Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1:
'''Dual-code theory''' a theory of cognition was first advanced by [[Allan Paivio]] of the University of Western Ontario. The theory posits that visual and verbal information is each processed differently along distinct channels with the human mind creating separate representations for information processed in each channel. Supporting evidence comes from research that shows that memory for some verbal information is enhanced if a relevant visual is also presented or if the learner can imagine a visual image to go with the verbal information. Likewise verbal information can often be enhanced when paired with a visual image, real or imagined.
Research with PET scans and fMRI, for example, has shown that participants used the same brain areas to process imagined visuals as images that were actually seen. Participants also had improved memory for spoken words and sentences when paired with an image, imagined or real, and showed increased brain activation to process abstract words not easily paired with an image.
Each channel also has limitations. For example, humans have difficulty simultaneously attending to multiple auditory or visual cues, depending on expertise with the task or prior knowledge with the subject area. For example, a television documentary that shows images of plant and animal life in a rain forest while also simultaneously providing narration that describes the animal life could potentially provide for improved learning using the dual-code theory because the visual and verbal information does not compete with each other.
Line 19 ⟶ 21:
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Denis, M. and Mellet, E. (2002). Neural bases of image and language interactions. International Journal of Psychology, 37 (4), 204-208.
Just, M. et al (2004). Imagery in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study. NeuroImage 21, 112-124.
Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psycologist, 38(1), 43-52.
| |||