Zusammenfassung
Das Lernen mit Multimedia (Kombinationen aus Text und Bild) stellt eine Erfolg versprechende Lernmethode dar. Im Beitrag werden zunächst verschiedene Theorien zum Lernen mit Multimedia beschrieben. Diese betonen die Wichtigkeit einer angemessenen kognitiven Verarbeitung multimedialen Lernmaterials. Allerdings haben Lernende oftmals Schwierigkeiten, Multimedia sinnvoll und effektiv für Lernprozesse zu nutzen. Nach einer Beschreibung dieser Schwierigkeiten werden daher im Beitrag unterschiedliche Formen der instruktionalen Unterstützung beim Lernen mit Multimedia vorgestellt. Diese beziehen sich entweder auf eine Optimierung der Gestaltung multimedialen Lernmaterials oder auf lernerzentrierte Maßnahmen, mit denen die Verfügbarkeit und Anwendung von geeigneten Lernstrategien gewährleistet werden kann. Diese können auch sinnvoll durch Lehrkräfte im Unterricht eingesetzt werden. Insgesamt gibt es bislang im Vergleich zu der umfangreichen Forschung zum Lernen mit Multimedia kaum Forschungsarbeiten zum Lehren mit Multimedia oder zu dessen Anwendung in der Praxis.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Literatur
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Hrsg.), The psychology of learning and motivation (2. Aufl., S. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60422-3.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl., S. 206–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bartholomé, T., & Bromme, R. (2009). Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: What kind of support for whom? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 282–293.
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70–87.
Bodemer, D., & Faust, U. (2006). External and mental referencing of multiple representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 27–42.
Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning & Instruction, 14, 325–341.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl., S. 174–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). The effect of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning & Instruction, 20, 155–166.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Hrsg.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (S. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Cromley, J. G., Bergey, B. W., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., Shipley, T. F., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013a). Effectiveness of student-constructed diagrams and self-explanation instruction. Learning & Instruction, 26, 45–58.
Cromley, J. G., Perez, A. C., Fitzhugh, S., Newcombe, N., Wills, T. W., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013b). Improving students’ diagrammatic reasoning: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 511–537.
Eitel, A. (2016). How repeated studying and testing affects multimedia learning: Evidence for adaptation to task demands. Learning and Instruction, 41, 70–84.
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451–461.
Gog, T. van. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl., S. 263–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In M. P. Zanna (Hrsg.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Bd. 38, S. 69–119). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123.
Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 447–465). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742.
Hegarty, M., Canham, M. S., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 37–53.
Horz, H., Winter, C., & Fries, S. (2009). Differential benefits of situated instructional prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 818–828.
Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning & Instruction, 34, 58–73.
Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18, 178–191.
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.
Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning from animations. Learning & Instruction, 20, 424–433.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 949–968.
Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Gemballa, S. (2011). Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? Computers & Education, 56, 176–187.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation, and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 943–951.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Hrsg.), The psychology of illustration (Bd. 1, S. 51–85). New York: Springer.
Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning & Instruction, 13, 177–189.
Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2013). Enhancing learning from different visualizations by self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 49, 83–110.
Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2014). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: Empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 799–813.
Lowe, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl., S. 227–246). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning & Instruction, 14, 257–274.
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2015). Eye-movement modeling of integrative reading of an illustrated text: Effects on processing and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 172–187.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2016). Using eye-tracking technology as an instruction tool to improve text and picture processing and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 1083–1095.
Mason, L., Scheiter, K., & Tornatora, M. C. (2017). Using eye movements to model the sequence of text-picture processing for multimedia comprehension. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12191.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2. Aufl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Hrsg.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzel, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.
Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.
Nitz, S., Ainsworth, S. E., Nerdel, C., & Prechtl, H. (2014). Do student perceptions of teaching predict the development of representational competence and biological knowledge? Learning & Instruction, 31, 13–22.
