Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attention, Working Memory, and Long-Term Memory in Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Perspective Based on Process Models of Working Memory

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive models of multimedia learning such as the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer 2009) or the Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller 1999) are based on different cognitive models of working memory (e.g., Baddeley 1986) and long-term memory. The current paper describes a working memory model that has recently gained popularity in basic research: the embedded-processes model (Cowan 1999). The embedded-processes model argues that working memory is not a separate cognitive system but is the activated part of long-term memory. A subset of activated long-term memory is assumed to be particularly highlighted and is termed the “focus of attention.” This model thus integrates working memory, long-term memory, and (voluntary and involuntary) attention, and referring to it within multimedia models provides the opportunity to model all these learning-relevant cognitive processes and systems in a unitary way. We make suggestions for incorporating this model into theories of multimedia learning. On this basis, one cannot only reinterpret crucial phenomena in multimedia learning that are attributed to working memory (the split-attention effect, the modality effect, the coherence effect, the signaling effect, the redundancy effect, and the expertise reversal effect) but also derive new predictions.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The finding that no modality effect is found with sequential presentation of longer texts and pictures is also in line with the assumption that long auditory texts are disadvantageous because the learner cannot skip back to previous parts of the text (transient information effect; Leahy and Sweller 2011; Wong et al. 2012).

References

  • Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control process. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. J., & Allen, R. J. (2009). Working memory and binding in sentence recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89.

  • Baggett, P., & Ehrenfeucht, A. (1983). Encoding and retaining information in the visuals and verbals of an educational movie. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 31, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource-sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133, 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., & Camos, V. (2012). As time goes by: Temporal constraints in working memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 413–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucheix, J.-M., & Lowe, R. K. (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20, 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brener, R. (1940). An experimental investigation of memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 467–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colflesh, G. J. H., & Conway, A. R. A. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 699–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, S. M. (2004). Attention and cognitive control as emergent properties of information representation in working memory. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (1984). On short and long auditory stores. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 341–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford Psychology Series, no. 26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-processes model of working memory. In: A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, A. M. B. (1989). Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency as assessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 824–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Gagnon, D. A. (1997). Lexical access in normal and aphasic speakers. Psychological Review, 104, 801–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodd, B. J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2012). Use of signaling to integrate desktop virtual reality and online learning management systems. Computers & Education, 59, 1099–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fürstenberg, A., Rummer, R., & Schweppe, J. (2013). Does visuo-spatial working memory generally contribute to immediate serial letter recall? Does visuo-spatial working memory generally contribute to immediate serial letter recall? Memory, 21, 722–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gyselinck, V., Cornoldi, C., Dubois, V., De Beni, R., & Ehrlich, M. (2002). Visuospatial memory and phonological loop in learning from multimedia. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 665–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iran-Nejad, A. (1987). Cognitive and affective causes of interest and liking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jeung, H. J., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose, P. E., & Brewer, W. F. (1984). Development of story liking: Character identification, suspense, and outcome resolution. Developmental Psychology, 20, 911–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9, 87–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, L., & Potter, M. C. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 713–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J.-M. (2008). Learning from animated diagrams: how are mental models built? In G. Stapleton, J. Howse, & J. Lee (Eds.), Theory and applications of diagrams (pp. 266–281). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magner, U. I. E., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2013). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.002.

  • Majerus, S., Van der Linden, M., Mulder, L., Meulemans, T., & Peters, F. (2004). Verbal short-term memory reflects the sublexical organization of the phonological language network: Evidence from an incidental phonotactic learning paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majerus, S., Attout, L., D’Argembeau, A., Degueldre, C., Fias, W., Maquet, P., et al. (2012). Attention supports verbal short-term memory via competition between dorsal and ventral attention networks. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 1086–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. C., Lesch, M. F., & Bartha, M. (1999). Independence of input and output phonology in word processing and short-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 2–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N., & Saffran, E. M. (1997). Language and auditory–verbal short-term memory impairments: Evidence for common underlying processes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 641–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Griffith, E., Jurkowitz, I. T. N., & Rothman, D. (2008). Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 329–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.

    Article  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, 90, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2006). A formal model of capacity limits in working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 601–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksa, A., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. (2010). Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text. Instructional Science, 38, 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H. (1988). Familiarity and visual change detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 369–378.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1935). Logik der Forschung. Wien: J. Springer. [Reprinted as The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.]

  • Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postle, B. R. (2006). Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain. Neuroscience, 139, 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, M. C., & Lombardi, L. (1998). Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruchkin, D., Grafman, J., Cameron, K., & Berndt, R. (2003). Working memory retention systems: A state of activated long-term memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 709–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummer, R., Engelkamp, J., & Konieczny, L. (2003). The subordination effect: Evidence from self-paced reading and recall. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 539–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). What causes the modality effect in multimedia learning? Testing a specification of the modality assumption. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 164–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C. (1979). Interestingness: Controlling influences. Artificial Intelligence, 12, 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., Fries, S., & Horz, H. (2009). Motivational aspects of cognitive load theory. In M. Wosnitza, S. A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, & P. Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 69–96). New York: Hogrefe & Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & van Genuchten, E. (2011). The role of working memory in multimedia instruction: Is working memory working during learning from text and pictures? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22, 92–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2007). Shared representations in language processing and verbal short-term memory: The case of grammatical gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 336–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipstead, Z., & Broadway, J. M. (2013). Individual differences in working memory capacity and the stroop effect: Do high spans block the words? Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 191–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skuballa, I., Schwonke, R., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning from narrated animations with different support procedures: Working memory capacity matters. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 840–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instruction design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educatonal Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabbers, H. K. (2002). The modality of text in multimedia instructions: Refining the design guidelines. Doctoral dissertation, Open University of The Netherlands, Heerlen.

  • Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiene, D. (2000). Sensory load and information load: Examining the effects of timing on multisensory processing. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 183–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, J. J., Fougnie, D., & Marois, R. (2005). Visual short-term memory load suppresses temporo-parietal junction activity and induces inattentional blindness. Psychological Science, 16, 965–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, J. J., & Marois, R. (2004). Capacity limit of visual short-term memory in human posterior parietal cortex. Nature, 428, 751–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I., & Hulme, C. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1256–1271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, O. C., & Watkins, M. J. (1977). Serial recall and the modality effect: Effects of word frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 712–718.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Visual and spatial working memory: From boxes to networks. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 1373–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, H. D., & Fu, X. (2008). Working memory capacity and culture–based expertise. Paper presented at the XXIV International Congress of Psychology, Berlin.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Erfurt, P. O. Box 900 221, 99105, Erfurt, Germany

    Judith Schweppe & Ralf Rummer

Authors
  1. Judith Schweppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralf Rummer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Schweppe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schweppe, J., Rummer, R. Attention, Working Memory, and Long-Term Memory in Multimedia Learning: An Integrated Perspective Based on Process Models of Working Memory. Educ Psychol Rev 26, 285–306 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9242-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9242-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation