You are here:

An Investigation of Behaviorist and Cognitive Approaches to Instructional Multimedia Design

, Educational Consultant,Ohio, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 12, Number 1, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


Typically, guidelines for design of interactive multimedia systems have been based on intuitive beliefs of designers rather than being founded on relevant research and theory. As advances in technology create new opportunities for education, it is important to use a range of theoretical perspectives to optimize use of new technology in teaching and learning. This article explores behaviorist and cognitive approaches to interactive multimedia instructional design (ID). Basic concepts, characteristics of ID, and comparisons between each are discussed. Interface design guidelines for learning with multimedia are presented, which link theory with practice in effective multimedia ID. Universal Design for Learning is described, which sheds light on future research in ID to accommodate the diversity of learners. Major conclusions include that no one theoretical foundation exists for ID practice that is suitable for all applications. Dick and Carey's behaviorist model, Willis' constructivist model, Reigeluth's Elaboration Theory, Keller's ARCS model, Merrill's Instructional Transaction Theory, and Gagné's learning hierarchy illustrate the abundance of theoretical frameworks to assist designers in decision making. Theories continually evolve or are revised as a result of research or critique by designers or theorists in the field. In the long term a blending of behaviorist and cognitive approaches seems inevitable.


Deubel, P. (2003). An Investigation of Behaviorist and Cognitive Approaches to Instructional Multimedia Design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(1), 63-90. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved February 21, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Atkins, M.J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251-271. Ausubel , D. (1960). The use of advanced organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5) , 267-272.
  2. Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  3. Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Magliano, S.G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46-73). New
  4. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systemic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison, Wesley, and Longman.
  5. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.
  6. Dick, W. (1997). Better instruction design theory: Process improvement or reengineering? Educational Technology, 37(5), 47-50.
  7. Duffy, T.M., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon& Schuster Macmillan.
  8. English, R.E., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 23-42.
  9. Gagné, B., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional de-sign (4 th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  10. Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Hooper, S., Rieber, L., & Kini, A. (1996). Research and research with emerging technologies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.) , Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Simon& Schuster Macmillan.
  11. Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J., & Land, S. (1997). Student-centered learning and interactive multimedia: Status, issues, and implications. Contemporary Education, 68(2), 94-99.
  12. Hannafin, M.J., & Hooper, S. (1989). An integrated framework for CBI screen design and layout. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 155-165.
  13. Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (2000). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(3), 195-205.
  14. Hoffman, S. (1997). Elaboration theory and hypermedia: Is there a link? Educational Technology, 37(1), 57-64.
  15. Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. [Online]. Available:
  16. Jackson, S., Stratford, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1995). Model-It: A case study of learner-centered software design for supporting model building. Interactive Learning Environments. [Online]. Available: Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3) , 5-14.
  17. Jones, M., Farquhar, J., & Surry, D. (1995). Using metacognitive theories to design user interfaces for computer-based learning. Educational An Investigation of Behaviorist and Cognitive Approaches 89
  18. Keller, J.M., & Song, S.H. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 5-22.
  19. Kenworthy, N. (1993). When Johnny can’t read: Multimedia design strategies to accommodate poor readers. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 7(1) , 27-30. Kurk j ian , C. (1999). Electronic environments supporting literacy learning: A conversation with David Rose. The New England Reading Association Journal, 35(3) , 18-25.
  20. Litchfield, B. (1993). Design factors in multimedia environments: Research findings and implications for instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-t ion. Atlanta , GA , April 12-16: American Education Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 363 268)
  21. Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right ques-t ions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
  22. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
  23. McFarland, R.D. (1995). Ten design points for the human interface to instructional multimedia. T.H.E. Journal, 22(7), 67-69.
  24. Merrill, M.D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory: Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instruct iona ldes ign theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  25. Milheim, W.D., & Martin, B.L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of ComputerBased Instruction, 18 (3), 99-105. Orr , K.L. , Golas , K.D. , & Yao , K. (1994 , Winter). Storyboard development for interactive multimedia training. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 18-29.
  26. Park, I., & Hannafin, M.J. (1993). Empirically-based guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 63-85. Pisha , B. , & Coyne , P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197-203.
  27. Rodriques, S. (2000). The interpretive zone between software designers and a science educator: Grounding instructional multimedia design in learning theory. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(1) , 1-15. Shuell , T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Education-90 Deubel
  28. Spiro, R.J., Feltovich, P.J., Jacobson, M.J., & Coulson, R.L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism and hypertext: Random access instruc-t ion for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.
  29. Stemler, L.K. (1997). Educational characteristics of multimedia: A literature review. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 6 (3,4), 339-359.
  30. Szabo, M., & Kanuka, H. (1999). Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8 (1) , 23-42.
  31. Tergan, S. (1997). Multiple views, contexts, and symbol systems in learning with hypertext/hypermedia: A critical review of research. Educational Technology, 37(4), 5-18. Thibodeau , P. (1997). Design standards for visual elements and interactivity for courseware. T.H.E. Journal, 24(7) , 84-86. Vilamil-Casanova , J. , & Molina, L. (1996). An interactive guide to multimedia. IN: Que Education and Training (pp. 124-129). ISBN: 1575760665
  32. Wild, M., & Quinn, C. (1998, January). Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 73-82.
  33. Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 30(6), 5-23.
  34. Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1) , 5-16.
  35. Willis, J., & Wright, K.E. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5-20.
  36. Winn, W., & Snyder, D. (1996). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 112-142). New York: Simon& Schuster

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact

View References & Citations Map

Cited By

  1. Speak2Me: Using Synchronous Audio for ESL Teaching in Taiwan

    Deborah LaPointe, Katherine Greysen & Kerrin Barrett

    The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning Vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr 01, 2004)

  2. Keeping it simple: development of an interactive atlas for human functional anatomy

    Richard Guy, Heather Pisani, Peter Rich, Giovanni Mandarano, Cathy Leahy, Tom Molyneux & Rob Davidson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, Australia

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2010 (Jun 29, 2010) pp. 293–298

  3. Blended Learning Model for Multimedia Production Course

    Kosuke Terashima, Kyoto University of Foreign Studies, Japan; Ryosuke Ikai & Yoshiyuki Yoshida, Graduate School of Kansai University, Japan; Mihoko Kamei & Kenichi Kubota, Kansai University, Japan

    EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2004 (2004) pp. 4049–4054

  4. A hybrid adaptation framework to support authentic learning activities in web-based environments

    Mohammad Santally & Alain Senteni, VCILT, Mauritius

    E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2004 (2004) pp. 2900–2905

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact