a systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning

• DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12629/v2/review2
• Corpus ID: 244849191

A systematic review of eye-tracking-based research on animated multimedia learning

• Atakan Coşkun , K. Cagiltay
• Published in Journal of Computer Assisted… 13 June 2021
• Computer Science, Education

18 Citations

A systematic review of emotional design research in multimedia learning, a study of the effects of different animations on germane cognitive load during intangible cultural heritage instruction, application of learning media in improving higher order thinking skills in electronics teaching materials, eye tracking-based evaluation of accessible and usable interactive systems: tool set of guidelines and methodological issues, how to train students to engage in text‐picture integration for multimedia lessons, multimedia use and its impact on the effectiveness of educators: a technology acceptance model perspective, introducing support for learner control: temporal and organizational cues in instructional videos, when eyes tell a story … an eye-tracking approach towards creating a fit-for-purpose learning management system for higher education, why multimedia might matter: the impact of animations and images on item performance and test‐taker behaviour, application and challenges of eye tracking technology in higher education, 89 references, cognitive theory of multimedia learning, using eye movements to measure intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load in a multimedia learning environment., the effects of social and cognitive cues on learning comprehension, eye-gaze pattern, and cognitive load in video instruction, a review of learning demands in instructional animations: the educational effectiveness of animations unfolds if the features of change need to be learned, cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: a systematic review, getting the point: which kinds of gestures by pedagogical agents improve multimedia learning, critical consumption of chemistry visuals: eye tracking structured variation and visual feedback of redox and precipitation reactions, supporting students’ conceptual understanding of kinetics using screencasts and simulations outside of the classroom, the impact of students’ educational background, interest in learning, formal reasoning and visualisation abilities on gas context-based exercises achievements with submicro-animations, computerized electronic features direct children’s attention to print in single- and dual-language e-books, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(11); 2020 Nov

Multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes: A systematic review

M.d. abdulrahaman.

a Department of Information and Communication Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

b Department of Telecommunication Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

A.A. Oloyede

N.t. surajudeen-bakinde.

c Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

L.A. Olawoyin

O.v. mejabi, y.o. imam-fulani.

d Department of Religions, Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

e Department of Mass Communication, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria

Access to quality education is still a major bottleneck in developing countries. Efforts at opening the access to a large majority of citizens in developing nations have explored different strategies including the use of multimedia technology. This paper provides a systematic review of different multimedia tools in the teaching and learning processes with a view to examining how multimedia technologies have proven to be a veritable strategy for bridging the gap in the provision of unrestricted access to quality education and improved learners' performance. The review process includes conducting an extensive search of relevant scientific literature, selection of relevant studies using a pre-determined inclusion criteria, literature analysis, and synthesis of the findings of the various studies that have investigated how multimedia have been used for learning and teaching processes. The review examines various case study reports of multimedia tools, their success and limiting factors, application areas, evaluation methodologies, technology components, and age groups targeted by the tools. Future research directions are also provided. Apart from text and images, existing tools were found to have multimedia components such as audio, video, animation and 3-D. The study concluded that the majority of the multimedia solutions deployed for teaching and learning target the solution to the pedagogical content of the subject of interest and the user audience of the solution while the success of the different multimedia tools that have been used on the various target groups and subjects can be attributed to the technologies and components embedded in their development.

Education, Media in education, Teaching/learning strategies, Pedagogical issues, Systematic review

1. Introduction

Multimedia is a combination of more than one media type such as text (alphabetic or numeric), symbols, images, pictures, audio, video, and animations usually with the aid of technology for the purpose of enhancing understanding or memorization ( Guan et al., 2018 ). It supports verbal instruction with the use of static and dynamic images in form of visualization technology for better expression and comprehension ( Alemdag and Cagiltay, 2018 ; Chen and Liu, 2008 ). The hardware and software used for creating and running of multimedia applications is known as multimedia technology ( Kapi et al., 2017 ). Multimedia technology has some characteristics like integration, diversity, and interaction that enable people to communicate information or ideas with digital and print elements. The digital and print elements in this context refer to multimedia-based applications or tools used for the purpose of delivering information to people for better understanding of concepts.

Indeed, various aspects of human endeavours, especially the educational sector, are being transformed by the advent of Information and Communication Technology (ICT). ICT involves the use of hardware and software for the purpose of collecting, processing, storing, presenting, and sharing of information mostly in digital forms. Multimedia technology is an important aspect of ICT that deals with how information can be represented and presented digitally, using different media such as text, audio, video, among others ( Guan et al., 2018 ). It involves the combination of several technologies provide information in the best possible formats, packages, and sizes.

However, when used in the classroom or for educational purposes, the design quality and sophistication of multimedia application must be high enough to combine the different elements of the cognitive processes so as to achieve the best mimicking of the teacher. There are different types of multimedia applications available in the market today. These applications have been deployed for different educational purposes such as the works deployed for Mathematics classes, Social Sciences, Sciences, Physiology, Physics and Physical Education Studies ( Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami 2017 ; Anderson, 1993 ; Chen and Liu, 2008 ; Chen and Xia, 2012 ; Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ; Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ; Milovanovi et al., 2013 ; Shah and Khan, 2015 ).

The central problem, however, remains the same. Which is, the problem of how to use the applications to provide students with stimulating experience by delivering information for better understanding of concepts. While it is important to develop various applications for effective teaching delivery, each of these applications has its own focus area, peculiarities, target age, merits and demerits. Thus, the taxonomy and component synthesis for the development of the multimedia application need to be extensively investigated as these would affect the teaching delivery, learning and wider applicability. Some of the multimedia solutions have been deployed, tested and recorded significant success, while some did not record marginal success.

The success stories also vary with location, target age and deployment purposes. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the scientific published studies that examined different multimedia tools in the teaching and learning process with a view to identifying the existing multimedia-based tools, understanding their usage, application areas and impacts on education system. In order words, the study, through a systematic review of literature, aims at identifying the existing multimedia-based tools for teaching and learning; understanding their usage and limiting factors, application areas, evaluation methodologies, technology components synthesis and impacts on education system.

To this end, the study is guided by the following research questions:

• (1) What are the existing multimedia tools in teaching and learning?
• (2) What type of multimedia component fits an audience?
• (3) What types of multimedia components are adopted in the existing tools?
• (4) What evaluation methodologies are useful for successful outcome?
• (5) What factors aid success or failure in the use of multimedia tools for teaching and learning?

The outcome of this study is aimed at serving as a guide for teachers and education administrators while selecting multimedia tools and applications for teaching in schools. So, in this study, the taxonomy and component synthesis of some widely cited multimedia applications are provided. Various case studies and results are examined. Furthermore, barriers limiting the usage of ICT and multimedia in teaching and learning are identified; and some unresolved cases and future research decisions are outlined.

The subsequent parts of this paper include Section 2 , which is the literature review that examines multimedia technology and its place in teaching and learning; Section 3 , the research methodology; Section 4 , presentation of results; Section 5 , discussion of the findings; and Section 6 , the conclusion, recommendations and suggestions for future work.

2. Literature review

2.1. multimedia learning and teaching: concepts and resources.

Multimedia or digital learning resources assist learners to get on well with mental representations with the use of different media elements, which support information processing. Information, which is made up of content and sometimes learning activities, are presented with the use of the combination of text, image, video and audio by digital learning resources. It has been demonstrated, by research on using multimedia for learning, that there are more positive results observed in learners who combine picture and words than those who use words only ( Chen and Liu, 2008 ; Mayer, 2008 ). As stated in Eady and Lockyer (2013) , different pedagogy methods were implemented by the use of digital resources. Their paper presented how the authors were able to introduce topics to students, demonstrate to them, stimulate a group, make different text types available and engage students in an interactive manner.

Generally speaking, multimedia technology for educational purposes can be categorised according to whether they are used for teaching or for learning. Some of the different multimedia or digital learning resources are listed in Eady and Lockyer (2013) . Furthermore, according to Guan et al. (2018) , several studies have established the importance of multimedia technologies to education and the widespread adoption of multimedia tools. Multimedia generally involves the use of technology and the widespread adoption of multimedia applications in education is as a result of its many benefits ( Almara'beh et al., 2015 ). Some of the benefits of the multimedia application tools for teaching and learning are summarized as follows:

• (1) Ability to turn abstract concepts into concrete contents
• (2) Ability to presents large volumes of information within a limited time with less effort
• (3) Ability to stimulates students' interest in learning
• (4) Provides teacher with the ability to know students position in learning.

Multimedia designed for learning refers to the process of building mental representation from words and pictures in different contexts. They are designed to assist learning with tools which can be used in presentations, class room or laboratory learning, simulations, e-learning, computer games, and virtual reality, thereby allowing learners to process information both in verbal and pictorial forms ( Alemdag and Cagiltay, 2018 ). Multimedia designed for learning requires understanding of some theories such as cognitive theory of multimedia learning, which postulates three assumptions that describe how people learn from instructional multimedia materials. These assumptions can be phrased as dual-channel, limited capacity, and active processing ( Alemdag and Cagiltay, 2018 ). Dual-channel assumes that learners have many channels to separate visual and auditory information. The restricted/limited capacity assumes that there is a limit to the load of data that can be processed in each channel. Understanding these will allow teachers not overwhelming learners with much information. On the other hand, learners will be aware of their information processing limitations or capabilities. Active processing proposes that when it comes to information selection, organization, and integration, human beings are active agents and are capable of managing the forms of information they are interacting with.

The appropriate use of ICT in teaching transforms the learning environment from teacher-centred to learner-centred ( Coleman et al., 2016 ) just as it is transforming all aspects of human life ( Guan et al., 2018 ). Coleman et al., (2016) emphasised that the shifting from teaching to learning creates a student-centred learning where teachers are there as facilitators and not sages on the stages, thus changing the role of the teacher from knowledge transmitter to that of a facilitator, knowledge navigator and a co-learner. Keengwe et al., (2008a) concluded that the application of multi-media technologies ensures a very productive, interesting, motivating, interactive and quality delivery of classroom instruction while addressing diverse learners' needs.

2.2. Role of multimedia technology in teaching and learning

Technology is evolving and scholars in the areas of Information Technology (IT) and education technology are continuing to study how multimedia technologies can be harnessed for the enhancement of teaching and learning. A software tool can be used to expand teaching and learning in various fields. It is important to provide students with practical experience in most fields of learning.

The importance of multimedia technologies and applications in education as a teaching or learning tool cannot be over emphasized. This has been confirmed in several studies that have investigated the impact of multimedia technology to the education system. Milovanovi et al. (2013) demonstrated the importance of using multimedia tools in Mathematics classes and found that the multimedia tool greatly enhances students' learning. Several works exist that show that multimedia enhances students' learning ( Aloraini, 2012 ; Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami, 2017 ; Barzegar et al., 2012 ; Chen and Xia 2012 ; Dalacosta et al., 2009 ; Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ; Janda, 1992 ; Keengwe et al., 2008b ; Kingsley and Boone, 2008 ; Shah and Khan, 2015 ; Taradi et al., 2005 ; Zin et al., 2013 ).

Multimedia communication has close similarities to face-to-face communications. It is less restricted than text and ensures better understanding ( Pea, 1991 ). Multimedia technology helps simplify abstract content, allows for differences from individuals and allows for coordination of diverse representation with a different perspective. The use of the computer-based technique as an interface between students and what they are learning with suitable fonts and design can be very valuable.

Certainly, multimedia technology brings about improvement in teaching and learning, however, there are a number of limitations in this technology for educational purposes. Some of these limitations include unfriendly programming or user interface, limited resources, lack of required knowledge and skill, limited time and high cost of maintenance among others ( Al-Ajmi and Aljazzaf, 2020 ; Putra, 2018 ).

2.3. Multimedia evaluation techniques

Evaluation entails assessing whether a multimedia programme fulfils the purposes set including being useful for its target audience. Kennedy and Judd (2007) make the point that developers of multimedia tools have expectations about the way they will be used which could be functional (focused on the interface) or educational (involving the learning designs, processes and outcomes). It is important to note that there are different methods used in the evaluation of multimedia and most evaluations entail experiments, comparisons and surveys. The primary goal is to balance assessment validity with efficiency of the evaluation process ( Mayer, 2005 ).

Survey research has two common key features – questionnaires (or interviews) and sampling, and is ideally suited for collecting data from a population that is too large to observe directly and is economical in terms of researcher time, cost and effort when compared to experimental research. However, survey research is subject to biases from the questionnaire design and sampling including non-response, social desirability and recall and may not allow researchers to have an in-depth understanding of the underlying reasons for respondent behaviour ( West, 2019 ; Kelley et al., 2003 ).

Generally, comparison studies follow the format of comparing outcome from an experimental group using the multimedia being evaluated against a control group. This method has been criticised for having inadequate treatment definition, not specifying all treatment dimensions and failure to measure treatment implementation, among others ( Yildiz and Atkins, 1992 ).

Faced with the subjective nature of surveys and the limitations from comparison studies, eye tracking and other student behaviour such as emotional response, provides information not consciously controlled by the student or researcher and is used as an objective data gathering technique. Eye tracking research is a multi-disciplinary field that tracks eye movements in response to visual stimuli ( Horsley et al., 2014 ). Data from eye-tracking allows researchers to validate empirically and objectively, how learners comprehend the multimedia content, the attention of the learner while analysing the multimedia content, and the cognitive demand of the content ( Molina et al., 2018 ). Eye tracking is quite interesting as it provides a useful source of information in the case of children. This is because gathering information using the traditional techniques is more difficult especially when it involves children's interests and preferences ( Molina et al., 2018 ).

Earlier attempts at analysing student behaviour while engaging with online material included analysing student access computer logs, and the frequency of participation and duration of participation ( Morris et al., 2005 ). Nie and Zhe (2020) demonstrated that the conventional method of manually analysing student behaviour is gradually becoming less effective compared to online classroom visual tracking. They found that the online classroom visual tracking behaviour can be divided into several components: selection, presentation, mapping, analysis and collection, as well as the analysis from students' facial expression.

Several works exist that use student behaviour tracking to examine how students interact with multimedia learning tools. For instance, Agulla et al. (2009) , incorporated in a learning management system (LMS), student behaviour tracking that provided information on how much time the student spent in front of the computer examining the contents. They did so through the use of face tracking, fingerprint and speaker verification. Alemdag and Cagiltay (2018) conducted a systematic review of eye-tracking research on multimedia learning and found that while this research method was on the rise it was mainly used to understand the effects of multimedia use among higher education students. They also identified that although eye movements were linked to how students select, organise and integrate information presented through multimedia technologies, metacognition and emotions were rarely investigated with eye movements.

Molina et al. (2018) used eye-tracking in evaluating multimedia use by primary school children. Some studies have used a combination of eye tracking data and verbal data in order to gain insight into the learners' cognitions during learning and how they perceived the learning material ( Stark et al., 2018 ).

As much as eye-tracking and other behavioural research present opportunity for objective evaluation, difficulty of interpretation is one of the limitations of eye-movement data ( Miller, 2015 ), and it is not surprising that the traditional methods of evaluation through questionnaire administration and surveys are still commonly used.

3. Research methodology

This study adopted a research design that involves a searching method for identifying the articles to be reviewed for solving a specific research problem. It includes a systematic review of the article contents for analysis and synthesis. The systematic review follows the procedure outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis for Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 guideline as provided in the work of Moher et al. (2015) , an extension of Liberati et al. (2009) . The guideline is to facilitate a carefully planned and documented systematic review in a manner that promotes consistency, transparency, accountability and integrity of review articles. Although it was originally developed for the analysis of health related studies, it is now widely adopted in other fields of study. Furthermore, the study involves protocol that includes identifying the data sources for the search, the keywords for the search and the inclusion criteria. To aid in synthesis of the identified articles, key points from the articles are summarised in tables and quantifiable components are analysed.

3.1. Data sources

The quality of a systematic review starts with the data sources used for identifying the articles to be selected for the review. This requires a thorough search and scrutiny of existing literatures from variety of academic databases and journals. The academic databases and journals considered for this review include Science Direct, IEEE Explore, ACM Digital library, Google Scholar, Springer, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis, EBSCOHOST, Web of Science, and Scopus. These databases are reputable bibliographic sources and journals or conference papers indexed in them are deemed reputable and of good quality.

3.2. Search keywords

In order to ensure appropriate primary search terms are used and relevant papers are carefully selected for the review purpose, the literature search method of Kitchenham et al. (2009) was adopted. While it is expected that searching on a main string should be sufficient for the query output to collect all related papers, this is not the case always; hence the inclusion of substrings. Some problems associated with the databases used for the study are:

• • Some do not have automatic root recognition
• • Some have limitation of how many words to use e.g. IEEE, 15 words
• • Some databases offer advanced or expert search
• • ACM, IEEE and others do not have anything, not even a precedence rule.

The search terms for relevant literatures in the academic databases and journals specified in section 3.1 , are: “multimedia”, “multimedia technology”, “multimedia technology + Education”, “ICT impact + Education”, “multimedia tools + Education”, “multimedia + Teaching”, “multimedia + Learning”, “Application Software + Education”, and “Digital + Education”.

3.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

For the purpose given, each of the articles from the consulted academic databases and libraries had an equal chance of being selected. In order to avoid bias in the selection, a clear principle was set and adopted to form the criteria for inclusion of papers. These criteria are presented in Table 1 .

Table 1

Inclusion criteria of articles.

Thus, the queries using the stated search strings led to a pool of 10,972 articles in the subjects of interest that were online and written in English. All publications found as at the time of the search, which was in May 2019, were included. Publication date constraint for including a paper in the study was not applied. The process of screening this pool of 10,972 articles to meet the purpose of the study is outlined in the next section.

3.4. Exclusion from pooled articles

The number of articles from the database keywords search were reduced in line with the elimination procedure outlined as follows:

• i. elimination of paper based on unrelated title and elimination of duplications from various sources, leading to a reduction from 10,972 to 1,403;
• ii. examination of the abstracts of the 1,403 articles and reduction from 1,403 to 505;
• iii. elimination based on the direction of the article after reading through, leading to reduction from 505 to 78.

The elimination procedure is represented in Figure 1 which shows the flow of the procedure for screening the articles for the study.

Literature elimination process.

Table 2 provides a summary of the databases visited and the respective number of articles (from the final 78) that were obtained from that source.

Table 2

Search databases and number for articles.

Table 2 shows the percentage of the articles sourced from each academic database and reveals that Science Direct accounts for the highest number of the related articles with 25 (32%) papers, closely followed by Google Scholar 20 (26%) and IEEE Explore with 12 (15%) articles. Springer accounts for 8 articles, which represents 10% of the entire reviewed papers, while ACM Digital Library, Taylor and Francis, Web of science and EBSCOHOST contribute 4 (5%), 2 (3%), 4 (5%) and 2 (3%) respectively. The least paper is contributed by Wiley Online Library with one paper, which represents 1% of the entire papers reviewed for this study.

3.5. Data collection and synthesis of results

Based on the selection mechanism, 78 articles were shortlisted for analysis. Each article was reviewed and information extracted from it for tabulation. The information sought included the following: the type of multimedia tool used, the focus area of the tool, the technology that was deployed, the multimedia components used within the tool, how the tool was applied – whether for teaching or learning or both, the location where the tool was tested, and the target age on which the tool was tested. The researchers also tabulated impressions gleaned from the review in a “comments” column. If the tool was evaluated, then the evaluation methodology, target group, sample size, outcome, limitations of the methodology and whether or not the outcome could be generalized, were also presented.

In the next section, the insights from the articles reviewed are presented and some of the findings presented in tables for ease of analyses and synthesis.

After careful application of the procedures for selection as outlined in section 3 , each of the 78 shortlisted articles were subjected to a systematic review which involved extracting information as itemised in section 3.5 . Such information were tabulated for further analysis. Not all the articles were empirical based or contained the desired data items. Nineteen articles which were based on experimental work reported the details of the multimedia tool developed or deployed. Furthermore, 13 articles with details of the evaluation of the use of multimedia tools in teaching and learning were identified. Also revealed, were barriers to the use of multimedia. The findings from the systematic review are presented in this section.

The set of articles reviewed clearly emphasized the importance of multimedia technology to the improvement of teaching and learning environment. Several studies that have investigated the impact of ICT to education stated that multimedia technology has positive impact on the way teachers impart knowledge and the manner in which learners comprehend subject matters. The review also revealed that several multimedia-based tools exist, most of which are usually based on subject, field, age or level at various institutions of learning. In addition, some of the reviewed papers investigated the impact of teaching and/or learning with multimedia based instructional materials using descriptive, qualitative and quantitative research methods with different focus groups for both the pre-test and post-test conditions.

Nevertheless, despite the impact of multimedia tools on the improvement of teaching and learning activities, it could be counterproductive if the computer-based tools are not properly designed or the instructional materials are not well composed. The reviews showed that multimedia adoption in education requires adequate understanding of technology and multimedia types or components required to properly represent concepts or ideas. This implies that a teacher must understand the learners and know what technology or tool needs to be adopted at a given time for a set of targets. According to the reviews, the target groups determine the type of multimedia components employed while preparing instructional materials and the ways they are to be delivered. To provide context, a review of some of the analysed case studies are presented next.

Huang et al. (2017) explored the use of multimedia-based teaching materials that include three view diagrams (3D) and tangible 3D materials to teach 3D modelling course. This was aimed at determining the influence of multimedia technology in meta-cognitive behaviour of students. The authors employed lag sequential analysis as well as interview methods to examine the pattern transformation of students' meta-cognitive behaviour while solving problematic tasks. The evaluation results show that different teaching method and materials produce different meta-cognitive behaviours in student. The result further revealed that compare to traditional instructional instruments, using 3D tangible object in cognitive apprenticeship instruction stimulates more meta-cognitive behaviour. To teach an introductory course to control theory and programming in MATLAB, a video based multimedia guide was created by Karel and Tomas (2015) for distance learning students using Camtasia Studio 7 program. The software can record screen, edit video and create DVD menu. The impact of the multimedia aid tool was evaluated to be positive on the students based on the feedback.

Zhang (2012) created an online teaching and learning resource platform with interactive and integrated features. The platform was created with Macromedia Flash version 8.0, a form of Computer – Aided Drawing (CAD) software that is very easy to use. In an attempt to test student's professional cognition and operational skill cognition as well as learning satisfaction during learning phase, an experimentation technique that utilizes a non-equivalent pre-test and post-test control group was adopted. The evaluation revealed no significant difference between the groups in terms of professional cognition and operation skill cognition. However, it was noted that a significant difference exists in learning satisfaction, which shows a greater satisfaction in the coursework with multimedia Flash compare to that of the traditional learning method.

A web-based multimedia software is another popular educational tool designed to enhance teaching and learning. The major constraints of web-based learning are in its ability to provide personalised learning materials. Hwang et al., (2007) presented a web-based tool for creating and sharing annotations in their study. They then investigated the effect of the tool on learning using college students as a case study after four months of using the tool. The study concluded that there is value in understanding the use of collaborative learning through shared annotation. The paper also carried out a GEFT test on the students and concluded that there was no significant divergence between field – dependent and cognitive style students on the quantity of annotation. The paper also concluded that in the final examination, the tool provided a high motivation for students to study for their final exams.

Similarly, Bánsági and Rodgers (2018) developed a graphic web-based application in the educational sector for liquid – liquid extraction with the help of ternary phase diagram. The application allows chemical engineering students of the University of Manchester to draw liquid – liquid two – phase equilibrium curves and calculate mixture of phase separation among others. The application was put into use for testing purpose during which student usage figure as well as their opinions was sampled for both full – time taught and distance learning courses. The HTML 5, JavaScript, and Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) based application is interactive and easy to be used. In order to further analyse the web application developed, an iTeach questionnaire for the assessment of the efficiency of individual pedagogical approach was administered to students. The study revealed that students find the application useful as it has increased their level of understanding the course.

In order to teach students how to compose and continue delivering text based information in various media forms for current and emerging technologies, Blevins (2018) made students to search and analyse various multimedia technologies used in new media and capable of reflecting on their current and future works by adopting a scaffold project – based activities. The students were taught Augmented Reality (AR) software in a specific way with an assumption that such method will change next time students embark on AR project. After student's evaluation, the assumption was achieved even more than expected.

Ertugrul (2000) provided an overview of some lab view application software for teaching. The focus of the software was to seek for software use friendliness and compatibility faced by users. The paper provided recommendations for selection criterion. Even though the software applications have been found very useful and could compliment for conventional practical teaching particularly where there is shortage of laboratory facilities, the application is not suitable for engineering kind courses that requires hands on and intensive practical. Davies and Cormican (2013) identified the fundamental principles needed when designing a multimedia training tool or material for effective teaching and learning. The principles considered both students and an instructor's perspectives. Experiments were conducted in Ireland using a computer aided design (CAD) training environment. During data collection, mixed methods (i.e. interviews, surveys and a group discussion) were employed and findings showed that computer-based material is the most effective and popular way to learn. However, the costs, perceived lack of skill and insufficient support could be hindering factors.

The department of Computer Science in UiTMNegriSembian, developed three applications, namely, the Greenfoot, Visualization makes Array Easy (VAE) and e-TajweedYassin. The Greenfoot as a Teaching Tool in Object Oriented Programming is a tool that creates scenarios in order to ease visualization of 2D objects interaction in teaching object-oriented programming. The term “scenario” is used in Greenfoot to mean a project, and it has been used as a teaching aid for object-oriented programming (OOP) language introduction course. To ensure that a standard and quality application is built, the teaching aid was developed using System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). The Greenfoot-based scenario shows a great improvement in visualization and object element interaction and an impressive engagement of students during learning process. The application also provides clear illustration of object-oriented concepts to students and enabled them develop a game-like application from the scenario provided.

The Visualization makes Array Easy (VAE) on the other hand was created using the ADDIE model which is made up of Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate for instructional design. The analysis stage recognizes visualization technique as a key factor for enhancing students' understanding of programming concepts. The design stage of VAE took about a week to create a storyboard, while MS PowerPoint with i-Spring and Video Scribe formed the principal software for developing the application using storyboard as a guide. The VAE was instrumental in teaching students some hard programming concepts like Array. The results of the simple test with 60 students showed simulation technique of VAE to be effective in helping students to learn the concepts. To determine the effectiveness of VAE prototype, learnability, efficiency, memorability, accuracy and satisfaction of students were examined.

While the e-TajweedYaasin software was also developed using the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate) as an e-learning application, the tool was intended to aid students mastering tajweed and avoid common mistakes that were usually made by previous students who had undergone the course. During the analysis stage, visualization and interactive technique were recognised to be helpful in ensuring that students understand tajweed properly and are able to study with ease. The design stage involved the designing of the application layout with the focus on its easy accessibility to users. In addition, its user interface imitates the traditional teaching method called syafawiah. The development stage involved the use of MS PowerPoint with i-Spring features. The combination of audio, video and animation was more effective in comparison to text only in the promotion of learning. A sample of 51 students were selected to use the system and later, they were evaluated based on their ability to read the surah of Yaasin. A great improvement was observed as the number of mistakes had reduced to all the rules as students were enabled to better recognise and practice the tajweed for the surah of Yaasin ( Kapi et al., 2017 ).

Kapi et al. (2017) compared the effectiveness of three multimedia applications for effective teaching and learning. The applications considered were: Greenfoot Tool for programming; Visualisation Makes Array Easy (VAE) and e-TajweedYasin applications. The comparison looked into the design models used in meeting the desired instructional needs. Findings from the paper showed much more improved students' performance, learning and better understanding of subjects taught.

The advantages of using multimedia tools to teach Physics, which most students think is difficult, are enumerated in Jian-hua & Hong's (2012) work. They established that effective application of multimedia technology in university physics teaching can change the form of information, integrating graph, text, sound and image on PC, improving the expressive force of the teaching content so that the students can actively participate in multi-media activities via multi senses. High-quality university physics multimedia courseware is the best means to provide a variety of audio-visual images, which can show a lot of physical processes and phenomena vividly that is difficult by common means. The tool, especially, combines the advantages of multimedia courseware for university physics and that of traditional teaching of physics, and it greatly helped in improving teaching results of physics ( Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ).

Two researchers developed a culturally responsive Visual Art Education module at the secondary level so as to assist the teachers to integrate and to implement a multicultural education in the teaching and learning practices at schools with the aim of enhancing students' knowledge and awareness regarding the elements of art and culture inherited by each race that makes up the multiracial society in Malaysia. Microsoft power point authoring tool was the technology with visual art materials including images and texts in a multimedia interactive teaching material for teaching 60 secondary school students, which resulted in accelerated teaching and learning processes with the IT skills of the teachers greatly improved ( Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ).

Two control groups, pre-test and post-test, were selected for the implementation of a developed multimedia tool for 20 weeks. The tool, multimedia aided teaching (MAT) with text, audio, video and animation, was applied on 60 science students with age less than 15 years. The valid and reliable questionnaires were used as data collection tools. The Attitude Towards Science Scale (ATSS) was used to measure the attitude of both groups before and after treatments. The independent sample t-test was used to analyze the data. The results indicated that MAT is more effective than the traditional one. Students' attitude towards science improved with the use of MAT when compared to the traditional method of teaching ( Shah and Khan, 2015 ).

The effect of multimedia tools on the performance of 67 grade 4 students of social studies in Kayseri, Turkey was presented. Teaching tool with Computer representation with text, audio, video and animation as its components applied on a control group and an experimental group. The study concluded that academic performance of students in social studies was greatly improved when multimedia technique was applied as compared to traditional classroom ( Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ).

Two samples of 60 senior secondary school II students in two different schools in Lagos State, Nigeria, were selected for the pre-test, post-test control group quasi experimental design in the research by Akinoso. Mathematics Achievement Test (MAT) with twenty-five questions from four topics namely: logarithm, percentage error, range, variance and standard deviation and circle theorems was the tool used. It was concluded that the students in the experimental group where multimedia tool was used performed better than those in the control group. It was equally inferred from the work that students' interest, motivation and participation increased according to the researcher and experimental group's teacher observations ( Akinoso, 2018 ).

Specifically, in the field of engineering, laboratory software applications can be used to provide an interface to providing practical alternatives to students depending on their requirement. Ertugrul (2000) provided a review of LabView software applications. The paper provided some knowledge about laboratory software tools used in the field of engineering and concluded that computer-based technology has advanced up to the stage where it can aid Engineering education at a significantly low price. The paper also highlighted some challenges faced by institutions in selecting and in the use of these software such as the need to upgrade software as the curriculum changes while also providing some future trends.

Zulkifli et al. (2008) examined a self-calibrating automated system for depressed cladding applications as they demonstrated utilizing the Laboratory Virtual Instrument Engineering Workbench (LabVIEW) software and General-Purpose Interface Bus (GPIB) interface. The presented model confirmed that the overall experiment time was reduced by 80% and data obtained is more accurate than caring out the experiment physically. Similarly, Teng et al. (2000) presented a Lab view as a teaching aid for use as power analyzer. The paper showed the tool allows for developmental speed to be accelerated as it is a connection between different workbench instruments.

The structured information extracted from the relevant reviewed articles are presented in the next sections. The systematic review enabled us to extract information from the reviewed articles on the type of multimedia tool the article described, what type of technology the tool deployed, what were the multimedia components utilized, and whether the tool applied to a teaching or learning scenario or both. Furthermore, results from articles reviewed for their evaluation studies are also presented including barriers to multimedia use.

4.1. Multimedia tools, technology, components and applications

The systematic review enabled us to extract information from the reviewed articles on the type of multimedia tool the article described, what type of technology the tool deployed, what were the multimedia components utilized, and whether the tool applied to a teaching or learning scenario or both. The results are presented in Table 3 .

Table 3

Summary of multimedia tools, technology, components and applications for education.

Various multimedia tools were identified in the research papers reviewed. Perhaps, owing to the advancement in multimedia technology, several applications have been developed and deployed to enhance teaching skills and learning environment in many fields of study. These include subject specific tools such as that for teaching and learning Mathematics ( Akinoso, 2018 ), the Chinese language ( Wu and Chen, 2018 ), Physics ( Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ) and for teaching Social Studies ( Ilhan and Oruc (2016) . All the multimedia tools were developed for teaching except the CENTRA tool ( Eady and Lockyer, 2013 ) and the e-Tajweed Yaasin tool ( Kapi et al., 2017 ). Likewise, all the tools handled learning except the web-based application reported by Bánsági and Rodgers (2018) and the multimedia interactive teaching material ( Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ).

The tools fell into two categories: standalone or web-based. One-third were web-based (36%) while 65% were standalone.

Technologies identified varied widely. Multimedia tools used included advanced technologies such as computer representation ( Akinoso, 2018 ; Aloraini, 2012 ; Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ; Milovanovic et al., 2013 ) and augmented reality ( Blevins, 2018 ). High-level web design and programming software were also utilized. For instance, Bánsági and Rodgers (2018) and Hwang et al. (2007) utilized HTML 5, JavaScript and Cascading Style Sheet (CSS), which are software commonly used for web site programming. Camtasia Studio 7 software was used in the development of a video based multimedia guide for teaching and learning ( Karel and Tomas, 2015 ).

A commonly used web design and animation software, Macromedia Flash, was also identified ( Zhang, 2012 ). Object-oriented programming software was reported by Kapi et al. (2017) in the Greenfoot multimedia tool reported by them. Some low end technologies such as word-processing ( Eady and Lockyer, 2013 ) and presentation software ( Kapi et al., 2017 ) were also utilised. Other technologies reported include the use of e-book ( Wu and Chen, 2018 ), computer aided design (CAD) ( Davies and Cormican, 2013 ) and YouTube ( Shoufan, 2019 ).

As shown in Table 3 , several multimedia components were identified. These included text, audio, video, image, animation, annotation and 3D, with several of the multimedia tools combining two or more components. However, the incorporation of 3D was reported only by Huang et al. (2017) . All the analysed papers incorporated text in the multimedia tool reported, except in the tool, CENTRA ( Eady and Lockyer, 2013 ). Animation was also embedded as part of the multimedia tool developed for visualisation ( Kapi et al., 2017 ), for teaching Social Studies ( Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ), engineering virtual learning tool ( Ertugrul, 2000 ), CAD ( Davies and Cormican, 2013 ), augmented reality ( Blevins, 2018 ) and in tool for teaching Mathematics ( Akinoso, 2018 ). Figure 2 shows the trend in educational technology based on year of publication of the reviewed articles. The figure reveals that while incorporation of audio and video became common as from 2012, 3-D makes its first appearance in 2017. This suggests that as new ICTs emerge educators are likely to try them in the quest for the best learning experience possible.

Educational technology trend based on year of publication.

4.2. Multimedia tools test location and target age

In this section, information on the location where the multimedia tool was tested and the target age of the study group are presented as summarised in Table 4 . The table also includes comments about the articles that could not be captured under any of the tabulation headings.

Table 4

Summary of multimedia tools for education study locations.

The multimedia tools tested were reported in studies from various countries, including Nigeria ( Akinoso, 2018 ), Saudi Arabia ( Aloraini, 2012 ), England ( Bánsági and Rodgers, 2018 ), Ireland ( Davies and Cormican, 2013 ), Australia and Canada ( Eady and Lockyer, 2013 ), Taiwan ( Huang et al., 2017 ), Turkey ( Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ) Czech republic ( Karel and Tomas, 2015 ), Malaysia ( Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ), Serbia ( Milovanovic et al., 2013 ), Pakistan ( Shah and Khan, 2015 ) and China ( Wu and Chen, 2018 ).

Various age groups were targeted by the multimedia tool tests. A considerable proportion involved university students with ages starting from 16 or 18 years as specified in the articles ( Bánsági and Rodgers, 2018 ; Huang et al., 2017 ); Hwang et al., 2007 ; Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ; Kapi et al., 2017 ; Karel and Tomas, 2015 ). Another group targeted were secondary school students ( Akinoso, 2018 ; Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ) including vocational school students ( Wu and Chen, 2018 ). Shah and Khan (2015) reported testing their multimedia tool on children below the age of 15 years.

4.3. Evaluation methods of multimedia technology tools in education

The articles involving evaluation were examined to identify the methodologies used for the evaluation, the target groups and sample of the evaluation and the evaluation outcome. The limitations of the evaluation were also identified and whether or not the study outcome could be generalized. Thirteen articles were found and the results are presented in Table 5 .

Table 5

Summary of Evaluation methods of multimedia technology Tools in education.

Evaluation of multimedia technology used for teaching and learning is important in establishing the efficacy of the tool. For determination of the impact of a developed tool, an experimental evaluation is more meaningful over a survey. However, the results from the analysis showed that the survey method for evaluation was used nearly as equally as the experimental design.

Experimental based evaluation was conducted by Akinoso (2018) , Aloraini (2012) , Ilhan and Oruc (2016) , and Shah and Khan (2015) in order to determine the effectiveness of the multimedia tool they developed. Another group of experimental evaluations involved designing the research for teaching with or without multimedia aids not necessarily developed by the research team which involved exposing 10–11 year olds ( Dalacosta et al., 2009 ) and elementary school students ( Kaptan and İzgi, 2014 ) to animated cartoons. Another of such evaluation was done by Milovanovi et al. (2013) , who used an experimental and control group to evaluate the impact of teaching a group of university students with multimedia.

In contrast, the survey method was used to elicit the opinion of respondents on the impact of the use of multimedia in teaching and learning and the target group were university students ( Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami, 2017 ; Barzegar et al., 2012 ), secondary school students ( Akinoso, 2018 ; Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ); one involved interviewing the Professors ( Chen and Xia, 2012 ), another involved 4–10 year olds ( Manca and Ranieri, 2016 ) and a sample of 272 students whose ages were not specified ( Ocepek et al., 2013 ).

The focus areas in which the evaluations were conducted ranged from the sciences including mathematics ( Akinoso, 2018 ; Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami, 2017 ; Dalacosta et al., 2009 ; Kaptan and İzgi, 2014 ; Milovanovi et al., 2013 ) to the social sciences ( Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ) and the arts ( Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ). There were evaluations focused on education as a subject as well ( Aloraini, 2012 ; Chen and Xia, 2012 ; Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 ; Manca and Ranieri, 2016 ). While positive outcomes were generally reported, Ocepek et al. (2013) , specified that students in their evaluation study preferred structured texts with colour discrimination.

Sample sizes used in the studies varied widely, from Maaruf and Siraj (2013) that based their conclusions on an in-depth interview of teachers, to Manca and Ranieri (2016) that carried out a survey with a sample of 6,139 academic staff. However, the latter study reported a low response rate of 10.5%. One notable weakness identified was that the findings from all but one of the studies could not be generalized. Reasons for this ranged from inadequate sample size, the exposure being limited to a single lesson, or the sampling method and duration of the experiment not explicitly stated.

4.4. Identified barriers to multimedia use in teaching and learning

The review revealed some challenges that could be barriers to the use of multimedia tools in teaching and learning. Some of these barriers, as found in the reviewed articles, are highlighted as follows:

• • Attitudes and beliefs towards the use of technology in education. Findings from literatures and surveys have shown high resistant to change and negative attitude towards adoption and use of ICT in education ( Cuban et al., 2001 ; Said et al., 2009 ; Snoeyink and Ertmer, 2001 ). In some findings, some respondents perceived no benefits ( Mumtaz, 2000 ; Snoeyink and Ertmer, 2001 ; Yuen and Ma, 2002 ).
• • Lack of teachers' confidence in the use of technology and resistance to change ( Bosley and Moon, 2003 ; Fabry& Higgs, 1997 ; Said et al., 2009 ).
• • Lack of basic knowledge and ICT skills for adoption and use of multimedia tools ( Akbaba-Altun, 2006 ; Bingimlas, 2009 ; Cagiltay et al., 2001 )
• • Lack of access to computing resources such as hardware and software ( Akbaba-Altun, 2006 ; Bosley and Moon, 2003 ; Cinar, 2002 ; Mumtaz, 2000 ; Taylor and Todd, 1995 )
• • Lack of technical, administrative and financial supports ( Akbaba-Altun, 2006 ; Cinar, 2002 ; Said et al., 2009 ; Goktas et al., 2013 )
• • Others include lack of instructional content, basic knowledge and skills, physical environment and lack of time to learn new technologies ( Akbaba-Altun, 2006 ; Cinar, 2002 ; Said et al., 2009 ).

5. Discussion

The findings from the systematic review are discussed in this section with a view to answering the research questions posed. The questions bordered on identifying the existing multimedia tools for teaching and learning and the multimedia components adopted in the tools, the type of audience best suited to a certain multimedia component, the methods used when multimedia in teaching and learning are being evaluated and the success or failure factors to consider.

5.1. Multimedia tools in teaching and learning

The review revealed that multimedia tools have been developed to enhance teaching and learning for various fields of study. The review also shows that multimedia tools are delivered using different technologies and multimedia components, and can be broadly categorized as web-based or standalone.

From the review, it was found that standalone multimedia tools were more than twice (64%) the number of tools that were web-based (36%). Standalone tools are a category of teaching and learning aids which are not delivered or used over the internet, but authored to be installed, copied, loaded and used on teachers or students' personal computers (PCs) or workstations. Standalone tools are especially useful for teaching and practicing new concepts such as 3D technology for modelling and printing ( Huang et al., 2017 ) or understanding augmented reality (AR) software ( Blevins, 2018 ). Microsoft Powerpoint is a presentation tool used in some of the reviewed articles and is usually done with standalone systems.

Standalone tools were favoured over web-based tools probably because the internet is not a requirement which makes the tool possible to deploy in all settings. This means that teachers and students in suburban and rural areas that are digitally excluded, can benefit from such a multimedia tool. This system is considered most useful because a majority of the populace in most developing countries are socially and educationally excluded due to a lack of the necessary resources for teaching and learning. The need to sustainably run an online learning environment may be difficult, and therefore, the standalone, provides a better fit for such settings. However, the problem with a standalone application or system is the platform dependency. For instance, a Windows based application can only run on a windows platform. Also, there will be slow convergence time when there is modification in the curricular or modules, since, each system will run offline and has to be updated manually or completely replaced from each location where the tool is deployed.

The other category, web-based multimedia tools, are authored using web authoring tools and delivered online for teaching and learning purposes. About one-third of the tools identified from the review were web-based although they were used largely in university teaching and learning. Examples of these tools are: online teaching and learning resource platform ( Zhang, 2012 ), graphic web-based application ( Bánsági and Rodgers, 2018 ), multimedia tool for teaching optimization ( Jian-hua & Hong, 2012 ), and educational videos on YouTube ( Shoufan, 2019 ).

One of the benefits of the web based multimedia solution is that it is online and centralized over the internet. Part of its advantages is easy update and deployment in contrast to the standalone multimedia system. The major requirements on the teachers and learners' side are that a web browser is installed and that they have an internet connection. Also, the multimedia web application is platform independent; it does not require any special operating system to operate. The same multimedia application can be accessed through a web browser regardless of the learners' operations system. However, when many people access the resource at the same time, this could lead to congestion, packet loss and retransmission. This scenario happens often when large classes take online examinations at the same time. Also, the data requirements for graphics or applications developed with the combination of video, audio and text may differs with system developed with only pictures and text. Hence, the web based system can only be sustainably run with stable high speed internet access.

A major weakness of web-based multimedia tools is the challenge posed for low internet penetration communities and the cost of bandwidth for low-income groups. As access to the internet becomes more easily accessible, it is expected that the advantages of deploying a web-based multimedia solution will far outweigh the disadvantages and more of such tools would be web-based.

5.2. Components, technology and applications of multimedia tools in education

The results from the review revealed that most of the existing multimedia tools in education consist of various multimedia components such as text, symbol, image, audio, video and animation, that are converged in technologies such as 3D ( Huang et al., 2017 ), Camtasia Studio 7 software ( Karel and Tomas, 2015 ), Macromedia Flash ( Zhang, 2012 ), HTML5, JavaScript, CSS ( Bánsági and Rodgers, 2018 ; Eady and Lockyer, 2013 ; Chen and Liu, 2008 ; Shah and Khan, 2015 ; Shoufan, 2019 ). As shown in Figure 3 , the analysis confirms that text (26.8%) is the predominant multimedia component being used in most of the educational materials while other components such as videos (19.5%), audios (18.3%), images (18.3%) and animation (11.0%) are fairly used in teaching and learning multimedia materials. However, annotation and 3D technologies are least incorporated.

Proportion of multimedia components in reviewed articles.

How these components are combined is shown in Figure 4 . Perhaps, the combination of these four major components (text, video, audio, image) provides the best outcome for the learner and points to the place of text as a most desired multimedia component. The components used also reflect the type of subject matter being addressed. For instance, the audio component is important for language classes while video and image components are stimulating in Biology classes, for example, due to the need for visual perception for the learners. It is, therefore, imperative to note that the choice of the combination of these components could yield variable impacts to learners. Hence, it can be deduced from the studies that most of the tools are applied either as teaching or/and learning aids depending on the nature of the audience and teacher.

Use of various multimedia combinations.

In Figure 4 , we provided the analysis of the component combination of the data set reviewed. The multimedia components combinations range from two to six. This was grouped based on the multimedia components combination employed in each of the data set. Group 1 (G1) represents the number of multimedia application with the combination of Text, Image, audio, Video, and 3D. G2 consists of video and audio, while G13 combines all the multimedia components except the 3D.

Furthermore, a majority of the multimedia applications considered four (4) and two (2) combinations of components in their design as shown in Figure 5 . Tools with five and six components were very few and as the figure reveals, all the tools used at least two components.

Multimedia tools and the number of components utilized.

These findings stress the fact that application of multimedia tools in education and the multimedia component incorporated, are audience, subject, curricula and teacher-specific and the tool needs to be well articulated and structured to achieve its goals.

5.3. Targeted multimedia solutions

Our systematic review also revealed that most multimedia solutions deployed for teaching and learning target the solution to the pedagogical content of the subject of interest (see Table 4 ) and the user audience of the solution ( Table 5 ). Several studies highlighted in Tables  4 and ​ and5 5 showcase multimedia tools used for mathematics classes ( Akinoso, 2018 ; Milovanovi et al., 2013 ), Social science ( Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ), Physiology ( Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami, 2017 ), Physics ( Jian-hua and Hong, 2012 ), in Chemical engineering ( Bánsági and Rodgers, 2018 ) and teaching of Chinese language ( Wu and Chen, 2018 ). In addition, multimedia tools were utilized for teaching specific principles such as in control theory ( Karel and Tomas, 2015 ) and teaching of arrays ( Kapi et al., 2017 ). That multimedia solutions are subject-based is not surprising given that multimedia involves relaying information using different forms of communication. It follows that multimedia solution developers need to incorporate some text, video, audio, still photographs, sound, animation, image and interactive contents in a manner that best conveys the desired content for teaching or to aid learning.

As stated earlier, the review revealed a variety of user types for the multimedia solutions reported. It is noteworthy that a large proportion of the studies where the target audience were university students, a mixture of graphics, text, audio, video and sometimes animation was utilized ( Aloraini 2012 ; Blevins, 2018 ; Huang et al., 2017 ; Shah and Khan, 2015 ). While a sizeable number of solutions were targeted at secondary school students (such as Maaruf and Siraj, 2013 , Kapi et al., 2017 , and Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ), very few studies were identified that targeted students less than 15 years in age. Shah and Khan (2015) targeted a multimedia teaching aid that incorporated text, audio, video and animation. Perhaps the absence of multimedia tools targeted at very young children may be as a result of the inclusion criteria used for identifying articles for the review.

5.4. Success factors

The success of the different multimedia tools that have been used on the various target groups and subjects can be attributed to the technologies and components embedded as shown in Tables  4 and ​ and5. 5 . In most cases where text, audio, video, graphics and animations were the components of choice, significant improvements in teaching and learning are used, as reported in the studies reviewed ( Blevins, 2018 ; Huang et al., 2017 ; Zhang, 2012 ).

These studies also implemented technologies such as 3D modelling and printing; Macromedia flash version 8.0 and augmented reality (AR) software respectively. It is worthy of note that all the above-mentioned multimedia tools were applicable in both the teaching and learning processes. Another set of tools with components being text, audio, video and animation, excluding graphics, and equally applied in both the teaching and learning processes, adopted computer representation as their technologies ( Aloraini, 2012 ; Ilhan and Oruc, 2016 ; Milovanovic et al., 2013 ). Teaching and learning were equally greatly improved in these cases.

5.5. Evaluation methodologies

Our systematic review included a synthesis of the methodologies described by the reviewed articles for evaluating the multimedia tools that they present as shown in the summary in Table 5 . The evaluation methodologies appeared to be different depending on the type of multimedia tool, technology components, deployment strategies, and application area and target groups. However, two main evaluation methods were identified - experimental investigations and the survey methodology.

The experimental approach involved the use of an experimental group and a control group, where the assessment of the impact of the multimedia tool on the students' performance on the experimental group was compared with the performance of the control group who were taught the same content without the use of the multimedia tool. This experimental approach is a widely practiced evaluation method and has proven to be effective. It was deployed by Aloraini (2012) , Milovanovi et al. (2013) , Kaptan and İzgi (2014) , Shah and Khan (2015) , Ilhan and Oruc (2016) and Akinoso (2018) in their studies in the subject area of education, social sciences, general science, science, education and mathematics classes respectively.

Survey, as an evaluation approach which was used in 46% of the studies reviewed, involved the use of questionnaires that were administered to gather opinion on the perceived impact of the multimedia tool from a targeted group of respondents. From the systematic review, it was found that the questionnaire administration approach also varied. The data collection could be face-to-face interview ( Al-Hariri and Al-Hattami, 2017 ; Barzegar et al., 2012 ; Chen and Xia, 2012 ), or online survey ( Armenteros et al., 2013 ; Wang et al., 2020 ).

The difficulty of determining impact from a survey is related to the weaknesses associated with instrument design and sampling biases. It is our opinion that the perceived impact of the technology components used in the development of the multimedia tools may not be accurately ascertained using survey when compared with the actual deployment and experimentation with the multimedia tool that takes place in experimentation approach. Besides, in the survey approach, judgment is merely based on perceptions. Interestingly, the simplicity and ease of the survey method makes it a good option for evaluating larger target groups, and its findings can be generalised when the statistical condition is satisfied ( Krejcie and Morgan, 1970 ).

Although the evaluation studies analysed had publication dates as recently as 2015 to 2018, none reported any objective data collection such as from eye-tracking or other behavioural data. Perhaps, this may be due to our search keyword terms not being wide enough to identify multimedia evaluation studies that used objective data gathering. It could also be that the cost, time and effort needed to collect objective data means that many studies incorporating evaluation are avoiding this route.

5.6. Barriers to multimedia use in teaching and learning

Several barriers to multimedia use in teaching and learning were revealed as a result of the review. Such barriers include resistance to the adoption of ICT, lack of teachers' confidence in the use of technology, resistance to change on the part of teachers, a lack of ICT skills and lack of access to ICT resources. Other barriers identified were the lack of support, lack of time to learn new technologies, lack of instructional content, and the physical environment in which multimedia delivery took place. Some studies reported respondents that perceived no benefits from the use of multimedia. These barriers certainly affect both the integration of multimedia in teaching and learning and the uptake of the multimedia tool.

Most of the barriers identified could be classified into three groups with a major one being the fear or resistance to change. This means that change management must be an integral part of multimedia tools development and deployment in order to achieve the desired goal. Also, barriers such as lack of time and lack of resources should not be underestimated. Some of the studies reported providing the hardware for the multimedia application and such an approach should be considered. Most multimedia tools are ICT driven and as such the identified barrier of lack of ICT skills is an important aspect that must be addressed. This can be done as part of the change process and would also boost the confidence of teachers to incorporate multimedia for teaching.

It is important that the multimedia tool is designed and developed with the end-goal in mind. As indicated, some recipients of multimedia applications did not see any benefit in its use. This means that the multimedia tool should be designed to provide an experience that is worth the teachers and students' time, attention and effort.

6. Conclusions and future research direction

A lot of work has been done to highlight the effectiveness of multimedia as a teaching and learning aid. This paper provides a systematic review of studies on the use of multimedia in education in order to identify the multimedia tools being commonly used to aid teaching and learning. The paper did a systematic review of extant literature that reported studies that have been carried out to determine the extent to which multimedia has been successful in improving both teaching and learning, and challenges of using multimedia for leaning and teaching.

We note, however, that our review, especially of the studies on evaluation of multimedia, leaned more to the outcome from the studies rather than the process. Some of the information that was not captured include how the classroom teacher's mastery of the technology influences the attractiveness of the tool to the learner, both visually and through the content and if the multimedia tool allowed for learners' participation. Also, while studies on multimedia evaluation was of interest to us, this search phrase was not part of the search phrases used. A future review could incorporate these for a richer perspective.

It is obvious from the review that researchers have explored several multimedia in order to develop teaching and learning tools either based on the web or standalone using different technologies. It is observed that there exist several multimedia tools in education, but the proliferation of the tools is attributed to the evolvement of technologies over the years and the continuous teachers' efforts to improving knowledge delivery with respect to the subject areas and target audience. It is also revealed that most multimedia solutions deployed for teaching and learning target the solution to the pedagogical content of the subject of interest and the user audience of the solution. The success of the different multimedia tools that have been used on the various target groups and subjects is also attributed to the technologies and components embedded.

Furthermore, the evaluation methodologies and learning outcomes of the deployment of multimedia tools appeared to be different depending on the type of multimedia tool, technology components, deployment strategies, and application area and target groups. The two main evaluation methodologies identified from the various studies reported in the articles we reviewed were the experimental investigations and the survey methodology.

Attitudes and beliefs towards the use of technology in education, lack of teachers' confidence and resistance to change, lack of basic knowledge and ICT skills, lack of technical, administrative and financial supports, lack of physical environment are some of the barriers identified in the various articles reviewed. These barriers affect the integration of multimedia in education.

For future work, efforts should be made to explore mobile technology with several multimedia components in order to enhance teaching and learning processes across a diverse group of learners in the primary, secondary, vocational, and higher institutions of learning. Such research efforts would be significant in increasing inclusiveness and narrowing the educational divide. Also, research into the change management process for overcoming the barriers to multimedia adoption would be of interest.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This work was supported by Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TetFund), Ministry of Education, Federal Government of Nigeria 2016–2017 Institutional Based Research Grant.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

• Agulla E.G., Rúa E.A., Castro J.L.A., Jiménez D.G., Rifón L.A. 2009 11th IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. 2009. Multimodal biometrics-based student attendance measurement in learning management systems; pp. 699–704. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akbaba-Altun S. Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2006; 9 (1):176–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Akinoso O. Effect of the use of multimedia on students' performance in secondary school mathematics. Global Media J. 2018; 16 (30):1–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Ajmi N.A.H., Aljazzaf Z.M. Factors influencing the use of multimedia technologies in teaching English language in Kuwait. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020; 15 (5):212–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alemdag E., Cagiltay K. A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Comput. Educ. 2018; 125 :413–428. 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Hariri M.T., Al-Hattami A.A. Impact of students' use of technology on their learning achievements in physiology courses at the University of Dammam. J. Taibah Univ. Med. Sci. 2017; 12 (1):82–85. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Almara'beh H., Amer E.F., Sulieman A. The effectiveness of multimedia learning tools in education. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Software Eng. 2015; 5 (12):761–764. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aloraini S. The impact of using multimedia on students’ academic achievement in the College of Education at King Saud University. Kind Saud Univ. J. King Saud Univ. Lang. Transl. 2012; 24 :75–82. 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson R.E. IEA Computers in Education Study, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota. 1993. Computers in American schools 1992: an overview: a national report from the international IEA computers in education study. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armenteros M., Liaw S.S., Fernández M., Díaz R.F., Sánchez R.A. Surveying FIFA instructors' behavioral intention toward the multimedia teaching materials. Comput. Educ. 2013; 61 :91–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bánsági T., Jr., Rodgers T.L. Graphic web–apps for teaching ternary diagrams and liquid–liquid extraction. Educ. Chem. Eng. 2018; 22 :27–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barzegar N., Farjad S., Hosseini N. The effect of teaching model based on multimedia and network on the student learning (case study: guidance schools in Iran) Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012; 47 :1263–1267. 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bingimlas K. Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: a review of the literature. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2009; 5 (3):235–245. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blevins B. Teaching digital literacy composing concepts: focusing on the layers of augmented reality in an era of changing technology. Comput. Compos. 2018; 50 :21–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosley C., Moon S. Centre for Guidance Studies, University of Derby; 2003. Review of Existing Literature on the Use of Information and Communication Technology within an Educational Context. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cagiltay K., Cakiroglu J., Cagiltay N., Cakiroglu E. Teachers’ perspectives about the use of computer in education. H. U. J. Educ. 2001; 21 (1):19–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen H.Y., Liu K.Y. Web-based synchronized multimedia lecture system design for teaching/learning Chinese as second language. Comput. Educ. 2008; 50 (3):693–702. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen S., Xia Y. Research on application of multimedia technology in college physical education. Procedia Eng. 2012; 29 (2012):4213–4217. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cinar A. METU; Ankara, Turkey: 2002. Teachers’ Computer Use at Basic Education Schools: Identifying Contributing Factors. Unpublished master’s thesis. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman L.O., Gibson P., Cotten S.R., Howell-Moroney M., Stringer K. Integrating computing across the curriculum: the impact of internal barriers and training intensity on computer integration in the elementary school classroom. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2016; 54 (2):275–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuban L., Kirkpatrick H., Peck C. High access and low use of technology in high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2001; 38 (4):813–834. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalacosta K., Kamariotaki-Paparrigopoulou M., Palyvos J.A., Spyrellis N. Multimedia application with animated cartoons for teaching science in elementary education. Comput. Educ. 2009; 52 (4):741–748. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies W., Cormican K. An analysis of the use of multimedia technology in computer aided design training: towards effective design goals. Procedia Technol. 2013; 9 :200–208. 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eady M.J., Lockyer L. Queensland University of Technology; Australia: 2013. “Tools for Learning: Technology and Teaching Strategies,” Learning to Teach in the Primary School; p. 71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertugrul N. Towards virtual laboratories: a survey of LabVIEW-based teaching/learning tools and future trends. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2000; 16 (3):171–180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabry D., Higgs J. Barriers to the effective use of technology in education. J. Educ. Comput. 1997; 17 (4):385–395. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goktas Y., Gedik N., Baydas O. Enablers and barriers to the use of ICT in primary schools in Turkey: a comparative study of 2005–2011. Comput. Educ. 2013; 68 :211–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guan N., Song J., Li D. On the advantages of computer multimedia-aided English teaching. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018; 131 :727–732. 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horsley M., Eliot M., Knight B.A., Reilly R. Springer; Cham, Switzerland: 2014. Current Trends in Eye Tracking Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang T.C., Chen M.Y., Lin C.Y. Exploring the behavioral patterns transformation of learners in different 3D modeling teaching strategies. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017; 92 :670–678. 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang W.Y., Wang C.Y., Sharples M. A study of multimedia annotation of Web-based materials. Comput. Educ. 2007; 48 (4):680–699. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilhan G.O., Oruc S. Effect of the use of multimedia on students' performance: a case study of social studies class. Educ. Res. Rev. 2016; 11 (8):877–882. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janda K. Multimedia in political science: sobering lessons from a teaching experiment. J. Educ. Multimedia Hypermedia. 1992; 1 (3):341–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jian-hua S., Hong L. Explore the effective use of multimedia technology in college physics teaching. 2012 International Conference on Future Electr. Power Energy Syst. Explore. 2012; 17 :1897–1900. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kapi A.Y., Osman N., Ramli R.Z., Taib J.M. Multimedia education tools for effective teaching and learning. J. Telecommun. Electron. Comput. Eng. 2017; 9 (2-8):143–146. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaptan F., İzgi Ü. The effect of use concept cartoons attitudes of first grade elementary students towards science and technology course. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014; 116 :2307–2311. 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karel P., Tomas Z. Multimedia teaching aid for students of basics of control theory in Matlab and Simulink. Procedia Eng. 2015; 100 :150–158. 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keengwe S., Onchwari G., Wachira P. The use of computer toolsto support meaningful learning. Educ. Technol. Rev. 2008; 16 (1):77–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keengwe J., Onchwari G., Wachira P. Computer technology integration and student learning: barriers and promise. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2008; 17 :560–565. 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley K., Clark B., Brown V., Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2003; 15 (3):261–266. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kennedy G.E., Judd T.S. Expectations and reality: evaluating patterns of learning behaviour using audit trails. Comput. Educ. 2007; 49 (3):840–855. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kingsley K.V., Boone R. Effects of multimedia software on achievement of middle school students in an American history class. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2008; 41 (2):203–221. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kitchenham B., Brereton O.P., Budgen D., Turner M., Bailey J., Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Inf. Software Technol. 2009; 51 (1):7–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krejcie R.V., Morgan D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970; 30 (3):607–610. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gøtzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009; 151 (4):65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maaruf S.Z., Siraj S. The state of technology and the arts-interactive multimedia in enhancing culturally responsive pedagogy. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013; 103 :1171–1180. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manca S., Ranieri M. Facebook and the others.Potentials and obstacles of social media for teaching in higher education. Comput. Educ. 2016; 95 :216–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R.E. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Camb. handb. Multimed Learn. 2005; 41 :31–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer R.E. Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am. Psychol. 2008; 63 (8):760–769. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller B.W. Using reading times and eye-movements to measure cognitive engagement. Educ. Psychol. 2015; 50 (1):31–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milovanovic M., Obradovic J., Milajic A. Application of interactive multimedia tools in teaching mathematics--examples of lessons from geometry. Turk. Online J. of Educ. Technol.-TOJET. 2013; 12 (1):19–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Liberati A., Petticrew M., Shekelle P., Stewart L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015; 4 (1):1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Molina A.I., Navarro O., Ortega M., Lacruz M. Evaluating multimedia learning materials in primary education using eye tracking. Comput. Stand. Interfac. 2018; 59 :45–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris L.V., Finnegan C., Wu S.S. Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. Internet High Educ. 2005; 8 (3):221–231. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mumtaz S. Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. J. Inf. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2000; 9 (3):319–341. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nie Y., Zhe Y. On-line classroom visual tracking and quality evaluation by an advanced feature mining technique. Signal Process. Image Commun. 2020; 84 (May):115817. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ocepek U., Bosnić Z., Šerbec I.N., Rugelj J. Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia types. Comput. Educ. 2013; 69 :343–355. 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pea R.D. Learning through multimedia. IEEE Comput. Grap. Appl. 1991; 11 (4):58–66. [ Google Scholar ]
• Putra C.A. Utilization of multimedia technology for instructional media. J. ICT Educ. 2018; 5 :1–8. 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Said A., Lin L., Jim P. Barriers to adopting technology for teaching and learning in Oman. Comput. Educ. 2009; 53 :575–590. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shah I., Khan M. Impact of multimedia-aided teaching on students’ academic achievement and attitude at elementary level. US China Educ. Rev. 2015; 5 (5):349–360. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shoufan A. Estimating the cognitive value of YouTube's educational videos: a learning analytics approach. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019; 92 :450–458. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snoeyink R., Ertmer P. Thrust into technology: how veteran teachers respond. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2001; 30 (1):85–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark L., Brünken R., Park B. Emotional text design in multimedia learning: a mixed-methods study using eye tracking. Comput. Educ. 2018; 120 :185–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taradi S.K., Taradi M., Radic K., Pokrajac N. Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 2005; 29 (1):35–39. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S., Todd P.A. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995; 6 (2):144–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng J.H., Chan S.Y., Lee J.C., Lee R. Vol. 1. 2000. A LabVIEW based virtual instrument for power analyzers; pp. 179–184. (2000 International Conference on Power System Technology. Proceeding s (Cat.No. 00EX409) ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang C., Fang T., Gu Y. Learning performance and behavioral patterns of online collaborative learning: impact of cognitive load and affordances of different multimedia. Comput. Educ. 2020; 143 :103683. [ Google Scholar ]
• West J. 2019. Data Collection. https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/survey.jsp Retrieved on 3 Sept 2020 from: [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu T.T., Chen A.C. Combining e-books with mind mapping in a reciprocal teaching strategy for a classical Chinese course. Comput. Educ. 2018; 116 (2020):64–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yildiz R., Atkins M.J. ERIC No. ED 350 978; 1992. How to Evaluate Multimedia Simulations: Learning from the Past. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yuen A.H., Ma W.W. Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. J. Technol. Teach Educ. 2002; 10 (3):365–382. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang F. Significances of multimedia technologies training. Phys. Procedia. 2012; 33 :2005–2010. 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zin M.Z.M., Sakat A.A., Ahmad N.A., Bhari A. Relationship between the multimedia technology and education in improving learning quality. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013; 90 :351–355. 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zulkifli M.Z., Harun S.W., Thambiratnam K., Ahmad H. Self-calibrating automated characterization system for depressed cladding EDFA applications using LabVIEW software with GPIB. IEEE Trans. Instrument. Meas. 2008; 57 (11):2677–2681. [ Google Scholar ]

• Advanced Search

A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning

Middle East Technical University, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, 06800, Ankara, Turkey

• 32 citation

New Citation Alert added!

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

• Publisher Site

Computers & Education

This study provides a current systematic review of eye tracking research in the domain of multimedia learning. The particular aim of the review is to explore how cognitive processes in multimedia learning are studied with relevant variables through eye tracking technology. To this end, 52 articles, including 58 studies, were analyzed. Remarkable results are that (1) there is a burgeoning interest in the use of eye tracking technology in multimedia learning research; (2) studies were mostly conducted with college students, science materials, and the temporal and count scales of eye tracking measurements; (3) eye movement measurements provided inferences about the cognitive processes of selecting, organizing, and integrating; (4) multimedia learning principles, multimedia content, individual differences, metacognition, and emotions were the potential factors that can affect eye movement measurements; and (5) findings were available for supporting the association between cognitive processes inferred by eye tracking measurements and learning performance. Specific gaps in the literature and implications of existing findings on multimedia learning design were also determined to offer suggestions for future research and practices.

Index Terms

Applied computing

Enterprise computing

Computing methodologies

Artificial intelligence

Philosophical/theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence

Human-centered computing

Human computer interaction (HCI)

Information systems

Information systems applications

Multimedia information systems

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing education

Recommendations

Eye movements predict students' computer-based assessment performance of physics concepts in different presentation modalities.

Despite decades of studies on the link between eye movements and human cognitive processes, the exact nature of the link between eye movements and computer-based assessment performance still remains unknown. To bridge this gap, the present study ...

