This is a short post on this week’s readings.
Mayer, Richard. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist 31(1), 1-19.
Today we may take multimedia learning for granted, as the advent of more powerful hardware and software has facilitated the production of multimedia by non-programmers, and the Web has made available whole repositories of professional and amateur multimedia resources. It is clear that Mayer does not take it for granted, but astutely notes that “the technology for multimedia education is developing at a faster pace than a corresponding science of how people learn in multimedia environments.”
In this review of multimedia learning implementations students generated more creative solutions, and were able to transfer the information successfully. Mayer notes that this “multimedia effect” is most beneficial “for low prior knowledge and high spatial ability students”. This is not a simple “media effect”, which compares mode of delivery and presumes a knowledge acquisition metaphor.
On the first day of class we identified the ability to transfer knowledge from situation to situation, even from domain to domain. Mayer begins by recognizing this critical ability in science education, and focuses on a “generative” theory of multimedia learning that focuses on the users active selection and integration of multiple media, and includes the cognitivist concept of dual-coding theory, which posits that verbal and non-verbal information is coded separately in the brain (the implication being that activation of both tends to result in better long term memory than activation of one). Though 12 years old now, this particular article appears to be reinforced by more recent work by cognitive scientists–the work I’m most familiar with is reading, and Dehaene’s neural recycling hypothesis and investigation of serial and parallel processing in reading alone.
Mayer, Richard & Moreno, Roxana. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(2), 312-320.
In this article Mayer and Moreno expand on the role of dual-coding/dual-processing as relates to educational use of multimedia. The research study compares use of visual info combined with audio narration vs visual info combined with text. Mayer and Moreno determined that learners can integrate words and pictures more easily when the words are
presented auditorily rather than visually. This is due to the fact that visual text combined with visual images splits the attention of the learner–the titular split-attention effect.
This reminds me of Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller’s book, Efficiency in Learning, which provides research and applications for cognitive load theory as it applies to use of text, visual, and audio.
US Department of Education (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies.
This meta-analysis of empirical research comparing online education experiences with traditional face-to-face experiences found that of 51 comparisons, “11 were significantly positive, favoring the online or blended learning condition” while 2 favored face-to-face. The authors noted (1) these results are probably not a feature of the media (but rather time spent learning, and (2) they are less likely to be useful for K-12, as “Few rigorous research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for K–12 students have been published.”
In considering the blending of online and face-to-face, or “hybrid” courses, the authors write:
The first of the alternatives to classroom-based instruction, entirely online instruction, is attractive on the basis of cost and convenience as long as it is as effective as classroom instruction. The second alternative, which the online learning field generally refers to as blended or hybrid learning, needs to be more effective than conventional face-to-face instruction to justify the additional time and costs it entails
Though I wouldn’t discount reasons of convenience for hybrid learning, the key factor to promote hybrid learning from an institutional perspective is probably not effectiveness, but the lessened impact on more static campus resources such as physical space. I’ve also seen consideration for hybrid learning driven by enthusiasm of both teacher and learner to explore new technologies.
Berliner, David C. (1990). What’s All the Fuss About Instructional Time? From “The Nature of Time in Schools: Theoretical Concepts, Practitioner Perceptions”.
Berliner defends the concept of instructional time, which “allows for understanding, prediction, and control”. Instructional time is categorized as allocated time, engaged time, time-on-task, academic learning time, transition time, waiting time, aptitude, perseverance, and pace. These categories are viewed as variables that allow us to employ understanding, prediction, and control. Berliner notes that we’ve often taken instructional time as an obvious necessity, but his use of applications of instructional time to various learning models such as Bloom’s Mastery Learning (“At the heart of mastery is the belief that with sufficient time to learn and with high quality instruction, virtually all students can learn what only a small number were able to learn under traditional instruction.”) suggest that we haven’t been paying enough attention to instructional time’s value or impact. (Though I highlight the Bloom example, it’s important to remember that time is only one half of Mastery Learning; the other half is “high quality instruction”, which Bloom defines specifically as a iterative process based on formative feedback.) The concept of “aptitude” also resonates with Bloom’s 2-sigma problem, which suggests that unlike our traditional view of aptitude, a time-focused definition of aptitude allows for all learners to succeed–given the right environment and sufficient time.
