Webliography Blog

EDUC 633    (Module 1): Webliography blog

 Chapter 7

Applying the Redundancy Principle

EXPLAIN VISUALS WITH WORDS IN AUDIO OR TEXT: NOT BOTH

In this chapter the authors start by explaining some of the terminology and principles found in the chapter title.  When e-learning is designed to incorporate audio narration (someone speaking) as well as visual graphics that also include the printed words of the audio narration the technique is called redundant on-screen text (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  The words are spoken and visually depicted on the screen so a redundancy has occurred.  As soon as the authors clarify the redundancy principle they get right to the point and state that evidence will be given that demonstrates that learners learn best when they are presented with concurrent graphics and audio instruction.  Learners have more difficulty when the instruction includes concurrent graphics, audio, and redundant on-screen text (2012).

After the intro, the first major section of the chapter delves deeper into why on-screen text should not be added to the instruction if narrated graphics are already incorporated.  One reason is that when the learner is reading words on the screen they cannot be looking at the graphics (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  So the contribution the graphics should have made will be reduced considerably.  It is also mentioned that if the learner attempts (consciously or subconsciously) to sync up the visual words with the audio, more cognitive processing must take place (2012).  So it would be a waste of your brains resources.  Approximately one half of this first section is spent on explaining the psychological reasoning (learning styles and information acquisition theory) that seems to back on-screen redundant text and the psychological reasoning (cognitive theory) that disproves it (2012).  The second half of the first section presents a half dozen recent studies that provide evidence that learners are negatively impacted when they have to process redundant on-screen text in addition to graphics and narration (2012).  There is virtually no evidence to back the learning styles and information acquisition theory that lends to the assumption that e-learning must benefit if the information is delivered in three formats (2012) 

The second major section of the chapter discusses exceptions to the rule.  Again the authors have already provided a consider amount of empirical evidence that demonstrates instruction should not include graphics, audio narration, and redundant on-screen text.  This is especially true if the instruction is fast paced and the on-screen text includes many words (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  The first exception is when the instruction does not include graphics.  This isn’t a true exception but it is mentioned because the authors have taken the stance that of the three delivery formats discussed, on-screen redundant text is the problem child that should be removed.  The authors want to be fair so they do mention evidence that backs situations where audio narration with accompanying on-screen redundant text (but not additional graphics) can produce higher test scores (2012).  The key factor in all of this comes down to visual overload.  If there is audio and graphics, don’t visually overload the learner by adding redundant text.  If there isn’t graphics then you could consider combining audio narration with on screen text because you will not visually overload the learner.  Other exceptions that were mentioned involved learners who were not fluent in the language so the redundant text could be beneficial, the on-screen text only included a few key words, or the pace was so slow the learners were not at risk of visual overload (2012).

Overall the authors did exactly what they said they would do in the chapter intro, which was to provide ample evidence that visual overload is a real possibility if instruction is designed to include on-screen redundant text on top of audio narration and additional graphics.  Like always there are exceptions to the rule but in general we should remember the chapter tag line, explain visuals with words in audio or text but not both (2012).

Reference

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). E-learning and the science of instruction, proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.   

Chapter 8

Applying the Coherence Principle

ADDING MATERIAL CAN HURT LEARNING

In this chapter the authors stick to their approach of telling the reader up front (via the title and intro) what the chapter is going to expound on which in this case is the coherence principle.  With this principle the reader is instructed to focus on the instructional goal and to avoid adding additional material that does not explicitly support that goal (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  The remainder of the chapter can be split into three distinct sections focusing individually on extraneous audio, graphics, and words. 

The first major section in chapter eight explores e-lessons containing extraneous audio.  Again it is disclosed upfront that learning psychology and solid research based evidence indicates that irrelevant background sounds to include music should be avoided.  The reason for the avoidance is that extraneous sounds have the potential to overburden working memory (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  The conditions that maximize the potential for working memory overload include situations where instruction is fast passed, the material is new to the learner, and when the e-lesson is automated meaning the learner is not in control (2012).  The common assumption for including extraneous sounds can normally be traced back to logic based on arousal theory which promotes the idea that entertaining effects can increase emotional arousal which should in turn affect cognition (2012).  This logic is flawed when applied to e-learning and the authors could find no evidence to support the claim. 

On the contrary the authors again (as they did in chapter seven) point to cognitive theory for reasons to avoid extraneous audio in e-learning.  Cognitive theory takes into consideration our limited working memory, cognitive abilities, and susceptibility to sensory overload (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  Simply put the unnecessary background noise can fill up our audio channel and working memory which slows down our cognitive abilities.  The first section on extraneous audio is closed out with the presentation of the results from several studies that show dramatically lower test scores by learners who were exposed to extraneous audio.