A review of eye tracking research on video-based learning

Eye tracking technology is increasingly used to understand individuals’ non-conscious, moment-to-moment processes during video-based learning. This review evaluated 44 eye tracking studies on video-based learning conducted between 2010 and 2021. ...

A head-mounted sensor-based eye tracking device: eye touch system

In this study, a new eye tracking system, namely Eye Touch, is introduced. Eye Touch is based on an eyeglasses-like apparatus on which IrDA sensitive sensors and IrDA light sources are mounted. Using inexpensive sensors and light sources instead of a ...

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

• Information
• Contributors

Published in

Elsevier Ltd

In-Cooperation

Elsevier Science Ltd.

United Kingdom

Publication History

• Published: 1 October 2018

Author Tags

• Multimedia/hypermedia systems
• Human-computer interface
• Evaluation methodologies
• Teaching/learning strategies
• research-article

Funding Sources

Other metrics.

• Bibliometrics
• Citations 32

Article Metrics

• 32 Total Citations View Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

Digital Edition

View this article in digital edition.

Share this Publication link

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023

Share on Social Media

• 0 References

Export Citations

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

• Open access
• Published: 13 April 2022

Multimedia learning principles in different learning environments: a systematic review

• Burç Çeken   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9071-8694 1 , 2 &
• Nazım Taşkın 1  

Smart Learning Environments volume  9 , Article number:  19 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

20 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

Current literature mainly focused on one or two multimedia learning principles in traditional learning environments. Studies on multimedia learning principles in AR and VR environments are also limited. To reveal the current situation and gaps of the multimedia learning principles in different learning environments, it is necessary to extend their boundaries. Thus, further studies may directly affect the investment in VR and AR technologies and their integration into the learning process by teachers. The current study presented a systematic review of multimedia learning principles in different learning environments, including traditional, virtual reality and augmented reality. In this study, 136 journal articles were identified based on PRISMA guidelines and reviewed regarding multimedia learning principles, learning environments, measurements, subject matters, learning outcomes, research methodologies, education programs, education fields, and years of publication. The results indicate that (1) there is an increasing interest in multimedia learning principles; (2) undergraduate students have been the target participant group in the review studies; (3) only five studies tested one of the multimedia learning principles in the VR environment, but no studies have been conducted in the AR learning environment; (4) most studies preferred subjective measurements (e.g., mental effort, difficulty) or indirect objective measurements (e.g., learning outcomes, eye-tracking, study time); (5) subject matters from STEM fields often preferred in investigations; and (6) modality was the most studied multimedia learning principle in the reviewed articles, followed by redundancy, multimedia, signaling, coherence, segmenting, personalization, spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, image, pre-training, and voice, respectively. The results were discussed in detail. Specific gaps in the literature were identified, and suggestions and implications were provided for further research.

Introduction

With the help of developing technologies, the learning process has become much more effective because of modern equipment and tools that facilitate learning and increase interactivity among students (Raja & Nagasubramani, 2018 ). For example, students can learn complex concepts in a controlled environment via augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) headsets, making learning immersive and experiential (UKAuthority, 2019 ).

The role of a learning environment has been expanded over time with the help of modern digital technologies and online resources (Vinales, 2015 ), as they have considerably changed the way students learn and teachers teach (Manzoor, 2016 ). The learning process can be improved when the learners' needs and learning styles are considered in a learning environment (Erden & Altun, 2006 ). Therefore, learning environments must be adequately flexible, and multimedia technologies must be carefully chosen for effective learning.

Multimedia can be described as presenting verbal and pictorial information simultaneously (Richter et al., 2016 ). When the instructional message is provided with both forms together, it is referred to as multimedia learning, which is also defined by Mayer ( 1997 ) as a process of learning containing both pictures (e.g., video or animation) and words (e.g., verbal or written text). The researchers have conducted many studies to examine the effect of multimedia in much research (Mayer, 2017 ; Wang et al., 2017 ; Weng et al., 2018 ). The number of studies exploring the specific effects has increased, especially after the 1990s (Li et al., 2019 ). Following the earlier findings, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) was developed by Mayer ( 2009 ), describing the underlying processes in learners' minds during meaningful learning.

Mayer and colleagues contributed to formulating 12 design principles, initially validated using written text on paper and diagrams accompanying verbal or recorded audio demonstrations (Mayer et al., 1996 ; Moreno & Mayer, 1999 , 2000 ; Mousavi et al., 1995 ). Nowadays, especially with the rapid development of multimedia technologies, these multimedia principles have been extended in diverse learning settings, such as computer-based learning environments (Kutbay & Akpinar, 2020 ; Park et al., 2015 ), web-based learning environments (Chen & Yang, 2020 ; Sung & Mayer, 2012 ), virtual learning environments (Kartiko et al., 2010 ; Parong & Mayer, 2018 ), or augmented learning environments (Küçük et al., 2016 ; Lai et al., 2019 ).

In addition to empirical studies testing and validating multimedia learning principles in different learning environments, many review and meta-analysis studies also provide valuable contributions to reveal the field's current state by focusing on various topics. For example, the recent systematic reviews focused mainly on the working memory (Anmarkrud et al., 2019 ), cognitive load (Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ), eye tracking (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018 ), and trends and issues (Li et al., 2019 ). On the other hand, the meta-analyses were conducted more targeting the multimedia principles such as redundancy (Adesope & Nesbit, 2012 ), modality (Ginns, 2005 ), spatial contiguity (Schroeder & Cenkci, 2018 ), temporal contiguity (Ginns, 2006 ), segmenting (Rey et al., 2019 ), and signaling (Richter et al., 2016 ; Schneider et al., 2018 ) principles. Even though their results are crucial to guide future studies, most multimedia learning research in the reviews and meta-analysis has been conducted in traditional learning environments. The results of the current meta-analysis by Mutlu-Bayraktar et al. ( 2019 ) revealed that a conventional learning environment (93.62%) was preferred most often compared to AR (4.25%) and VR (2.13%) among 94 studies. Moreover, studies that test multimedia learning principles in AR and VR environments are limited (Akçayir & Akçayir, 2017 ; Selzer et al., 2019 ). To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review study has been conducted to examine all multimedia learning principles in different learning environments. In addition, investigating multimedia learning principles in AR and VR learning environments is very important for future research to reveal the current status and gaps of multimedia learning principles in different learning environments and expand their boundaries. For this reason, a systematic review is needed, investigating principles of multimedia learning by considering learning environments (i.e., virtual reality, augmented reality). The current study aims to reveal the current situation and gaps of the multimedia learning principles in different learning environments. This study presents the following research questions:

What are the general characteristics and specific design features of multimedia learning research used to investigate multimedia learning principles?

What learning environments (i.e., AR, VR, or traditional) are commonly preferred to test multimedia learning principles?

What are the measurements and subject matters commonly used in testing multimedia learning principles?

How does using multimedia learning principles affect students’ learning in different learning environments?

Learning environments

The learning environment consists of physical locations, contexts and cultures that students learn (Bakhshialiabad et al., 2015 ). It can also be defined as a complex and dynamic system where teachers implement specific strategies and use available resources to reach pre-determined learning goals (Wang & Kinuthia, 2004 ). The learning environment has an essential role in the learning process (Vinales, 2015 ) because it helps learners develop their skills, knowledge, attitude, and behavior (Ozerem & Akkoyunlu, 2015 ).

Even though the learning environment has been traditionally used as a synonym of a physical classroom, it has been changed with modern digital technologies, techniques, and strategies to provide more effective and efficient learning (Baeten et al., 2010 ). Integrating technology into the learning process is often referred to as technology-enhanced learning (Law et al., 2016 ). The concept of technology-enhanced learning has been named differently in the literature, such as computer-based learning, web-based learning, mobile learning, augmented reality-based, virtual reality-based (Chen & Yang, 2020 ; Cubillo et al., 2014 ; Hamilton et al., 2021 ; Moos & Azevedo, 2009 ). Many current technologies, including mobile devices, Web 2.0, AR, and VR, have been utilized increasingly in the learning process to improve the learning process by taking advantage of their unique features (Cubillo et al., 2014 ). For instance, AR and VR have been used in 96% of UK universities and 79% of UK colleges to provide good quality experiential learning for students (UKAuthority, 2019 ).

AR is used for enhancing the real world with virtual objects by presenting additional information without decreasing the authenticity of the physical world (Azuma, 1997 ). AR can help students to understand various complicated subjects such as chemical reactions that are difficult to observe in the real world easier (Akçayır et al., 2016 ). Besides, AR enables students to link real-life by displaying and controlling virtual elements over physical objects (Wu et al., 2018 ). For instance, AR allows students who have difficulty with geometry to experience and manipulate 3D geometric forms. With such features, AR as a learning environment positively contributes to the learning process by encouraging students to engage in learning activities (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017 ; Di Serio et al., 2013 ; Garzón et al., 2019 ).

On the other hand, VR has been described as an artificial environment developed by software to make users think in a different atmosphere apart from the real world. VR as a learning environment provides a virtual space to reach learning outcomes by encouraging learners to discover freely within a safe and controlled environment (Ip & Li, 2015 ). Like AR, the activities and experiences in a virtual learning environment lead to better learning and, at the same time, motivate learners (Di Natale et al., 2020 ). Besides, VR can provide a safe learning experience by removing dangerous materials or any possible mistakes that can harm students (Abulrub et al., 2011 ). For example, experiments that may pose a danger to students can be performed without taking any risks, or magnitudes of gravity can be manipulated in a virtual lab to understand its effects. By considering such features, VR learning environments are more beneficial for learning when compared to traditional learning environments, including desktop computers and slideshows (Hamilton et al., 2021 ).

Cognitive load theory

Cognitive load is considered an essential factor in the learning process. CL theory was developed initially by Sweller ( 1988 ) to examine mental processing limitations concerning learning. Then, it has been advanced by other researchers (Chandler & Sweller, 1991 ; Mousavi et al., 1995 ; Sweller et al., 1998 ). According to the CL theory, the elements making up the cognitive architecture of humans consist of long-term memory and working memory (Mousavi et al., 1995 ; Sweller, 2008 ). Moreover, the cognitive load emphasizes that the novel information can be accumulated in the long-term memory after first processed by the working memory (Sweller et al., 1998 ). However, acquiring new knowledge is more difficult when the working memory, which has limited capacity, is overloaded by information and processing demands (Greer et al., 2013 ). Therefore, the unnecessary loads in the working memory should be reduced when designing instructional material (Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ).

The CL theory identifies three forms of cognitive load, such as intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load on the working memory in the learning process (Sweller et al., 1998 ). Intrinsic cognitive load is imposed by the complexity and difficulty of the information aimed to be learned by the learners. Some learning tasks may be more complicated than others, regardless of the instructional approach. For instance, solving an equation with three unknowns is more complex than a subtraction operation. Accordingly, the more difficult the learning task, the greater the intrinsic cognitive load is. Nevertheless, the difficulty of a learning task is a feature playing a role in determining the intrinsic cognitive load and the learners’ prior knowledge (Sweller et al., 1998 , 2011 ).

On the other hand, the extraneous cognitive load does not consider the complexity of a task but concerns how the learning material is presented. It results from inappropriate instructional design, such as explanation adequacy or instructional material integration (Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ). Poorly designed instructional materials should be decreased as much as possible (Paas & Sweller, 2014 ). The third form of the cognitive load is germane, defined as the degree of the learners’ mental effort in constructing schemas when relating information from long-term memory to new information. It can also be affected by other factors, such as the motivation or interest of the learner (Whelan, 2007 ). The remaining capacity from extraneous and intrinsic loads plays a role in whether the degree of the germane cognitive load increases or decreases (Paas & Sweller, 2014 ).

Cognitive theory and multimedia learning

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML), developed by Mayer ( 2005 ), explains the process occurring in learners' minds during meaningful learning from multimedia instruction. It is built on three assumptions: the dual-channel, limited capacity and active processing (Mayer, 2005 ). According to the dual-channel assumption, there are two distinct channels to manage information: visual/pictorial and auditory/verbal. The visual/pictorial channel is through the eyes, including words displayed on a screen, whereas the auditory/verbal channel is through the ears (Mayer, 2009 ). Paivio ( 1991 ) with dual coding theory and Baddeley ( 1986 ) with working memory theory is also in line with the idea of separated information processing.

The limited capacity assumption assumes that each channel has a limited capacity to process information at any given moment, similar to the Cognitive Load Theory (Chandler & Sweller, 1991 ) and Working Memory (Baddeley, 1986 ). Miller ( 1956 ) proposes that most people can hold up to seven pieces of information in their working memory at a specific time. People with efficient metacognitive strategies may increase the range of managing their limited cognitive resources (Mayer, 2009 ). The third one is active processing, where the person actively joins in the learning process. This process consists of three steps. It starts with selecting words and pictures via sensors (i.e., ears, eyes). Then, the selected data (words and images) is organized into mental interpretations and integrated with the existing information from long-term memory (Mayer, 2009 ).

Since there is a limited capacity in working memory based on the assumption mentioned above, learning is hindered when the limit is exceeded (De Jong, 2010 ). That also leads to cognitive overload. The instructional designs should be constructed appropriately for individuals' cognitive processing to avoid overloading the memory demand and reduce the cognitive load. Mayer ( 2014 ) introduced twelve multimedia learning principles by categorizing them into three types of learner processing: extraneous processing, essential processing, and generative processing. These processing types resemble the intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.

There are five principles to reduce extraneous cognitive load: Coherence, Signaling, Redundancy, Redundancy, and Temporal Contiguity principles. According to the coherence principle, the best learning from multimedia material occurs when interesting but irrelevant content is avoided since it does not help the learning process (Mayer & Jackson, 2005 ). It may prevent students from constructing mental models to represent the information. The signaling principle suggests that people learn better when the cues are added to the learning material to pay learners’ attention to the essential part of the learning material (e.g., Van Gog, 2014 ). Highlightings, arrows, and other indicators can attract learners’ interest. The redundancy principle recommends that people learn better when acquiring knowledge from animation with narration than animation with narration and on-screen text since their attention is distracted when presenting information with narration, animation and on-screen text (Sweller, 2005 ). The spatial contiguity principle concerns the actual space between presented words and pictures. It asserts that they should be physically close together for better learning (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014 ). Otherwise, the learner tries to find the related text and images to make connections, which causes the cognitive load. The temporal contiguity principle imposes to present correspondent narration and animation concurrently rather than sequentially (Mayer, 2009 ). In other words, the timing of the narration should be appropriate to play along with animations.

The following three principles for managing the intrinsic cognitive load are Segmenting, Pre-training, and Modality principles. Segmenting principle states that students can learn better while the learning material is served with smaller portions (Mayer & Pilegard, 2005 ). The principle also asserts that if the learner controls the speed of multimedia instruction, they will learn better. That is also called “user-paced”. If the multimedia instruction is system-paced, that may lead to having difficulty comprehending fully and seeing the causal relationship between one step and the next. According to the pre-training principle, learning can be improved if the key concepts and main characteristics are provided before learning (Mayer, 2009 ). Learners may need time to mentally construct a causal model in multimedia instruction, especially when the content is complex. Pre-training helps manage such demands for essential processing by serving key elements and features. The modality principle claims that people learn better when the information is served as narration instead of on-screen text because two channels are used when the words are served as narration (Moreno & Mayer, 1999 ).

The remaining four principles help learners minimize the germane cognitive load, namely Multimedia, Personalization, Voice, and Image principles. Based on the multimedia principle, people learn more thoroughly when exposed to both words and images than words because they connect them mentally (Mayer, 2009 ). The words can be either printed or spoken, but not both simultaneously. The personalization principle indicates that having a more conversational style enhances learning than a formal style (Mayer et al., 2004 ). Thus, instructional designers should avoid using academic language as much as possible. It is asserted in the voice principle that “people learn better when narration is spoken in a human voice rather than in a machine voice” (Mayer, 2009 , p. 242). Last but not least, the image principle states that adding speakers' pictures when presenting learning material does not mean that learning outcomes are improved. It is better to use relevant animations and visuals instead of displaying a talking head of the instructor.

Methodology

Search strategy.

The systematic review reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009 ). It includes well-defined stages of a systematic review, such as describing the eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategies, study selection processes, and synthesis of results. Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ScienceDirect databases were used to retrieve the related research articles in this review. Scopus and WoS databases were selected due to their worldwide use and multidisciplinary nature (Zancanaro et al., 2015 ). ERIC and Science Direct mainly involve educational and technical literature. Therefore, they entirely cover application areas of multimedia learning principles. The keywords in Table 1 were used with the “OR” Boolean operator. Each multimedia learning principle was used as a keyword because some researchers prefer to use the name of the multimedia learning principle directly. While searching, there was no time limitation (the database holds articles dating from 1996 to 2020). However, the search was restricted to English journal articles that included full text. The latest search was conducted on 31 December 2020.

Study selection process

The initial literature search resulted in 1259 papers from Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and ScienceDirect databases. These were downloaded to a computer as Microsoft Excel documents. First, 501 duplicated studies were detected and removed from the list. Second, the remaining 758 articles were screened and examined using their titles and abstracts to decide whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria validated by two experts (Table 2 ). Third, according to the criteria set, the full texts of the remaining 190 articles were critically assessed to ensure that all research questions were satisfactorily addressed. Fifty-four articles were eliminated during the evaluation process, and 136 papers were found to be relevant to the systematic review. Then, two other researchers (each has years of academic experience) reviewed and had an agreement on the whole elimination process. This literature search and review procedure is represented in Fig.  1 .

Flow diagram of the article selection process

Data extraction and analysis

The articles selected for this review were analyzed concerning year, education program, research methodology, learning environment, multimedia learning principles, measurement, subject matter and field, and results. The year is the publication date in the journal, which is indicated in the article. Table 3 represents the education program obtained from the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED, 2011 ). The categories for coding of education programs were further generalized after the coding process to decrease the number of codes.

Concerning the methodological characteristics of each article, the classification developed by Palvia et al. ( 2015 ) was used (Table 4 ).

There are different categorizations for learning environments based on the used technology. For example, Mutlu-Bayraktar et al. ( 2019 ) found 14 different learning environments regarding the material type used to present content, such as computer-based learning environment, web-based learning environment, mobile learning environment, augmented reality environment, etc. Lai et al. ( 2019 ) classified technologies for educational purposes as Web 2.0 tools, mobile learning, virtual reality, augmented reality, and so on. The study aims mainly to compare AR and VR learning environments. For this reason, all other learning environments, except for AR and VR, are called traditional learning environments, including paper-based, computer-based, web-based, mobile-based learning environments. In the current study, the category of learning environment was divided into three sub-categories: virtual reality, augmented reality, and traditional learning environments. All measurements in the articles were considered, such as prior knowledge, retention, transfer, perceived difficulty, and cognitive load. Similarly, there is no pre-determined categorization for the subject matters used in the learning materials of the articles. The subject matters were further collected under fields and main fields according to ISCED Fields of Education and Training 2013 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015 ). After deciding the structures used in the coding, a meeting session was conducted with two senior academic staff to discuss the coding process. Considering the feedback received, the coding structure was finalized.

Results and discussion

Rq1: what are the general characteristics and specific design features of multimedia learning research used to investigate multimedia learning principles, distribution by year.

When the distribution of the articles that investigated multimedia learning principles was analyzed across the years of publication, an increase, especially in recent years, was obvious, as shown in Fig.  2 . The number of studies published each year was only one per year until 2004. The interest in multimedia learning principles has increased starting from 2004. This increase became drastic in 2014, but a slight decrease was observed until 2018. Compared to the previous year, the number of articles doubled in 2019, making it the highest publication per year recorded. Besides, more than half of 136 articles were published within the last six years. These findings are also consistent with Li et al. ( 2019 ), who have examined the trends and issues in multimedia learning research. For instance, the number of articles published was low (about 3–5) between 1996 and 2001. There was a steady increase in studies (from 11 to 41) after 2002, except for 2013, similar to the current review. Since multimedia learning is still emerging, the scientific contribution may increase in the coming years.

Distribution of articles by year

Education program

Table 5 shows the educations programs of students targeted in the current study. Most research studies involved bachelor’s or equivalent level students (72%), followed by upper secondary education students (7.35%), primary education students (6.62%), lower secondary education students (5.15%), and early childhood education students (0.74%). Various studies (8.09%) were not classified based on ISCED ( 2011 ). The leading target group was undergraduate level in the studies examining the principles of multimedia learning, similar to other research reviewing the cognitive load in multimedia learning (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018 ; Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ). The reason why researchers prefer university students as samples is that they can be accessed more easily. In addition, few studies are focusing on younger learners. It is essential to ensure whether the multimedia learning principles are validated for various age groups, significantly the younger. Thus, more research focusing on multimedia learning principles is needed for different learner types than bachelor’s or equivalent level students.

Research methodology

Research methodologies of the studies included in the research were examined based on the classification developed by Palvia et al. ( 2015 ). Most of the studies adopted the lab experiment methodology (80.9%), followed by the field experiment methodology (18.4%) (Table 6 ). There was only one study conducted as a case study. The result indicates that authors prefer to use quantitative methods to test the multimedia learning principles. Further studies can use qualitative and mixed methods to obtain a more robust and comprehensive understanding of the multimedia learning principles.

RQ2: What learning environments (i.e., AR, VR, or traditional) are commonly preferred to test multimedia learning principles?

The multimedia learning principles were examined mainly in the traditional learning environments (96.3%) using paper–pencil, animations, simulations, videos, etc. Table 7 shows that only five studies tested one of the multimedia learning principles in the virtual reality environment (3.7%) (Kartiko et al., 2010 ; Makransky et al., 2019 ; Meyer et al., 2019 ; Parong & Mayer, 2018 ; Yahaya & Ahmad, 2017 ). However, there is no study conducted in the augmented reality learning environment. The results were aligned with the previous review by Mutlu-Bayraktar et al. ( 2019 ), investigating multimedia learning regarding cognitive load. They found that the traditional learning environment (93.62%) was preferred most often compared to AR (4.25%) and VR (2.13%) among 94 studies. Despite the limited number of studies focusing on multimedia learning principles in the AR and VR environments, there is a tendency to use AR and VR in the educational settings, as previous studies have stated (Akçayir & Akçayir, 2017 ; Garzón et al., 2019 ; Hamilton et al., 2021 ; Radianti et al., 2020 ). AR and VR positively impact learning outcomes and motivation (Akçayir & Akçayir, 2017 ; Selzer et al., 2019 ). However, there is no adequate research testing multimedia learning principles in AR and VR learning environments. More research is needed to ensure whether the multimedia learning principles are valid in AR and VR learning environments.

RQ3: What are the measurements and subject matters commonly used in testing multimedia learning principles?

Measurements.

Twenty-four different measurements were detected in the reviewed studies focusing on one of the multimedia learning principles. The review revealed that the prior knowledge was measured in the majority of studies (n = 93), followed by retention (n = 64), transfer (n = 63), and perceived difficulty (n = 57). The prior knowledge of the participants was used as a control variable. However, the retention, transfer, achievement, recall, comprehension, and matching tests were intended to measure the learning outcomes, whereas measurements referred to as a cognitive load, mental effort, perceived difficulty, and the mental load was served to assess the cognitive load. Moreover, there are different variables to measure in the review articles, such as interest, anxiety, satisfaction, attitude, enjoyment, and motivation, even though their numbers are small. Figure  3 presents measurements used in the review studies.

Measurements used in the review articles

The findings align with the previous studies (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018 ; Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ). For example, Mutlu-Bayraktar et al. ( 2019 ) stated that prior knowledge was measured in nearly half of the review studies focusing on cognitive load in the multimedia learning research. After prior knowledge, the retention test, transfer test, and achievement test were the most preferred tests to measure the learning outcomes. However, the number of studies measuring motivation in multimedia learning research is less than expected. Since motivation has an essential role in the learning process (Mayer, 2014 ), the researchers need to examine the motivation factor in the learning process in their further research.

Assessment of the cognitive load was categorized by Brunken et al. ( 2003 ) in two dimensions: objectivity (subjective or objective) and causal relationship (direct or indirect). Objectivity refers to distinguishing between self-reporting or observing performance objectively. A causal relationship indicates whether there is a direct relationship between examined phenomena and cognitive load. For example, mental effort is considered indirect and subjective, whereas perceived difficulty is measured directly and subjectively. As shown in Fig.  3 , most studies preferred subjective measurements (e.g., mental effort, difficulty) or indirect objective measurements (e.g., learning outcomes, eye-tracking, study time). However, there is a lack of research using direct and objective methods to measure the cognitive load, such as brain activity measures (e.g., fMRI) or dual-task performance. Mayer ( 2001 ) also supports that multimedia learning research is often based on a subjective and indirect assessment process, such as recall, comprehension, retention, and transfer tests. For this reason, the current research recommends that further research should use more direct and objective measurements to overcome many weaknesses of other indirect and subjective methods.

Subject matters

There were eighty-six different subject matters used in the review studies, but only the first ten subject matters are displayed in Fig.  4 . Review results show that researchers preferred the lightning formation topic most frequently in their studies (n = 17), followed by language learning (n = 15), authoring tool (n = 8), and braking (n = 3). The authoring tools are products used for composing, editing and managing multimedia objects such as Adobe Flash, Adobe Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and Camtasia software. In the studies choosing the authoring tools as a subject matter, instructors taught participants their properties, such as drawing with Illustrator’s pen tool or adding effects and styles to the images. Some subject matters were used more frequently than others, such as lightning, brakes, and pumps, because they were used initially when the CTML was shaped (Mayer, 2017 ). For this reason, many researchers have adopted the same topics to test multimedia learning principles with different contexts or conditions.

Subject matters in the review articles

Since many subjects were extracted from the reviewed studies, they were grouped based on ISCED-F (2013) to compare the previous studies more accurately. The results revealed that earth science (19.9%) was the most frequent field of education to explore multimedia learning principles, followed by history (15.0%), biology (11.8%), and engineering & technology (11.8%). Besides, almost half of the reviewed studies are from natural science (48.6%), followed by humanities, and applied science. Table 8 presents the field of education of the subject matters in reviewed studies.

There are notable similarities between the current review and the prior studies investigating multimedia learning research regarding the field of education used in the reviewed studies. For example, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects (59.6%) were the most researched among the multimedia learning studies focusing on the cognitive load, followed by social science (22.3%), health (14.9), humanities (2.1%) (Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ). The number for STEM fields is 62.6% for STEM fields in the current study. However, the only difference is that humanities subjects were the secondly evaluated subjects in the present review while they are the least favored. In another study by Alemdag and Cagiltay ( 2018 ), the STEM subjects (63.7%) were also taught the most frequent subjects among studies targeting eye-tracking research on multimedia learning.

As mentioned above, multimedia learning research mostly covers topics from STEM fields. Replicating existing studies using different subject matters from various fields contributes and extends the boundaries of multimedia learning research. Thus, multimedia learning principles should be validated with educational materials from non-STEM areas. Schneider et al. ( 2018 ) found that the effect of signaling varies based on instructional domains, such as geology, psychology, statistics, and so on. For this reason, different learning materials from various subject matters can be used in the same study to compare the effect of subject matters on multimedia learning principles.

RQ4: How does using multimedia learning principles affect students’ learning in different learning environments?

Distribution of multimedia learning principles.

Table 9 shows the distribution of the principles of the CTML in different learning environments (AR, VR and traditional). Most studies investigated the effect of multimedia learning principles in the traditional learning environment, followed by the VR environment. However, no study tested one of the multimedia learning principles in the AR learning environment. Among twelve multimedia learning principles, the modality (n = 43) was the most investigated factor, followed by redundancy (n = 41), multimedia (n = 27), signaling (n = 25), coherence (n = 20), segmenting (n = 15), personalization (n = 11), spatial contiguity (n = 9), temporal contiguity (n = 4), image (n = 4), pre-training (n = 3), and voice (n = 1).

The current results are mostly consistent with the prior studies (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018 ; Mayer, 2017 ; Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ). For instance, the modality was the most studied principle of multimedia learning in the prior studies by Mayer ( 2017 ) and Mutlu-Bayraktar et al. ( 2019 ). However, modality was the second frequently examined principle based on Alemdag and Cagiltay's ( 2018 ) review focused on cognitive activities using eye-tracking technology. The reason may be stemmed from the focusing point of the review. In addition to the modality principle, coherence and signaling principles were the other commonly studied principles, as in the current review. Although the redundancy principle was the second most studied principle in the present review, the number was deficient in the prior studies, such as 2.38% (Alemdag & Cagiltay, 2018 ) and 7.8% (Mutlu-Bayraktar et al., 2019 ).

Some multimedia learning principles, such as multimedia, modality, coherence, and redundancy, were examined earlier than other multimedia learning principles, including image, voice, or pre-training principles. That may be why some multimedia learning principles are over-studied than others. The researchers should focus more on voice, pre-training, image, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity for further research. There is also a massive gap for all multimedia learning principles in the VR and AR learning environments. Thus, the multimedia learning principles should be tested in the VR and AR learning environments to ensure validity. Educational technologists can consider the results when applying multimedia learning principles to their learning materials in VR and AR environments.

Multimedia learning principles and learning outcomes

Learning outcomes in the reviewed studies were assessed by different measurements, such as retention, transfer, recall, and achievement. It was aimed to present the distribution and effects of measurements based on multimedia learning principles for each learning environment. However, there was no study in the AR learning environment and only five studies in the VR learning environment. For this reason, Table 10 shows only how each multimedia learning principle affects the learning outcomes in traditional learning environments.

The “Affected Positively” column shows how many studies have found the effect of each multimedia learning principle on learning outcomes positively. The percent column represents the ratio of the number in the “Affected Positively” column to the number of studies examining each multimedia learning principle. As seen from Table 10 , learning was not positively affected in all studies for each principle, except for temporal contiguity and pre-training principles (because of the limited number of studies). Even though the number of studies (n = 17) investigating the modality effect was the highest, it made a minor contribution to learning outcomes among the reviewed studies based on retention scores. The percentages are higher for transfer (47.1%), recall (42.9%), and achievement (62.5%). However, based on a review by Mayer ( 2017 ), 42 out of 51 (82.3%) studies confirmed the positive effect of the modality principle on learning outcomes, including transfer, retention, and comprehension tests. The conflicting results between the current and previous studies can be explored in future research.

The second most frequently examined principle was the signaling principle. It also improved learning by guiding learners’ attention in almost two-thirds of the reviewed studies. The meta-analysis by Richter et al. ( 2016 ) and Schneider et al. ( 2018 ) also found similar findings. For instance, Schneider et al. ( 2018 ) found that retention scores (84.2%) and transfer scores (78.2%) of studies were increased when essential parts of text or graphics were highlighted. The reason may be caused by the reducing effect of signaling on the complexity and difficulty of learning materials. However, the signaling effect may not be the same for all learners. It may even hinder learning for learners with high prior knowledge (Kalyuga, 2014 ; Richter et al., 2016 ). The signaling effect should be investigated with novice and knowledgeable learners to compare them. Besides, the results can be validated by using eye-tracking methods used for tracing learners' attention. Further research can compare findings from tests and eye-tracking whether they are compatible.

Similar to the signaling principle, many studies have shown that segmenting principle positively impacted the learning process. For example, the retention test (71.4%) and transfer test (83.3%) results of the reviewed studies showed that the application of the segmenting principle caused better learning when the multimedia representations were broken into self-paced segments. The results aligned with the prior meta-analysis (Rey et al., 2019 ), revealing that most studies focusing on the segmenting principle found a positive effect on retention (67.2%) and transfer scores (60.7%). The educational technologists can apply the segmenting principle in their learning materials to enhance the learning process by considering the results. Since the segmenting effect has two different key features, it can be caused by breaking multimedia tutoring into sequential parts or permitting learners to control the multimedia instruction's pace. The current review did not examine the effects of both features on the learning outcomes. Further meta-analysis may compare their effect sizes to distinguish their effects on learning outcomes and cognitive load.

Application of the redundancy principle did not enhance learning in more than half of the reviewed studies (n = 41). The number of studies finding a positive effect of the redundancy principle is deficient, especially regarding retention scores (30.8%) and achievement scores (33.3%). On the contrary, Mayer ( 2017 ) found that 13 out of 13 studies validated the positive effect of the redundancy principle on learning outcomes. Adesope and Nesbit ( 2012 ) also found a similar result with Mayer ( 2017 ) on retention performance, but not the same for transfer performance. More studies are needed as there are conflicting results about the redundancy principle positively contributing to learning. The number of the study is very low for voice, pre-training, image, and temporal contiguity principles to compare the results with the previous reviews. Thus, the researchers should also examine them more in their further research.

Implications and future research

This systematic review identified the following existing gaps and needs in the research. This systematic review shows that the majority were conducted with undergraduate students. It is crucial to validate multimedia learning principles for various age groups, significantly the younger. In addition, multimedia learning principles were mainly tested with subjects from STEM fields. Replicating existing studies using different subject matters from non-STEM fields with different types of learners contributes and extends the boundaries of multimedia learning principles. Thus, more research focusing on multimedia learning principles is needed for different learner types and subjects from non-STEM fields.

The use of objective methods in cognitive load measurements helps explain multimedia principles' effects. The current review study indicated a lack of research using objective measures for the cognitive load, such as brain activity measures (e.g., fMRI) or dual-task performance. It is recommended that future studies should use objective measurements in future studies to overcome many weaknesses of other indirect and subjective measurements and compare the results with prior studies using subjective measures.

