Annotated Bibliographies for Module 9
Reading #1:
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 131-152). New York: Cambridge.
This article explains how people learn in multimedia environments, how extraneous cognitive load resulting from poor instructional design choices can negatively impact learning, and how intrinsic cognitive load can be managed. The authors define a multimedia learning environment as those incorporating words and pictures and computer-based learning environments as those presenting material with computers as the primary mode of delivery. The three principles of how people learn from multimedia instruction (dual channels, limited capacity, active processing) are reviewed which remind the reader that for learning to occur, learners must process incoming material in processing channels that are quite limited. For learning to occur, the principles of cognitive load theory should be part of instructional designs. These three principles (reduce extraneous cognitive load, manage intrinsic cognitive load, promote germane cognitive load) are research-based and proven to positively impact learning and transfer. Research indicates that effective strategies for reducing extraneous cognitive load include the coherence principle (deleting unnecessary information), redundancy principle (removing redundant on-screen text), signaling principle (providing cues that direct learner attention), temporal contiguity principle (presenting related parts of animation and narration at the same time), and spatial contiguity principle (placing text near elements the words describe on-screen). To manage intrinsic cognitive load, the research-based principles of segmenting (breaking down complex information in smaller bits controlled by the learner), pre-training (providing learners with prerequisite knowledge that will be helpful) and modality (presenting animation and narration instead of animation and on-screen text) should be followed. These principles will free up processing capacity for germane processing (also referred to as deep processing) to occur.
Reading #2:
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kester, L. (2014). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 104-148). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 5).
This article presents the four-component instructional design model (abbreviated as 4C/ID) as applicable towards the creation of multimedia learning experiences. Although not developed specifically for designing multimedia environments, the authors postulate that the model can provide valuable guidance in the construction of such environments to teach complex learning skills. The 4C/ID model supposes that people learn complex skills through four components: learning tasks, supportive information, procedural information, and part-task practice. Also important to this analysis is whether the instructional control will be placed with the learner or the instructor as both scenarios should impact multimedia material selections made by the designer. Each of the four components of the 4C/ID model correspond to multimedia design principles that are research-based and generally well-accepted in the instructional design community. The authors present 22 multimedia principles related to each of the four components of the model. These principles provide a foundation for effective creation of multimedia environments that promote learning and allow for a differentiation of control over the learning environment. Although this framework has many strengths, the authors note that there are limitations; most notably that the model doesn’t address other factors such as constraint of time or resources nor the characteristics of the group of learners engaging in the instruction.
Reading #3
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 227-246). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 9).
This article examines the effect of the modality principle in multimedia learning. Research suggests that a mixed-mode of presenting information that includes both visual and auditory components is overall more effective than a single-mode presentation from either processing channel. This is largely attributable to what we know about cognitive load theory and the limitations of working memory structures. Working memory is very limited, which can result in cognitive overload if too much information is attempted to be held in working memory at once time. Current theories of working memory present this structure as containing separate input channels; one for visual information and a separate channel for auditory information. By splitting up instructional materials into both channels using visual and auditory means, the overall cognitive capacity can be expanded. Attempting to present all of the same information using only one-channel could result in cognitive overload depending on the prior knowledge of the learner and the complexity of the material to be learned. The authors stress that the modality effect can only be obtained when the spoken and written information are essential to understanding the material being presented; if the information is not essential, it is possible that negative effects could result in overall understanding with no benefit of using a split-attention technique.
Reading #4
Renkl, A. (2014). The worked examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 391-412). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 16).
This article explains the worked example principle as it relates to multimedia instruction. Stated simply, learners will experience a deeper level of understanding from multimedia instruction when they are given completed worked examples during the initial stages of interaction with the material. This is contrasted with less successful or traditional methods that require students to solve problems after only receiving one example. Consistent with research from cognitive learning theory, it is believed that this effect is realized because the worked examples reduce cognitive load typically encountered when using other means of problem-solving that are typically less efficient in use of cognitive resources. This effect is not universal, however, and instructional designers must remember this in constructing multimedia resources for use in instruction. Specifically, ineffectively designed materials that induce cognitive load or otherwise ignore principles of good design will ensure that the worked example principle will have no noticeable effect on outcomes.
Reading #5:
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & von Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Segmentation of worked examples: Effects on cognitive load and learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 352-358.
This article experimentally examined the effect of the segmentation of worked examples on learning outcomes. Two approaches to worked examples were used in this study. The first approach used segmentation by providing blank lines between the worked example steps, showing learners which parts of the process logically belong together. The second approach tasked students with creating their own segmentation by dividing the example into pieces on their own. The study found that learners who were asked to segment the information on their own invested more effort overall into the process but did not perform better or worse on the final transfer test. The students who were provided the segmentation were less engaged, but showed no negative effects on outcomes. The authors theorize that this may be the result of additional cognitive resources required by the students forced to break the material into pieces on their own. This may have prevented any additional positive effects that might be expected since their level of effort on the task was presumed to be higher. The results would suggest increasing the level of interactivity with worked examples may not lead to significantly better outcomes in terms of task acquisition. Giving the learners the segmented information from the beginning of instruction would also seem to be more efficient in light of these findings. It should be noted that the subject group of this study was made of what the authors characterized as “low level learners” which may be a boundary condition when considering the impact of the results. I picked this article because I find the segmentation principle to be especially important to skill acquisition, but was unsure as to the most efficient means of applying this principle to my own teaching.
Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 131-152). New York: Cambridge.
This article explains how people learn in multimedia environments, how extraneous cognitive load resulting from poor instructional design choices can negatively impact learning, and how intrinsic cognitive load can be managed. The authors define a multimedia learning environment as those incorporating words and pictures and computer-based learning environments as those presenting material with computers as the primary mode of delivery. The three principles of how people learn from multimedia instruction (dual channels, limited capacity, active processing) are reviewed which remind the reader that for learning to occur, learners must process incoming material in processing channels that are quite limited. For learning to occur, the principles of cognitive load theory should be part of instructional designs. These three principles (reduce extraneous cognitive load, manage intrinsic cognitive load, promote germane cognitive load) are research-based and proven to positively impact learning and transfer. Research indicates that effective strategies for reducing extraneous cognitive load include the coherence principle (deleting unnecessary information), redundancy principle (removing redundant on-screen text), signaling principle (providing cues that direct learner attention), temporal contiguity principle (presenting related parts of animation and narration at the same time), and spatial contiguity principle (placing text near elements the words describe on-screen). To manage intrinsic cognitive load, the research-based principles of segmenting (breaking down complex information in smaller bits controlled by the learner), pre-training (providing learners with prerequisite knowledge that will be helpful) and modality (presenting animation and narration instead of animation and on-screen text) should be followed. These principles will free up processing capacity for germane processing (also referred to as deep processing) to occur.
Reading #2:
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kester, L. (2014). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 104-148). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 5).
This article presents the four-component instructional design model (abbreviated as 4C/ID) as applicable towards the creation of multimedia learning experiences. Although not developed specifically for designing multimedia environments, the authors postulate that the model can provide valuable guidance in the construction of such environments to teach complex learning skills. The 4C/ID model supposes that people learn complex skills through four components: learning tasks, supportive information, procedural information, and part-task practice. Also important to this analysis is whether the instructional control will be placed with the learner or the instructor as both scenarios should impact multimedia material selections made by the designer. Each of the four components of the 4C/ID model correspond to multimedia design principles that are research-based and generally well-accepted in the instructional design community. The authors present 22 multimedia principles related to each of the four components of the model. These principles provide a foundation for effective creation of multimedia environments that promote learning and allow for a differentiation of control over the learning environment. Although this framework has many strengths, the authors note that there are limitations; most notably that the model doesn’t address other factors such as constraint of time or resources nor the characteristics of the group of learners engaging in the instruction.
Reading #3
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2014). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 227-246). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 9).
This article examines the effect of the modality principle in multimedia learning. Research suggests that a mixed-mode of presenting information that includes both visual and auditory components is overall more effective than a single-mode presentation from either processing channel. This is largely attributable to what we know about cognitive load theory and the limitations of working memory structures. Working memory is very limited, which can result in cognitive overload if too much information is attempted to be held in working memory at once time. Current theories of working memory present this structure as containing separate input channels; one for visual information and a separate channel for auditory information. By splitting up instructional materials into both channels using visual and auditory means, the overall cognitive capacity can be expanded. Attempting to present all of the same information using only one-channel could result in cognitive overload depending on the prior knowledge of the learner and the complexity of the material to be learned. The authors stress that the modality effect can only be obtained when the spoken and written information are essential to understanding the material being presented; if the information is not essential, it is possible that negative effects could result in overall understanding with no benefit of using a split-attention technique.
Reading #4
Renkl, A. (2014). The worked examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 391-412). New York: Cambridge.
(e.g. Chapter 16).
This article explains the worked example principle as it relates to multimedia instruction. Stated simply, learners will experience a deeper level of understanding from multimedia instruction when they are given completed worked examples during the initial stages of interaction with the material. This is contrasted with less successful or traditional methods that require students to solve problems after only receiving one example. Consistent with research from cognitive learning theory, it is believed that this effect is realized because the worked examples reduce cognitive load typically encountered when using other means of problem-solving that are typically less efficient in use of cognitive resources. This effect is not universal, however, and instructional designers must remember this in constructing multimedia resources for use in instruction. Specifically, ineffectively designed materials that induce cognitive load or otherwise ignore principles of good design will ensure that the worked example principle will have no noticeable effect on outcomes.
Reading #5:
Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & von Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Segmentation of worked examples: Effects on cognitive load and learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 352-358.
This article experimentally examined the effect of the segmentation of worked examples on learning outcomes. Two approaches to worked examples were used in this study. The first approach used segmentation by providing blank lines between the worked example steps, showing learners which parts of the process logically belong together. The second approach tasked students with creating their own segmentation by dividing the example into pieces on their own. The study found that learners who were asked to segment the information on their own invested more effort overall into the process but did not perform better or worse on the final transfer test. The students who were provided the segmentation were less engaged, but showed no negative effects on outcomes. The authors theorize that this may be the result of additional cognitive resources required by the students forced to break the material into pieces on their own. This may have prevented any additional positive effects that might be expected since their level of effort on the task was presumed to be higher. The results would suggest increasing the level of interactivity with worked examples may not lead to significantly better outcomes in terms of task acquisition. Giving the learners the segmented information from the beginning of instruction would also seem to be more efficient in light of these findings. It should be noted that the subject group of this study was made of what the authors characterized as “low level learners” which may be a boundary condition when considering the impact of the results. I picked this article because I find the segmentation principle to be especially important to skill acquisition, but was unsure as to the most efficient means of applying this principle to my own teaching.