My top three for mixing text, images, audio, and video in learning

I am a visual learner. I would rather look at a chart than read a text. I would rather watch a video than read about its content. However, this is my own learning preference and it is not a general rule for learning. It is nice to entertain the idea of tailoring instruction to all the different styles of learners but, in reality, this is not practical.  What is practical is designing instruction that uses a mix of text, audio, video and images, also called multimedia. This has been proven to accommodate the different learning styles of the learners and help them learn better.

If I were to choose three things to consider when developing multimedia instruction they will be as follows:

1.Cognitive load

Sweller has written extensively about learning and cognitive load.  He argues that our brains can process a limited amount of information at one particular time. Not only that, when images and audio are mixed with text, special consideration has to be given on how the combination is done.  Repeating the same information through more than one medium makes it redundant.  An example would be presenting the text and the audio version of the same text simultaneously. Here, the learner is asked to attend to two sources of information that are repetitive and not complimentary to one another.  The result would be an unnecessary load imposed on the brain which might affect the learning g process. On the other hand, presenting the information through more than one medium might lead to split-attention.  An example would be a text and a diagram, each of which cannot be understood in isolation, nevertheless, they are presented in isolation from one another.  In this case, the learner is required to look at two sources of information in order to understand.  This might exceed the capability of the brain to process the information well in that one instance and might affect the learning process. (Sweller, 2007).  On his Rapid eLearning Blog, Tom Kuhlman’s presents a well thought of demo on how the effectiveness of instruction can be manipulated by how the different media are combined.

2.Purpose

It is easy for novice instructional designers to get carried away with their creativity, and the temptations of technology do not make it easier. However, one ought to remember why the media is being used. Check Ducey ‘s slide show on the different functions of graphics in instruction. Examples of the functions that Ducey lists are decorative, organizational, reducing cognitive load, increasing motivation, etc.  All of these functions become important when they are conducive to learning.  However, if they increase the “noise” and cause unnecessary cognitive load then it is better not to incorporate them.

3.Quality

Last but not least is the quality of the medium used, be it text, images, audio or video. For example, an audio that fulfills the first two conditions discussed above might not be effective if the quality of recording is bad. In his blog, Narration in eLearning, Schone describes some of the issues faced in producing narration.    The same applies to a poorly produced video or image or a poorly structured text.  Multimedia of low quality is a reflection of the effort invested in the development of the instructional material.  The learner‘s perception of the effort invested in the development might affect his perception of the credibility of the material. In turn, this might affect the learning process.   Also, low quality will most likely cause the brain to exert more effort to understand the instructional message.  Understandably, it is not always easy to produce multimedia of good quality. Here, one might rethink how best to invest in the resources, accept simplicity, or in worst case scenarios, not use multimedia if quality cannot be improved.

These are my top three rules for using text, images, audio, or video in learning. What are yours?  Input your suggestions and rules in the comments below.

Guest Blogger: Suha Tamim is a doctoral student in Instructional Design and Technology. She also holds a Masters degree in Public Health, Concentration Health Behavior and Health Education. She is interested in learning design, constructivism, and learning styles. Few years prior to becoming a doctoral student, Suha worked as an instructor at the university level, teaching students how to design health education materials and how to use them in the field.  She was also involved in training school teachers and health workers on the design of health education materials.

Reference
Sweller, J. (2007). Human cognition architecture.  In J.M. Spector, D. Merrill, J.v. Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds).  Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 369-381).  Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Image courtesy of J Fry at http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1013

Increasing cognitive load without even knowing it: Part 2

When I work with instructional designers and K-12 teachers, I sometimes ask them, “How do they know in what order to put the choices in a multiple choice questions?” Very often the answer is something like, “Well, I’ve had enough Bs already, so the answer needs to be a C this time.” In other words, they are attempting to make the choices and correct answer random. But in reality, it won’t be. Another point about this is that the teacher or trainer feels like he or she is consciously trying to determine the ordering of the distractors and the correct answer (key). I find when trainers and teachers do this, they inadvertently contribute to the cognitive load of the learner. In other words, I believe, they are unintentionally putting an unnecessary layer between the learner and the learning. When instructional designers and K-12 teachers try to “mix up” the answers, they add extraneous cognitive load to the learner, because the learner will think about the order of the choices first.