Ohle, A., McElvany, N., Horz, H., & Ullrich, M. (2015). Text-picture integration – Teachers’ attitudes, motivation and self-related cognitions in diagnostics. Journal of Educational Research Online, 7, 11–33.
Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. E. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110–117.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning & Instruction, 12, 61–86.
Reid, D. J., & Beveridge, M. (1986). Effects of text illustration in children’s learning of a school science topic. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 294–303.
Renkl, A. (2014). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086.
Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K. (2015). Studying visual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9340-4.
Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237.
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016a). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17, 19–36.
Richter, J., Ulrich, N., Scheiter, K., & Schanze, S. (2016b). eChemBook: Gestaltung eines digitalen Schulbuchs. Lehren & Lernen. Zeitschrift für Schule und Innovation aus Baden-Württemberg, 7, 23–29.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Lernen mit Multimedia: die kognitiven Grundlagen des Modalitätseffekts. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 98–107.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 164–176.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Scheiter, K., & Zindler, A. (2011). The perceptual basis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 159–173.
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is „easy“ and print is „tough“: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.
Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2015). Signals foster multimedia learning by supporting integration of highlighted text and diagram elements. Learning & Instruction, 36, 11–26.
Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2014). Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73–84.
Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., Gerjets, P., & Stalbovs, K. (2015). Does a strategy training foster students’ ability to learn from multimedia? Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 266–289.
Scheiter, K., Schubert, C., & Schüler, A. (2017). Self-regulated learning from illustrated text: Eye Movement Modeling to support use and regulation of cognitive processes during learning from multimedia. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schlag, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Supporting learning from illustrated texts: conceptualizing and evaluating a learning strategy. Instructional Science, 39, 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9160-3.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Scheiter, K. (2011). The role of spatial descriptions in learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 22–28.
Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: New insights from investigating students’ viewing behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237.
Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2. Aufl., S. 72–103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00017-8.
Schnotz, W., Horz, H., McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., Ullrich, M., Baumert, J., Hachfeld, A., & Richter, T. (2010). Das BITE-Projekt: Integrative Verarbeitung von Bildern und Texten in der Sekundarstufe. Projekt BITE. In E. Klieme, D. Leutner & M. Kenk (Hrsg.), Kompetenzmodellierung. Zwischenbilanz des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms und Perspektiven des Forschungsansatzes (S. 143–153). Weinheim: Beltz.
Schnotz, W., Ludewig, U., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., & Baumert, J. (2014). Strategy shifts during learning from texts and pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 974–989. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037054.
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Boundary conditions and constraints of the modality effect. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 211–220.
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Verbal descriptions of spatial information can interfere with picture processing. Memory, 20, 682–699.
Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243.
Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning & Instruction, 13, 227–237.
Skuballa, I. T., Fortunski, C., & Renkl, A. (2015). An eye movement pre-training fosters the comprehension of processes and functions in technical systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 598.
Stalbovs, K. (2016). Supporting cognitive processing in multimedia learning: The use of implementation intentions. Unveröffentlichte Dissertation. Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen.
Stalbovs, K., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Implementation intentions during multimedia learning: Using if-then plans to facilitate cognitive processing. Learning & Instruction, 35, 1–15.
Stieff, M., Hegarty, M., & Deslongchamps, G. (2011). Identifying representational competence with multi-representational displays. Cognition & Instruction, 29, 123–145.
Van Gog, T., & Rummel, N. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and social-cognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 155–174.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2009). Toward a synthesis of cognitive load theory, four- component instructional design, and self-directed learning. Educational Psychological Review, 21, 55–66.
Veenman, M. J. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition & Learning, 1, 3–14.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Scheiter, K., Richter, J., Renkl, A. (2020). Multimediales Lernen: Lehren und Lernen mit Texten und Bildern. In: Niegemann, H., Weinberger, A. (eds) Handbuch Bildungstechnologie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54368-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54368-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54367-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54368-9
eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)