AR and VR positively impact learning outcomes and motivation (Akçayir & Akçayir, 2017 ). However, as our findings reveal, there is a massive gap for all multimedia learning principles in the VR and AR learning environments. Thus, more research is needed to ensure whether the multimedia learning principles are valid in AR and VR learning environments. Further studies may directly affect the investment in VR and AR technologies and the integration of these technologies into the learning process by the teachers.

In the traditional learning environment, the number of the study is very low for voice, pre-training, image, and temporal contiguity principles. In addition, there are conflicting results about the positive effect of multimedia learning principles on learning. Thus, the researchers should also examine them more in their further research. Educational technologists can benefit from this study as it can guide them when designing educational materials for each learning environment based on the results.

Several reviews and meta-analyses have investigated multimedia learning principles. For instance, Rey et al. ( 2019 ) examined the segmenting principle in a current meta-analysis. In addition, the signaling principle has been reviewed by Schneider et al. ( 2018 ) in another meta-analysis. They have mainly focused on one of multimedia learning principles. This study provides results from a systematic review of all multimedia learning principles regarding learning environments, outcomes, methodologies, measurements, subject matters, publication years, the field of education, and education levels, based on 136 journal articles. When looking at the published years, there was an increasing trend in research focusing on multimedia learning principles. Most reviewed studies (72%) used bachelor’s or equivalent level students as participants. Except for one case study, all studies adopted laboratory experiments (80.9%) and field experiments (18.4%).

The modality and redundancy were commonly investigated multimedia learning principles. However, the spatial contiguity, temporal contiguity, image pre-training, and voice principles were underresearched. The review also showed that commonly measured factors were learning outcomes (i.e., retention, transfer, and achievement performance) and cognitive load, such as perceived difficulty, mental effort, etc. Besides, most studies have been conducted in the traditional learning environments (96.3%), followed by virtual reality learning environments (3.7%). However, augmented reality was not preferred as a learning environment among the reviewed studies.

This review is valuable for researchers to understand multimedia learning principles in different learning environments. The study has also identified the gaps remaining in the literature. Researchers can use this paper's highlighted gaps and future directions for future empirical studies.

There are a few limitations in the review. Only specific databases were used to gather the articles (i.e., Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, ScienceDirect). It is possible to find papers focusing on multimedia learning principles in other databases. The research is also limited by using only journal articles in the review. The current study can be expanded and validated for further investigation by including other databases (i.e., Springer, IEEE, and Google Scholar) and article types, such as conference proceedings, thesis/dissertations, and book chapters. Lastly, all other learning environments, including paper-based, computer-based, web-based, mobile-based learning environments and except for AR and VR, are called traditional learning environments, as they do not fit the scope of the study. Further research can explore other learning environments and compare them with AR and VR environments.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abulrub, A.-H. G., Attridge, A. N., & Williams, M. A. (2011). Virtual reality in engineering education: The future of creative learning. In 2011 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) .

Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (1), 250.

Article   Google Scholar  

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20 , 1–11.

Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G., Pektaş, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior, 57 , 334–342.

Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye tracking research on multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 125 , 413–428.

Anmarkrud, Ø., Andresen, A., & Bråten, I. (2019). Cognitive load and working memory in multimedia learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Educational Psychologist, 54 (2), 61–83.

Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6 (4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355

Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory oxford . Oxford Uni.

Google Scholar  

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5 (3), 243–260.

Bakhshialiabad, H., Bakhshi, M., & Hassanshahi, G. (2015). Students’ perceptions of the academic learning environment in seven medical sciences courses based on DREEM. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 6 , 195.

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 53–61.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8 (4), 293–332.

Chen, C.-Y., & Yang, Y.-H. (2020). Investigation of the effectiveness of common representational formats in online learner-paced software training materials. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57 (1), 97–108.

Cubillo, J., Martín, S., Castro, M., Diaz, G., Colmenar, A., & Botički, I. (2014). A learning environment for augmented reality mobile learning. In 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) proceedings , pp. 1–8.

De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38 (2), 105–134.

Di Natale, A. F., Repetto, C., Riva, G., & Villani, D. (2020). Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A 10-year systematic review of empirical research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51 (6), 2006–2033. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13030

Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68 , 586–596.

Erden, M., & Altun, S. (2006). Ogrenme stilleri [Learning styles] . Morpa Publication.

Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality, 23 (4), 447–459.

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15 (4), 313–331.

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16 (6), 511–525.

Greer, D. L., Crutchfield, S. A., & Woods, K. L. (2013). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, instructional design principles, and students with learning disabilities in computer-based and online learning environments. Journal of Education, 193 (2), 41–50.

Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: A systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8 (1), 1–32.

Ip, H. H. S., & Li, C. (2015). Virtual reality-based learning environments: Recent developments and ongoing challenges . Hybrid Learning: Innovation in Educational Practices.

ISCED. (2011).  International standard classification of education . http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf

Kalyuga, S. (2014). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 576–597). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.028 .

Kartiko, I., Kavakli, M., & Cheng, K. (2010). Learning science in a virtual reality application: The impacts of animated-virtual actors’ visual complexity. Computers & Education, 55 (2), 881–891.

Küçük, S., Kapakin, S., & Göktaş, Y. (2016). Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anatomical Sciences Education, 9 (5), 411–421.

Kutbay, E., & Akpinar, Y. (2020). Investigating modality, redundancy and signaling principles with abstract and concrete representation. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8 (2), 131–145.

Lai, A. F., Chen, C. H., & Lee, G. Y. (2019). An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (1), 232–247.

Law, N., Niederhauser, D. S., Christensen, R., & Shear, L. (2016). A multilevel system of quality technology-enhanced learning and teaching indicators. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 72–83.

Li, J., Antonenko, P. D., & Wang, J. (2019). Trends and issues in multimedia learning research in 1996–2016: A bibliometric analysis. Educational Research Review, 28 , 100282.

Manzoor, A. (2016). Technology-enabled learning environments. In E. A. Railean, G. Walker, A. Elçi, & L. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education (pp. 545–559). IGI Global.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32 (1), 1–19.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164603 .

Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41 , 31–48.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678

Book   Google Scholar  

Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 16 , 345–370.

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197

Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.64

Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A Personalization effect in multimedia learning: students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389

Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles (pp. 279–315). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.015

Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11 (1), 13.

Meyer, O. A., Omdahl, M. K., & Makransky, G. (2019). Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education , 140 , 103603

Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , 169–182.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group*. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  Annals of Internal Medicine , 151 (4), 264–269.

Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79 (2), 576–600.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.117

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319

Mutlu-Bayraktar, D., Cosgun, V., & Altan, T. (2019). Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 141 , 103618.

Ozerem, A., & Akkoyunlu, B. (2015). Learning environments designed according to learning styles and its effects on mathematics achievement. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research , 61 , 61–80. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.61.4

Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 27 , 27–42.

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/revue Canadienne De Psychologie, 45 (3), 255.

Palvia, P., Daneshvar Kakhki, M., Ghoshal, T., Uppala, V., & Wang, W. (2015). Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: A meta-analysis of IS journals. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37 (1), 30. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03730

Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44 , 267–278.

Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (6), 785.

Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147 , 103778.

Raja, R., & Nagasubramani, P. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research., 3 , 33–35.

Rey, G. D., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Wirzberger, M., Schmitt, T. H., & Schneider, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect . Springer.

Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016). Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 17 , 19–36.

Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23 , 1–24.

Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis . Springer.

Selzer, M. N., Gazcon, N. F., & Larrea, M. L. (2019). Effects of virtual presence and learning outcome using low-end virtual reality systems. Displays, 59 , 9–15.

Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (5), 1618–1625.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257–285.

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

Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the use of educational technology. Educational Technology, 48 , 32–35.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. In J. Sweller, P. Ayres, & S. Kalyuga (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 57–69). Springer.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251–296.

Statistics, U. I. f. (2015). International standard classification of education fields of education and training 2013 (ISCED-F 2013): Detailed field descriptions . UNESCO Institute for Statistics. UIS, Montreal.

UKAuthority. (2019). VR and AR attract education sector interest . Retrieved December 16, 2019, from https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/vr-and-ar-attract-education-sector-interest/

Van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or Cueing) principle in multimedia learning (pp. 263–278). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.014

Vinales, J. J. (2015). The learning environment and learning styles: A guide for mentors. British Journal of Nursing, 24 (8), 454–457.

Wang, C. X., & Kinuthia, W. (2004). Defining technology enhanced learning environment for pre-service teachers. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference , pp. 2724–2727.

Wang, Z., Sundararajan, N., Adesope, O. O., & Ardasheva, Y. (2017). Moderating the seductive details effect in multimedia learning with note-taking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48 (6), 1380–1389.

Weng, C., Otanga, S., Weng, A., & Cox, J. (2018). Effects of interactivity in E-textbooks on 7th graders science learning and cognitive load. Computers & Education, 120 , 172–184.

Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2 (1), 1–12.

Wu, P.-H., Hwang, G.-J., Yang, M.-L., & Chen, C.-H. (2018). Impacts of integrating the repertory grid into an augmented reality-based learning design on students’ learning achievements, cognitive load and degree of satisfaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 26 (2), 221–234.

Yahaya, W. A. J. W., & Ahmad, A. (2017). Virtual reality courseware towards achievement of transfer learning among students with different spatial ability. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC) , 9 (2–11), 51–54.

Zancanaro, A., Todesco, J. L., & Ramos, F. (2015). A bibliometric mapping of open educational resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16 (1), 1–23.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Boğaziçi University Research Fund Grant Number 18441.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Management Information Systems Department, Boğaziçi University, Bebek, Istanbul, 34342, Turkey

Burç Çeken & Nazım Taşkın

Research and Development Center, Architecht Information Systems and Marketing Trade Inc., Pendik, Turkey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The current review study is a part of the Ph.D. project conducted by Burç Çeken. Nazım Taşkın is his supervisor, who made significant contributions by reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable feedback. Each named author has substantially contributed to conducting the underlying research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burç Çeken .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Çeken, B., Taşkın, N. Multimedia learning principles in different learning environments: a systematic review. Smart Learn. Environ. 9 , 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00200-2

Download citation

Received : 17 December 2021

Accepted : 30 March 2022

Published : 13 April 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00200-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multimedia learning
• Multimedia learning principles
• Learning environment
• Augmented reality
• Virtual reality
• Systematic review

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integrating extended reality in architectural design studio teaching and reviews: implementing a participatory action research framework.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. the integration of xr technologies in architectural education, 2.2. participatory action research (par), 2.3. literature review conclusion, 3. methodology, 3.1. action: participant selection and data generation, 3.2. observation: group structure and data acquisition, 3.3. reflection: qualitative insights, 3.4. evaluation: synthesising feedback, 3.5. modification: iterative implementation, 4. practical implementation of the par framework, 4.1. establishment of studio learning environments, 4.2. establishment of collaborate review environments, 4.2.1. ar component: hybrid physical–digital review space, 4.2.2. vr component: immersive full-scale design visualisation space, 5. results and analysis, 5.1. student reflections, 5.2. teaching team’s self-reflection, 6. discussion, 6.1. strategies for integrating xr technology into architectural design studies, 6.1.1. evolve xr beyond visualisation, 6.1.2. adjust studio requirements to enable advanced tool integration, 6.1.3. foster critical technological thinking, 6.1.4. enhance in-studio knowledge sharing, 6.1.5. develop technologically informed workflows, 6.2. research contributions and significance, 6.3. scope and limitations, 6.4. potential impact and way forward, 7. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Kharvari, F.; Kaiser, L.E. Impact of extended reality on architectural education and the design process. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 141 , 104393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milgram, P.; Takemura, H.; Utsumi, A.; Kishino, F. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Proceedings of the Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 25–26 October 1995; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA, 1995; Volume 2351, pp. 282–292. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi, H.Y.; Juan, Y.K.; Lu, S. Comparing BIM-Based XR and Traditional Design Process from Three Perspectives: Aesthetics, Gaze Tracking, and Perceived Usefulness. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1728. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994 , 77 , 1321–1329. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alizadehsalehi, S.; Hadavi, A.; Huang, J.C. From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Autom. Constr. 2020 , 116 , 103254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cipresso, P.; Giglioli, I.A.C.; Raya, M.A.; Riva, G. The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: A network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front. Psychol. 2018 , 9 , 309500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simões, B.; De Amicis, R.; Barandiaran, I.; Posada, J. X-reality system architecture for industry 4.0 processes. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2018 , 2 , 72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Safikhani, S.; Keller, S.; Schweiger, G.; Pirker, J. Immersive virtual reality for extending the potential of building information modeling in architecture, engineering, and construction sector: Systematic review. Int. J. Digit. Earth 2022 , 15 , 503–526. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, Z.; Cheok, A.D.; Yang, H.; Zhu, J.; Shi, J. Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput. Graph. 2006 , 30 , 20–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017 , 20 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bressan, N.M.; Scarpa, M.; Peron, F. Case studies of eXtended reality combined with Building Information Modeling: A literature review. J. Build. Eng. 2024 , 84 , 108575. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Kim, M.J.; Love, P.E.; Kang, S.C. Augmented Reality in built environment: Classification and implications for future research. Autom. Constr. 2013 , 32 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dedekargınoğlu, E.; Yılmaz, M. Virtual Reality as a Tool for Participatory Architectural Design. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference Road to 2030: Sustainability, Business Models, Innovation and Design, Epsom, UK, 4–5 March 2019; pp. 62–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Iranmanesh, A.; Onur, Z. Mandatory virtual design studio for all: Exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2021 , 40 , 251–267. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, R.; Ostwald, M.J.; Gu, N.; Skates, H.; Feast, S. Evaluating the effectiveness of online teaching in architecture courses. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2022 , 65 , 89–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freina, L.; Ott, M. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In Proceedings of the The International Scientific Conference Elearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania, 23–24 April 2015; Volume 1, pp. 10–1007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kolaei, A.Z.; Hedayati, E.; Khanzadi, M.; Amiri, G.G. Challenges and opportunities of augmented reality during the construction phase. Autom. Constr. 2022 , 143 , 104586. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tan, Y.; Xu, W.; Li, S.; Chen, K. Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) for education and training in the AEC industry: A systematic review of research and applications. Buildings 2022 , 12 , 1529. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chandrasekera, T.; Yoon, S.Y. The effect of augmented and virtual reality interfaces in the creative design process. Int. J. Virtual Augment. Real. (IJVAR) 2018 , 2 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Milovanovic, J.; Moreau, G.; Siret, D.; Miguet, F. Virtual and augmented reality in architectural design and education. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference, CAAD Futures 2017, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–14 July 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diao, P.H.; Shih, N.J. Trends and research issues of augmented reality studies in architectural and civil engineering education—A review of academic journal publications. Appl. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 1840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stouffs, R.; Janssen, P.; Roudavski, S.; Tunçer, B. What is happening to virtual and augmented reality applied to architecture. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2013), Singapore, 15–18 May 2013; Volume 1, p. 10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, J.; Ma, Q.; Wei, X. The Application of Extended Reality Technology in Architectural Design Education: A Review. Buildings 2023 , 13 , 2931. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schnabel, M.A.; Kvan, T.; Kruijff, E.; Donath, D. The first virtual environment design studio. In Proceedings of the Education and Curricula-Virtual Meeting Places, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 13–16 October 2001; Volume 14, pp. 394–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vecchia, L.D.; da Silva, A.; Pereira, A. Teaching/learning architectural design based on a virtual learning environment. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2009 , 7 , 255–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuliga, S.F.; Thrash, T.; Dalton, R.C.; Hölscher, C. Virtual reality as an empirical research tool—Exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015 , 54 , 363–375. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bashabsheh, A.K.; Alzoubi, H.H.; Ali, M.Z. The application of virtual reality technology in architectural pedagogy for building constructions. Alex. Eng. J. 2019 , 58 , 713–723. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Velaora, M.; Guéna, F.; Moraitis, K. Integrating Virtual Reality Interface into architectural education Virtual Urban Environment Design and Real-Time Simulated Behaviors. In Proceedings of the eCAADe RIS 2019. Virtually Real. Immersing into the Unbuilt, Aalborg, Denmark, 2–3 May 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darwish, M.; Kamel, S.; Assem, A.M. A Theoretical Model of Using Extended Reality in Architecture Design Education. Eng. Res. J. Fac. Eng. 2023 , 52 , 36–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darwish, M.; Kamel, S.; Assem, A. Extended reality for enhancing spatial ability in architecture design education. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023 , 14 , 102104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hui, V.; Estrina, T.; Zhou, G.; Huang, A. Applications of Extended Reality Technologies within Design Pedagogy: A Case Study in Architectural Science. Int. J. Digit. Soc 2021 , 12 , 1710–1720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ummihusna, A.; Zairul, M. Investigating immersive learning technology intervention in architecture education: A systematic literature review. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2022 , 14 , 264–281. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Portman, M.E.; Natapov, A.; Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015 , 54 , 376–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aydin, S.; Aktaş, B. Developing an integrated VR infrastructure in architectural design education. Front. Robot. AI 2020 , 7 , 495468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kluge, M.G.; Maltby, S.; Kuhne, C.; Evans, D.J.; Walker, F.R. Comparing approaches for selection, development, and deployment of extended reality (XR) teaching applications: A case study at The University of Newcastle Australia. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023 , 28 , 4531–4562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Morales, M.P.E. Participatory action research (PAR) cum action research (AR) in teacher professional development: A literature review. Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2016 , 2 , 156–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herr, C.M. Action research as a research method in architecture and design. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2015, Berlin, Germany, 2–7 August 2015; Volume 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groat, L.N.; Wang, D. Architectural Research Methods ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 101–141. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saghafi, M.R.; Mozaffar, F.; Moosavi, S.M.; Fathi, N. Teaching methods in architectural design basics. Ciênc. Nat. 2015 , 37 , 379–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crolla, K.; Hodgson, P.; Ho, A.W.Y. ‘Peer critique’in debate: A pedagogical tool for teaching architectural design studio. Int. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2019 , 13 , 8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saleh, M.M.; Abdelkader, M.; Hosny, S.S. Architectural education challenges and opportunities in a post-pandemic digital age. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023 , 14 , 102027. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wei, X.; Weng, D.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y. Teaching based on augmented reality for a technical creative design course. Comput. Educ. 2015 , 81 , 221–234. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carr, W.; Kemmis, S. Becoming Critical: Education Knowledge and Action Research ; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwood, D.J.; Whyte, W.F.; Harkavy, I. Participatory action research as a process and as a goal. Hum. Relat. 1993 , 46 , 175–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katoppo, M.L.; Sudradjat, I. Combining Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Design Thinking (DT) as an alternative research method in architecture. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 184 , 118–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hodgson, P.; Corolla, K.; Ho, W.Y.A. Building Collaborative Creativity through an Iterative Approach. In Proceedings of the International Association for Development of the Information Society, Budapest, Hungary, 21–23 October 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yee, J. Connecting practice to research (and back to practice): Making the leap from design practice to design research. Des. Princ. Pract. 2007 , 1 , 81–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuhn, S. Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2001 , 17 , 349–352. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahvecioğlu, N.P. Architectural design studio organization and creativity. A|Z ITU J. Fac. Archit. 2007 , 4 , 6–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman, W.R.; Craig, A.B. Understanding Virtual Reality: Interface, Application, and Design ; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 109–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M.J. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010 , 41 , 10–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linowes, J.; Babilinski, K. Augmented Reality for Developers: Build Practical Augmented Reality Applications with Unity, ARCore, ARKit, and Vuforia ; Packt Publishing Ltd.: Birmingham, UK, 2017; pp. 60–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nguyen, V.T.; Dang, T. Setting up virtual reality and augmented reality learning environment in unity. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), Nantes, France, 9–13 October 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 315–320. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun, C.; Hu, W.; Xu, D. Navigation modes, operation methods, observation scales and background options in UI design for high learning performance in VR-based architectural applications. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2019 , 6 , 189–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kharvari, F.; Höhl, W. The role of serious gaming using virtual reality applications for 3D architectural visualization. In Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games), Vienna, Austria, 4–6 September 2019; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Özgen, D.S.; Afacan, Y.; Sürer, E. Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A comparative study with paper-based design. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021 , 31 , 357–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Taylor, R.P. The potential of biophilic fractal designs to promote health and performance: A review of experiments and applications. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 823. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sussman, A.; Hollander, J. Cognitive Architecture: Designing for How We Respond to the Built Environment ; Routledge: London, UK, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taherysayah, F.; Malathouni, C.; Liang, H.N.; Westermann, C. Virtual reality and electroencephalography in architectural design: A systematic review of empirical studies. J. Build. Eng. 2024 , 85 , 108611. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shadiev, R.; Li, D. A review study on eye-tracking technology usage in immersive virtual reality learning environments. Comput. Educ. 2023 , 196 , 104681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Crolla, K.; Song, J.; Bunica, A.; Sheikh, A.T. Integrating Extended Reality in Architectural Design Studio Teaching and Reviews: Implementing a Participatory Action Research Framework. Buildings 2024 , 14 , 1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061865

