Main Article Content


This study aimed to investigate the effect of instructional design of multi-media on reducing cognitive load and the development of scientific concepts among primary school deaf students. It combined the descriptive and quasi-experimental design using an extension of pre-test and post-test experimental-control group design with three groups: an experimental group that was taught the "solar system, stars and galaxies" modules using multimedia software based on the principles of cognitive load theory; a second experimental group was taught the same content using multimedia software but was not based on the principles of cognitive load theory; and a control group that was taught via the textbook. The study sample consisting of 48 male and female deaf students was selected from Al-Amal Institutes at Jeddah, Madinah, and Tabuk. The study used two instruments: scientific concepts test and NASA-TLX scale of cognitive load. The results revealed that the first experimental group outperformed the second and control group students on both measures. However, there was no significant difference between the second experimental and control groups. It is recommended that Sweller’s theory and multimedia be used to design curriculum of science to deaf students.


Instructional design multimedia cognitive load deaf scientific concepts.

Article Details


  1. Akram, B., Mehboob, R., Ajaz, A., & Bashir, R. (2013). Scientific Concepts of hearing and deaf students of grade VIII. Journal of Ele-mentary Education, 23(1), 1-12.
  2. Beal-Alvarez, J., & Cannon, J. (2014). Technol-ogy intervention research with deaf and hard of hearing learners: levels of evidence. American Annals of the Deaf, 158(5), 486–505.
  3. Cahn, R. (2006). Help your children learn science with science made simple: Retrieved from definition.html.
  4. Cavender, A., Bigham, J., & Ladner, R. (2009). ClassInFocus: enabling improved visual attention strategies for deaf and hard of hearing students. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ACM,NewYork, NY, 67–74. doi:10.1145/1639642.1639656
  5. Chen, Y. (2014). A study to explore the effects of self-regulated learning environment for hearing-impaired students. Journal of Com-puter Assisted Learning, 30, 97–109. doi:10.1111/jcal.12023.
  6. Debevc, M., & Peljhan, Z. (2004). The role of video technology in on-line lectures for the deaf. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(17), 1048–1059.
  7. Delgado, A. M. (2007). The effects of multimedia technology on the learning of math story prob-lems of elementary and middle school deaf stu-dents. Lamar University-Beaumont.
  8. Emmorey, K., & Wilson, M. (2004). The puzzle of working memory for sign language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 521-523.
  9. Gentry, M. M., Chinn, K. M., & Moulton, R. D. (2005). Effectiveness of multimedia reading materials when used with children who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(5), 394-403.
  10. Hao, S. (2016). Effects of faded scaffolding in com-puter-based instruction on learners' perfor-mance, cognitive load, and test anxiety (Order No. 10120526).
  11. Hodson, J. L. (2016). Measuring cognitive load: A meta-analysis of load measurement sensitivity (Order No. 10157387).
  12. Lin, C. Y., Wang, L. C., Hung, P. H., & Lin, C. C. (2010, August). Reducing cognitive load through virtual environments among hearing-impaired students. In Circuits, Communications and System (PACCS), 2010 Second Pacific-Asia Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 183-186). IEEE.
  13. Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2006). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. US: Oxford University Press.
  14. Martini, A., Castiglione, A., Bovo, R., Vallesi, A., & Gabelli, C. (2015). Aging, cognitive load, dementia and hearing loss. Audiology & Neurotology, 19, 2-5.
  15. Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of mul-timedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.
  18. Meissner, B., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). Science teaching based on cognitive load theory: Engaged students, but cognitive deficien-cies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 38(3), 127-134.
  19. Nikolaraizi, M., Vekiri, I., & Easterbrooks, S. R. (2013). Investigating dead students’ use of visual multimedia resources in reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 157(5), 458-73.
  20. Olson, A. D., & Campbell, S. E. (2013). Degree of hearing loss and working memory in adults. University of Kentucky.
  21. Paas, F., G., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cog-nitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. From:
  23. Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive theory of multi-media learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cam-bridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cogni-tive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-138. 7/s10648-010-9128-5
  25. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., and Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
  26. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J., & Paas, F.G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instruc-tional design. Educational Psychology Re-view, 10(3), 251-296.
  27. Techaraungrong, P., Suksakulchai, S., Kaew-prapan, W., & Murphy, E. (2017). The de-sign and testing of multimedia for teaching arithmetic to deaf learners. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 215-237.
  28. Walker, L., Munro, J., & Richards, F. W. (1998). Teaching inferential reading strategies through pictures. Volta Review, 100(2), 105-20.
  29. Yoon, J. O., & Kim, M. (2011). The effects of captions on deaf students' content com-prehension, cognitive load, and motivation in online learning. American Annals of the Deaf, 156(3), 283-289.