IPT 564 Readings on Multimedia and Time on Task
This is a short post on this week’s readings.
Mayer, Richard. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist 31(1), 1-19.
Today we may take multimedia learning for granted, as the advent of more powerful hardware and software has facilitated the production of multimedia by non-programmers, and the Web has made available whole repositories of professional and amateur multimedia resources. It is clear that Mayer does not take it for granted, but astutely notes that “the technology for multimedia education is developing at a faster pace than a corresponding science of how people learn in multimedia environments.”
In this review of multimedia learning implementations students generated more creative solutions, and were able to transfer the information successfully. Mayer notes that this “multimedia effect” is most beneficial “for low prior knowledge and high spatial ability students”. This is not a simple “media effect”, which compares mode of delivery and presumes a knowledge acquisition metaphor.
On the first day of class we identified the ability to transfer knowledge from situation to situation, even from domain to domain. Mayer begins by recognizing this critical ability in science education, and focuses on a “generative” theory of multimedia learning that focuses on the users active selection and integration of multiple media, and includes the cognitivist concept of dual-coding theory, which posits that verbal and non-verbal information is coded separately in the brain (the implication being that activation of both tends to result in better long term memory than activation of one). Though 12 years old now, this particular article appears to be reinforced by more recent work by cognitive scientists–the work I’m most familiar with is reading, and Dehaene’s neural recycling hypothesis and investigation of serial and parallel processing in reading alone.
Mayer, Richard & Moreno, Roxana. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(2), 312-320.
In this article Mayer and Moreno expand on the role of dual-coding/dual-processing as relates to educational use of multimedia. The research study compares use of visual info combined with audio narration vs visual info combined with text. Mayer and Moreno determined that learners can integrate words and pictures more easily when the words are
presented auditorily rather than visually. This is due to the fact that visual text combined with visual images splits the attention of the learner–the titular split-attention effect.
This reminds me of Clark, Nguyen, and Sweller’s book, Efficiency in Learning, which provides research and applications for cognitive load theory as it applies to use of text, visual, and audio.
US Department of Education (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies.
This meta-analysis of empirical research comparing online education experiences with traditional face-to-face experiences found that of 51 comparisons, “11 were significantly positive, favoring the online or blended learning condition” while 2 favored face-to-face. The authors noted (1) these results are probably not a feature of the media (but rather time spent learning, and (2) they are less likely to be useful for K-12, as “Few rigorous research studies of the effectiveness of online learning for K–12 students have been published.”
In considering the blending of online and face-to-face, or “hybrid” courses, the authors write:
Though I wouldn’t discount reasons of convenience for hybrid learning, the key factor to promote hybrid learning from an institutional perspective is probably not effectiveness, but the lessened impact on more static campus resources such as physical space. I’ve also seen consideration for hybrid learning driven by enthusiasm of both teacher and learner to explore new technologies.
Berliner, David C. (1990). What’s All the Fuss About Instructional Time? From “The Nature of Time in Schools: Theoretical Concepts, Practitioner Perceptions”.
Berliner defends the concept of instructional time, which “allows for understanding, prediction, and control”. Instructional time is categorized as allocated time, engaged time, time-on-task, academic learning time, transition time, waiting time, aptitude, perseverance, and pace. These categories are viewed as variables that allow us to employ understanding, prediction, and control. Berliner notes that we’ve often taken instructional time as an obvious necessity, but his use of applications of instructional time to various learning models such as Bloom’s Mastery Learning (“At the heart of mastery is the belief that with sufficient time to learn and with high quality instruction, virtually all students can learn what only a small number were able to learn under traditional instruction.”) suggest that we haven’t been paying enough attention to instructional time’s value or impact. (Though I highlight the Bloom example, it’s important to remember that time is only one half of Mastery Learning; the other half is “high quality instruction”, which Bloom defines specifically as a iterative process based on formative feedback.) The concept of “aptitude” also resonates with Bloom’s 2-sigma problem, which suggests that unlike our traditional view of aptitude, a time-focused definition of aptitude allows for all learners to succeed–given the right environment and sufficient time.