990) & Carroll, Smith-Kerker, Ford & Mazur-Rimetz (1987) – Minimal Manual
      Computer manuals that minimized explanatory text proved superior to conventional manuals
      Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars, and Tapangco (1996) – Summary/Full-text redundancy
      Students given information re lightning formation
      Summaries with illustrations & captions superior to full-text versions
      Despite early research, it was assumed that presentation via multiple formats would at worst have neutral effects, not negative
    • Split Attention Effect
      When multiple sources of information must be integrated to be intelligible
      When learners split attention, cognitive load is increased
      Text placed near graphic (geometry example) would be considered redundant
      When text is integrated, it is easy to ignore
    • Experimental Evidence 4
      Bobis, Sweller and Cooper (1993) – Textual redundancy
      Textual explanations added to graphics resulted in worse performance on tests
      Text was redundant
      Adding more diagrams had negative effect
    • Experimental Evidence 5
      Sweller & Chandler (1996), Chandler & Sweller (1996) – Computer Application
      Computer and work done on computer were redundant
      Users presented computer manual but no computer
      Users presented both computer and manual
      Learners who had use of computer performed more poorly than those who did not
    • Experimental Evidence 6
      Kalyuga, Chandler and Sweller (1999) – Written/Spoken Text Redundancy
      Demonstrated modality effect by finding diagram and written text was worse than same diagram and spoken text
      Having same written and spoken text was redundant
    • The Centrality of the Redundancy Effect to the Expertise Reversal Effect
      Expertise Reversal Effect – when instructional technique that is effective loses advantage and effectiveness when levels of expertise increase
      As levels of expertise increase, additional explanations become unnecessary and redundant
      Information that may be essential for novices may become redundant as expertise increases
    • Instructional Implications of the Redundancy Principle
      Eliminate all redundant materials presented to learners and all redundant activity that instruction may encourage learners to engage in
      Redundancy principle does not indicate what may or may not be redundant
      Information that is redundant under one set of circumstances may be essential under another
    • Instructional Implications 2
      Redundancy principle is not a simple, universally applicable rule
      Redundancy principle can be explained by cognitive load theory and should always be considered in conjunction with the theory
      Decisions regarding element interactivity should be made from the learner's point of view (novice vs. expert)
    • Conclusions
      Redundancy principle often seen as counterintuitive
      Easy to assume that additional information or explanation could be advantageous
      This assumption ignores knowledge of human cognitive structure
      Large amount of experimental evidence spanning several decades supports the idea that redundant information is not neutral