Crolla K, Song J, Bunica A, Sheikh AT. Integrating Extended Reality in Architectural Design Studio Teaching and Reviews: Implementing a Participatory Action Research Framework. Buildings . 2024; 14(6):1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061865

Crolla, Kristof, Jingwen Song, Andreea Bunica, and Abdullah Tahir Sheikh. 2024. "Integrating Extended Reality in Architectural Design Studio Teaching and Reviews: Implementing a Participatory Action Research Framework" Buildings 14, no. 6: 1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14061865

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Eye-tracking research in interactive language learning environments: A systematic review

• Published: 18 April 2024

Cite this article

• Xiaojing Li 1  

190 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This comprehensive systematic review synthesizes thirty-four peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2022, utilizing eye-tracking research within interactive language learning environments. Following the PRISMA scheme for article selection, this review illuminates both the affordances and challenges of eye-tracking technology in enhancing language learning outcomes. Through a methodical examination, including sensitivity and specificity analysis of relevant databases such as JSTOR, EBSCOHost, and ProQuest, this study not only underscores the potential of eye-tracking technology in identifying effective instructional strategies and personalizing instruction but also addresses significant challenges like equipment cost and complexity. Theoretically, this review advances our understanding of the cognitive processes involved in language learning by detailing how eye-tracking data can reveal patterns of attention allocation and information processing that are essential for effective CALL design. Pedagogically, it suggests that educators can leverage these insights to develop more engaging and effective language learning interventions that cater to the diverse needs of learners. By highlighting specific instances where eye-tracking technology has facilitated improved learning outcomes, this review sets a foundation for future research to explore innovative ways to integrate visual attention analysis in language education. Future research directions are proposed for continuing to harness eye-tracking technology’s utility in both theoretical exploration and practical application in language learning research and CALL design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Eye-Tracking Research in Computer-Mediated Language Learning

Eye-Tracking as a Research Method in Language Testing

Data availability.

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Alkan, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2007). Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. British Journal of Educational Technology , 38 (3), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00721.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Aryadoust, V., & Ang, B. H. (2021). Exploring the frontiers of eye tracking research in language studies: A novel co-citation scientometric review. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 34 (7), 898–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1647251 .

Bacca-Acosta, J., Tejada, J., Fabregat, R., et al. (2022). Scaffolding in immersive virtual reality environments for learning English: An eye tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development , 70 , 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10068-7 .

Bacca-Acosta, J., Tejada, J., Fabregat, R., Kinshuk, & Guevara, J. (2022b). Scaffolding in immersive virtual reality environments for learning English: An eye tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10068-7 .

Bahari, A. (2021). Computer-assisted Language Proficiency Assessment Tools and Strategies. Open Learning: The Journal of Open Distance and e-Learning , 36 (1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1726738 .

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bahari, A. (2022). Affordances and challenges of Technology-assisted Language Learning for Motivation: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments https// . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.2021246 .

Bahari, A. (2023). Challenges and affordances of cognitive load management in Technology-assisted Language Learning: A systematic review. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction , 38 (3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2019957 .

Bahari, A., Wu, S., & Ayres, P. (2023). Improving computer–assisted Language Learning through the Lens of Cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review , 35 (53), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09764-y .

Benati, A. (2022). The effects of structured input and traditional instruction on the acquisition of the English causative passive forms: An eye-tracking study measuring accuracy in responses and processing patterns. Language Teaching Research , 26 (6), 1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820928577 .

Boers, F., Warren, P., Grimshaw, G., & Siyanova-Chanturia, A. (2017). On the benefits of multimodal annotations for vocabulary uptake from reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 30 (7), 709–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1356335 .

Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F. (2015). Inferring mindful cognitive-processing of peer‐feedback via eye‐tracking: Role of feedback‐characteristics, fixation‐durations and transitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 31 (5), 422–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12091 .

Chen, Y. T., Li, M., Huang, C. Q., Han, Z. M., Hwang, G. J., & Yang, G. (2022). Promoting deep writing with immersive technologies: An SVVR-supported Chinese composition writing approach for primary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology , 53 (6), 2071–2091. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13247 .

Chen, Y. T., Li, M., & Cukurova, M. (2023a). Unleashing imagination: An effective pedagogical approach to integrate into spherical video-based virtual reality to improve students’ creative writing. Education and Information Technologies , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12115-7 .

Chen, Y., Li, M., Huang, C., Cukurova, M., & Ma, Q. (2023b). A Systematic Review of Research on Immersive Technology-enhanced writing education: The current state and a Research Agenda. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies . https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3341420 .

Chen, F., Xia, Q., Feng, Y., Wang, L., & Peng, G. (2023c). Learning challenging L2 sounds via computer-assisted training: Audiovisual training with an airflow model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 39 (1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12724 .

Chen, Y. T., Li, M., Cukurova, M., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2024). Incorporation of peer-feedback into the pedagogical use of spherical video‐based virtual reality in writing education. British Journal of Educational Technology , 55 (2), 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13376 .

Chien, K. P., Tsai, C. Y., Chen, H. L., Chang, W. H., & Chen, S. (2015). Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories. Computers & Education , 82 , 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.023 .

Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal , 100 (S1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12302 .

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning . Wiley.

Cook, A. E., Wei, W., & Preziosi, M. A. (2018). The use of ocular-motor measures in a convergent approach to studying cognitive load. In R. Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive load measurement and application: A theoretical framework for meaningful research and practice (pp. 112–128). Routledge.

Dagienė, V., Jasutė, E., & Dolgopolovas, V. (2021). Professional development of in-service teachers: Use of eye tracking for language classes, case study. Sustainability , 13 (22), 12504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212504 .

De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2010). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction , 20 (2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010 .

Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research , 21 (2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr257oa .

Gass, S., Winke, P., Isbell, D. R., & Ahn, J. (2019). How captions help people learn languages: A working-memory, eye-tracking study. Language Learning & Technology , 23 (2), 84–104.

Google Scholar  

Godfroid, A., & Schmidtke, J. (2013). What do eye movements tell us about awareness? A triangulation of eye-movement data, verbal reports and vocabulary learning scores. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 183–205). University of Hawai‛i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye-tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 35 (3), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000119 .

Godfroid, A., Loewen, S., Jung, S., Park, J. H., Gass, S., & Ellis, R. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgments measure distinct types of knowledge: Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 37 (2), 269–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000850 .

Godfroid, A., Ahn, J., Choi, I. N. A., Ballard, L., Cui, Y., Johnston, S., & Yoon, H. J. (2018). Incidental vocabulary learning in a natural reading context: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 21 (3), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr257oa .

Hegarty, M. (2010). Components of spatial intelligence. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 52, pp. 265–297). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00797421(10)52007-3 .

Hou, J., Lee, J. F., & Doherty, S. (2022). A study of the effects of mobile media on L2 text processing: Beyond offline comprehension accuracy measures. Computers & Education , 182 , 104466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104466 .

Indrarathne, B., & Kormos, J. (2017). Attentional processing of input in explicit and implicit conditions: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 39 (3), 401–430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311600019X .

Jarodzka, H., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2017). Tracking the reading eye: Towards a model of real‐world reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 33 (3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12189 .

Kang, H. (2014). Establishing wiki design principles to advance wiki-based learning: An eye tracking study. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments , 2 (3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSMILE.2014.064206 .

Kang, H., Kweon, S. O., & Choi, S. (2022). Using eye-tracking to examine the role of first and second language glosses. Language Teaching Research , 26 (6), 1252–1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820928567 .

Kao, G. Y. M., Chiang, X. Z., & Foulsham, T. (2019). Reading behavior and the effect of embedded selfies in role-playing picture e-books: An eye-tracking investigation. Computers & Education , 136 , 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.010 .

Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., & Raney, G. E. (2001). An eye movement study of insight problem solving. Memory & Cognition , 29 (7), 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195762 .

Kobylyanskaya, S. (2022). Speech and Eye Tracking features for L2 Acquisition: A Multimodal Experiment. In M. M. Rodrigo, N. Matsuda, A. I. Cristea, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education. Posters and late breaking results, Workshops and tutorials, Industry and Innovation Tracks, practitioners’ and Doctoral Consortium. AIED 2022 (Vol. 13356). Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11647-6_8 .

Koć-Januchta, M. M., Höffler, T. N., Prechtl, H., & Leutner, D. (2020). Is too much help an obstacle? Effects of interactivity and cognitive style on learning with dynamic versus non-dynamic visualizations with narrative explanations. Educational Technology Research and Development , 68 , 2971–2990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09822-0 .

Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research Review , 10 , 90–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.10.001 .

Lawson, A. P., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). The power of voice to convey emotion in multimedia instructional messages. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 32 (4), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00282-y .

Liberman, L., & Dubovi, I. (2023). The effect of the modality principle to support learning with virtual reality: An eye-tracking and electrodermal activity study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 39 (2), 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12763 .

Liou, H. C. (2012). The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 25 (4), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.597766 .

Liu, P. L. (2014). Using eye tracking to understand learners’ reading process through the concept-mapping learning strategy. Computers & Education , 78 , 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.011 .

Liu, T. S. W., Liu, Y. T., & Chen, C. Y. D. (2019). Meaningfulness is in the eye of the reader: Eye-tracking insights of L2 learners reading e-books and their pedagogical implications. Interactive Learning Environments , 27 (2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1451901 .

Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction , 20 (2), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.012 .

Meißner, M., & Oll, J. (2019). The promise of eye-tracking methodology in organizational research: A taxonomy, review, and future avenues. Organizational Research Methods , 22 (2), 590–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117744882 .

Mohamed, A. A. (2018). Exposure frequency in L2 reading: An eye-movement perspective of incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 40 (2), 269–293. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000092 .

Mohsen, M. A. (2016). The use of help options in multimedia listening environments to aid language learning: A review. British Journal of Educational Technology , 47 (6), 1232–1242. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12305 .

Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior , 26 (1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001 .

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist , 38 (1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1 .

Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2016). Incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eye-tracking study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 38 (1), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000224 .

Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., Loyola, M. S., López, M. J., & Méndez, E. E. (2018). When two computer-supported learning strategies are better than one: An eye-tracking study. Computers & Education , 125 , 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.024 .

Qu-Lee, J., & Balcetis, E. (2022). The call for ecological validity is right but missing perceptual idiosyncrasies is wrong. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 45 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000807 .

Russell, M. C. (2005). Hotspots and hyperlinks: Using eye-tracking to supplement usability testing. Usability News , 7 (2), 1–11.

Salmerón, L., Naumann, J., García, V., & Fajardo, I. (2017). Scanning and deep processing of information in hypertext: An eye tracking and cued retrospective think-aloud study. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 33 (3), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12152 .

Schugar, H. R., Smith, C. A., & Schugar, J. T. (2013). Teaching with interactive picture e-books in grades K–6. The Reading Teacher , 66 (8), 615–624. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1168 .

Shadiev, R., & Li, D. (2023). A review study on eye-tracking technology usage in immersive virtual reality learning environments. Computers & Education , 196 , 104681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104681 .

Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research , 27 (2), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310382068 .

Spit, S., Andringa, S., Rispens, J., & Aboh, E. O. (2022). The Effect of Explicit instruction on implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge in Kindergartners. Language Learning and Development , 18 (2), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2021.1941968 .

Tai, T. Y., & Chen, H. H. J. (2021). The impact of immersive virtual reality on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research , 59 (7), 1272–1293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994291 .

Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2015). Benefits and pitfalls of multimedia and interactive features in technology-enhanced storybooks: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research , 85 (4), 698–739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314566989 .

Wang, J., Antonenko, P., & Dawson, K. (2020). Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education , 146 , 103779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103779 .

Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2013). Factors influencing the use of captions by foreign language learners: An eye-tracking study. The Modern Language Journal , 97 (1), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01432.x .

Yaros, R. A., & Cook, A. E. (2011). Attention versus learning of online content: Preliminary findings from an eye-tracking study. International Journal of Cyber Behavior Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL) , 1 (4), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2011100104 .

Download references

The authors declares that they have no relevant or material financial interests that relate to the research described in this paper.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Foreign Languages, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang, Henan, 464000, China

Xiaojing Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Xiaojing Li is the sole author of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaojing Li .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Li, X. Eye-tracking research in interactive language learning environments: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12648-5

Download citation

Received : 24 August 2023

Accepted : 21 March 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12648-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interactive learning environments (ILEs)
• Systematic review
• Challenges and affordances
• Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research