The next section focuses on e-lessons containing extraneous graphics and the initial warning is the same; avoid the incorporation of extraneous graphics in e-learning.  The false logic that encourages many to add unrelated graphics for the sake of entertainment is again based on arousal theory and again there is no evidence to support this approach.  The addition of unrelated graphics can distract the learner or get in the way of concept/knowledge linkage (Clark & Mayer, 2012).  Even worse the irrelevant graphics may cause the learner to prime irrelevant knowledge which hinders the processing of new material (2012).  Just like the first section, this one is also closed out with the presentation of the results from several studies that show the negative impact of extraneous graphics in e-learning.

The third and final section examined the merits of extraneous words in e-learning.  Any guesses on the outcome?  I almost wish I could throw in a curveball but just like audio and graphics, extraneous words can be harmful so don’t add them.  The psychological reasoning was the same, arousal theory, but cognitive theory wins again.  The key here is that no matter how interesting unrelated words may be (i.e. a side factoid that is interesting but not directly related) the result is distraction which hampers learning.  The authors really hammer home the presentation of research based evidence in this last section by covering the results of studies that examined three different reasons for adding extraneous words.

Seductive reasons for adding extraneous words to e-learning content:

•             Added for Interest

•             Added to Expand on Key Ideas

•             Added for Technical Depth

The results from the studies were all the same.  Unrelated, unnecessary, extraneous words regardless of the reason for adding them always had a negative impact on test results compared to e-learning that used words in a basic and concise manner.  So once again by the end of the chapter the simple tag line “adding material can hurt learning” (Clark & Mayer, 2012, p. 151), was successfully drilled into the reader’s head and the abundant use of evidence-based research really upped the scholarly feel to the chapter in my opinion.

Reference

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). E-learning and the science of instruction, proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

According to chapter 7 & 8 it summarize the importance of multimedia principles that has expand over twenty five years of research by Richard Myer at the University of California. In these two chapters it will reveal how the guideline, evidence are reveal in different ways to be the best way to use visuals, text, and audio, as well as content in segmenting and sequencing in e-learning. However the redundancy principle: explaining graphics with audio and redundant test can hurt learning. Some e-Lessons provide words in text and in audio that reads the text. This might seem like a good way to present information in several formats and thus improve learning. Controlled research however, indicates that learning is actually depressed when a graphic is explained by a combination of text and narration that reads the text (2012).

 In studies conducted by Mayer and by others, researchers have found that better transfer learning is realized when graphics are explained by audio alone rather than by audio and text. Mayer found similar results in two studies for an average gain of 79%.There are exceptions to the redundancy principle as recently reported by Roxana Moreno and Mayer. In a comparison of a scientific explanation presented with narration alone and with narration and text, learning was significantly better in conditions that included both narration and text. The researchers conclude that, “An effective technique to promote broader learning with multimedia explanations is to use the auditory and visual modalities simultaneously for verbal information if no other visual material is presented concurrently.” Therefore there will be limited situations in which narration of onscreen text could be helpful to learning such as when there is no graphic on the screen or when readers lack good reading skills. It’s common knowledge that e-Learning attrition can be a problem. In well-intended efforts to spice up e-Learning, some designers use what I call a Las Vegas approach. By that I mean they add glitz and games to make the experience more engaging. The glitz can take a variety of forms such as dramatic vignettes (in video or text) inserted to add interest, background music to add appeal, or popular movie characters or themes to add entertainment value. In the 1980’s research on details presented in text that were related to a lesson explanation but were extraneous in nature found them to depress learning. Such additions were called “seductive details.” In more recent research, Mayer has found similar negative effects from seductive details presented either via text or video (2012).

Mayer did several studies together with S. F. Harp to determine why seductive details depress learning. In these experiments they evaluated the hypotheses that these added materials did their damage by: Distracting learners from key instructional points, disrupting the learner’s organization of information into a coherent mental model, or activating irrelevant prior knowledge. They created three versions of lessons that included seductive details but that also added instructional methods that should compensate for their damaging effects. Only one of their compensatory treatments reduced the negative effects of the seductive details. Seductive details placed at the beginning of a lesson were more damaging than the same information placed at the end of the lesson (1998). I agree with Mayer and others, hat researchers have found that better transfer learning is realized when graphics are explained by audio alone rather than by audio and text. With all the research that was done and collected it prove to be a fact that supports Mayer and other researcher.

Reference

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). E-learning and the science of instruction, proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3 ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.