Multiple Ways to Perceive Information¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 4 studies (2 causal, 2 review), q2–q3 · 0 of 4 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

This strategy presents the same core content through more than one sensory channel or representational format — e.g., narration paired with graphics, text alongside diagrams, tactile models, or manipulable simulations. It is grounded in Dual Coding Theory: verbal and visual codes are processed in partly separate channels, and information encoded in both is better remembered than information encoded in one media-combinations-affect-recall-and-retention [+M]. Critically, the benefit comes from complementary representations of the same content, not from merely adding more media.

Design Implications¶

Multimodal presentation works when each mode carries a distinct, coordinated portion of the message and neither channel is overloaded. Combining spoken explanation with relevant graphics outperforms either alone, but redundant on-screen text duplicating narration can depress learning [~S] — the redundancy effect from Cognitive Load Theory. Design each additional mode to add information or access, not decoration.

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A clear analysis of which content belongs in which channel (e.g., words for causal explanation, graphics for spatial structure), following multimedia design principles
• Coordination across modes: temporal contiguity (narration synchronized with the relevant visual) and spatial contiguity (labels near what they describe) [+S]
• Alternative formats chosen for genuine access needs (captions, audio description, tactile graphics), not for novelty
• Segmented or learner-paced presentation when total content is high, to manage working memory chunking-reduces-working-memory-load [+M]

Constraints¶

• Adding a second channel does not add capacity: learners still process each modality with limited working memory, and split-attention between poorly integrated sources degrades learning [-S]
• Redundant modes (identical text read aloud verbatim) can reduce learning by forcing parallel processing of the same information [-S]
• Excessive simultaneous sensory input — animation plus narration plus music plus text — overloads channels and harms retention [-S]
• The popular rationale of matching formats to fixed "learning styles" (visual vs. auditory learners) is not empirically supported [X]; the justification is dual coding and accessibility, not style matching

Implementation Variability¶

• Static dual-mode (text + diagram) — lowest cost, strongest evidence base
• Dynamic multimodal (narrated animation, simulation) — powerful for temporal processes but harder to control load
• Accessibility-driven variants: tactile models, audio description, sign language, haptic feedback
• Learner-controlled modality choice, where learners select or toggle formats

Target Learners¶

• All learners benefit from well-integrated words-plus-graphics presentation over words alone media-combinations-affect-recall-and-retention [+M]
• Learners with sensory disabilities or language-processing differences, for whom alternative formats are a matter of access rather than enhancement
• Novices benefit most from coordinated dual-channel presentation; experts may find explanatory graphics redundant [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Retention and recall of declarative content that can be represented verbally and visually
• Building integrated mental models of systems, structures, and processes
• Accessibility and equitable participation across learner variability

Instructions¶

1. Identify the core content and decide which representation (words, image, sound, manipulation) best carries each part — avoid duplicating the same words across channels.
2. Present the primary explanation through coordinated modes, e.g., a Demonstration with narration synchronized to the visuals.
3. Support integration with signals, labels, and Annotating so learners connect the modes rather than processing them separately.
4. Segment the presentation and allow pacing control to manage load.
5. Provide alternative formats (captions, transcripts, tactile versions) so every learner can access at least one full channel.
6. Check comprehension through varied output formats — written, visual, or oral — rather than a single response mode.

Related Strategies¶

• Chunking — segmentation of multimodal content keeps each channel within working memory limits
• Clear Structure Presentation — signaling and organization determine whether multiple modes integrate or compete
• Use audio-visual (spoken text with graphics) presentation for system-paced, high element interactivity instruction

Examples¶

• Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org) — narrated visual problem-solving videos with synchronized writing, exemplifying temporal contiguity.
• PhET Interactive Simulations (https://phet.colorado.edu) — learners manipulate variables while observing visual and graphical feedback, adding an interactive channel to conceptual content.
• CAST UDL Guidelines (https://udlguidelines.cast.org) — the "representation" principle operationalizes this strategy: multiple media, vocabulary support, and alternatives for auditory and visual information.
• A chemistry course pairing a narrated animation of a reaction mechanism with a tactile molecular model for learners with visual impairments.

Key Sources¶

• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
• Paivio, A. (1990). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x