Key and distractors in multiple choice items

In my last post, I discussed how poor designs and navigations can certainly contribute to the cognitive load of learners.  In Part 2, I’d like to spend some time considering the cognitive load of objective assessments.

There are a couple of different purposes for assessment.  Probably, first and foremost, we are interested in determining what the learner has learned.  Secondly and inherently related to the first purpose, we are interested in differentiating between the learners who know the correct answer and those who are guessing.  (This is often referred to as discrimination.)  Lastly, we are often interested in our learners learning from the assessment itself.  For example, sometimes we are asking learners to combine pieces of information or learning into a way that they may have not considered before or solving a novel problem that may not have been directly covered in the instruction. In K-12 and higher education but atypical to training situations, we are sometimes interested in manipulating the difficulty of items to further increase the discrimination among learners.

Jon Mueller on his site lists a number of techniques to create good multiple choice items.  Like Jon, I’m recommending you put the multiple choice options (Is that redundant?) in a logical order.  In addition, Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez (2002) in the journal of Applied Measurement in Education also suggest using a logical or numerical ordering of distractors and key, which was particularly important to lower ability students.  In both training and K-12, this could be significant for low-level or struggling readers.  So, here’s three strategies for you to use.

1. Use alphabetical order

When the key and distractors are text, then order them alphabetically. In the example below, three of the distractors are very similar, so they are ordered alphabetically. The fourth option is different and so was separated to make it more noticeable.

With text, use alphabetical order.

2. Use ascending or descending order

When the key and distractors are numerical or dates, then use either ascending or descending order.  While there isn’t any research or recommendations that I found that suggested you stick with one throughout the entire assessment, I think you should.  But it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot if you don’t.

Use numerical order for dates and numbers.

3. Use an existing logical pattern

Many times the content has a specific or logical pattern, such as with the order of a process, the order of Henry VIII’s wives or even the frequency of energy in the electromagnetic spectrum.  In these instances when the content dictates a logical pattern, then use the existing pattern.  However, an instance where you woud not follow this recommendation is when you want the learner to list or rank the order.

If a pattern exists, use the logical pattern.

By using these strategies, you are reducing the cognitive load.  Learners are no longer attempting to figure out the pattern, then figure out the correct answer.  Moreover, you are also taking the “control” of the correct answer placement out of the judgement of the trainer or teacher.  Instead, the key lands wherever it lands in the pattern, alphabetical or otherwise.

So, the answer that “I’ve already had enough Bs” isn’t one you should be distracted by anymore.

Increasing cognitive load without even knowing it

Wikipedia defines cognitive load as “the load on working memory during instruction.” I usually refer to it this way: If your working memory is a bucket, then it can only hold so much stuff. So, filling up your bucket with unnecessary or unimportant stuff, leave less space for the critical stuff and the processing space necessary to work on it.

photo credit: Erlomo

Extraneous cognitive load then is bad all around. It’s not good cognitive load. It doesn’t help you learn. It doesn’t help you process. It doesn’t help you remember. It doesn’t even relate to the learning content in most cases. Instead, it fills up your bucket —read “increases cognitive load.”

One of the most obvious examples of extraneous cognitive load is poor interface usability. When we design a graphical user interface, poor usability forces the learner (user) to have to think about the interface. That is, they have to think about how to interact with the system. When they have to think, the bucket starts getting filled up. If some function in the interface doesn’t behave the way a learner expects it to, then the learner has to think about why and how do I do what I want to do. Working memory continues to be loaded.

Some examples might be in order here. I have seen other university faculty members’ courses that have animations (notice the plural), hyperlinks and supposedly “cute” graphics all on the same single web page. Admittedly, this is amateurish by professional standards. However, for me, the more serious offense is the inconsideration of what it means for learning and cognitive load. Taking a suggestion from “Web Pages that Suck,” a 2008 winner was the Burlington National UFO Center. Similarly, HavenWorks also has created an extraneous cognitive overload with poor layout, organization and unimportant elements. Admittedly, neither of these two sites are strictly instructional and I would never expect any corporate instructional designer to produce this type of development. However, the fact that these pages still exist confirm that learning and utility take a backseat to inexperience.