Learn. Show. Repeat.

Tag: John Sweller

  • Designing Effective Multimedia Lessons for Learning

    This blog post is a slightly altered essay that I recently submitted as part of my Master of Education (Educational Psychology) studies.

    The delivery of learning via the use of multimedia (also known as eLearning) continues to be a popular choice in workplaces around the world. In my current role as an Instructional Designer, I am involved in the design and development of eLearning courses for corporate clients with the aim of closing knowledge gaps in employees and ultimately improving their performance. The challenge for myself, and indeed all instructional designers, is how to best present information in such a way that it does not overload the known limits of working memory and allows for transfer into long-term memory. This essay will discuss Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and the resulting principles for designing multimedia instruction that when applied can improve learning delivered via eLearning. The term multimedia presentation is commonly defined as “any presentation containing words (such as narration or on-screen text) and graphics (such as illustrations, photos, animation or video)”.

    Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

    Much research has been conducted into multimedia instruction (using multimedia presentations) with the goal of finding ways to foster meaningful learning or a “deep understanding of the material”. Drawing on the work of Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, Baddeley’s Working Memory Model and Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory, Mayer developed a theory specifically for multimedia learning. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning is based on three assumptions about how the human mind works during multimedia instruction:

    1. Dual channel – humans possess separate information processing channels for verbal and visual material.
    2. Limited capacity – the verbal and visual channels can only process a limited amount of information.
    3. Active processing – learning requires substantial cognitive processing via the verbal and visual channels.

     

    According to the theory, multimedia presentations containing words (text or spoken) and pictures are received by the learner via their sensory memory (ears and eyes). Selected words and images are then processed by the working memory at the shallow and potentially deep levels which is then integrated with prior knowledge held in long-term memory.
    Multimedia presentations have the potential to overload the limited capacity of the learner’s working memory in many ways. Mayer and Moreno also highlight three types of cognitive demands placed on learners during multimedia instruction:

    1. Essential processing – required to make sense of the presented words and images.
    2. Incidental processing – required to process additional words and or images not related to processing the presented material.
    3. Representational holding – the cognitive processing required to hold visual or verbal material in working memory for a period of time.

     

    Whilst essential processing is linked to the material being learned, incidental processing and representational holding place additional demands on working memory capacity and can interfere with the learner’s ability to process and transfer the material to their long-term memory. In addition, Clark and Mayer use the term extraneous processing to describe the processing of material not related to the learning goal or caused by poor instructional layout.

    The cognitive architecture underpinning Mayer’s theory has led to (via numerous studies) the creation of principles for the design on multimedia instruction. These principles create guidelines for instructional designers wanting to create multimedia instruction based on what is known about the processing capabilities of the human memory. Several of the principles will now be discussed and applied to a sample multimedia lesson that I created with the aim of teaching people about a coffee machine.

    Multimedia Principle

    According to the multimedia principle, learning is improved when words and pictures are used in multimedia presentations rather than words alone. Research into the multimedia principle by Clark and Mayer, examined lessons that taught scientific and mechanical processes, for example, how lightning is formed or how a bicycle pump works and found that “students who received multimedia lessons consisting of words and pictures performed better that those who received the same information via words alone”.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1

    Figure 1 shows a screen from a sample eLearning module that contains only text. If learning is to be improved, applying the multimedia principle would require the addition of an image, an example of which can be seen in Figure 2:

    Figure 2

    Figure 2

    The type of treatment of a screen of information in Figure 2 is often seen in eLearning courses, however the image is not directly related to the material being presented and as such does not support the instruction. Clark and Lyons refer to these types of images as decorative and are usually added to make content appear more ‘interesting’. However, they do not contribute to learning and actually require processing by cognitive resources that are already limited and therefore is an example of incidental processing. Another example of incidental processing would be the inclusion of background music playing as the content is delivered. In this example, an improvement would be via the inclusion of an image of the coffee machine that the text is referring to as seen in Figure 3 (additionally, a further improvement could be made by indicating which part of the machine each section of the text refers to).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3

    Contiguity Principle

    In multimedia presentations, words (either text or spoken) and pictures are sometimes used to describe how a process or piece of equipment works or to deliver content to the learner. The contiguity principle states that words and pictures should be integrated rather than separated. Two contiguity effects have been identified by Moreno and Mayer, firstly the spatial-contiguity effect where words and pictures are separated either on the same screen and need to be combined to understand the on-screen content (see Figure 4) or placed on different screens thereby requiring the learner to move between screens to integrate the material in order to make sense of it.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4

    In Figure 4, the learner is required to move from the labelled image to the appropriate piece of information and integrate all the pieces with its corresponding label. To reduce the spatial-contiguity effect, the text should be integrated with the image or positioned close to the part of the image to which it refers to as seen in Figure 5. In this case, the learner can reveal the information about the parts of the machine by hovering their mouse over each number. This allows the learner to both explore the image and reveal only one piece of information at any one time thereby reducing the amount of cognitive processing required.

    Secondly, there is the temporal-contiguity effect where spoken words are presented before or after on-screen visuals and therefore require learners to hold some information in their working memory and integrate it with other information contained in the presentation. This again requires the use of limited cognitive resources to process the information being presented and is an example of representational holding.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5

    Clark, Nguyen and Sweller refer to the separation of on-screen content as leading to ‘split attention’ meaning that learners have to attend to both sources of information separately. Research by Moreno and Mayer found that “learning is impaired when on-screen text is spatially separated from the visual materials”. This was supported by Clark and Mayer who also identify other examples of where the contiguity effect is violated in multimedia presentations, for example, when information is presented in a scrolling panel and the learner must locate some information and integrate it with on-screen images or when a question is asked and the feedback given is placed on a different screen to the question or when links to references appear in a new browser window or where audio narration is followed by a video rather than being presented at the same time. Therefore, when designing eLearning, on-screen objects should be positioned in close proximity to descriptions and if audio narration is used, it should be synchronised with the objects being described.

    Modality Principle

    The nature of multimedia presentations allow for the inclusion of combinations of words, pictures, audio and video so another important design consideration is how and when to incorporate each (assuming that it is practicable to do so). According to the modality principle, learning is improved when on-screen text that describes an image is replaced by audio. As mentioned earlier, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning assumes that information is processed via dual channels i.e. visual and auditory. When only words and pictures are used on-screen, as seen in Figure 3, the visual channel can become overloaded. However, replacing on-screen text with audio spreads the cognitive load across both channels reducing the processing demand on a single channel. Mayer and Moreno refer to the use of audio in this way as ‘offloading’ as some of the cognitive processing of the visual channel is off-loaded to the verbal channel. It should be mentioned that the modality principle has the most research support of any of the design principles and many experiments have reached the same conclusion, that pictures combined with narration results in improved learning over pictures and on-screen text.

    In Figure 6, much of the on-screen text has been replaced by audio describing parts of the machine with the on-screen labels (synchronised with the audio) used to guide the learner to the part of the machine that the audio is referring to. Incidentally, presenting the information in this way also supports temporal-contiguity and reduces the amount of information that must be held in working memory.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6

    Redundancy Principle

    Whilst using text and audio to present on-screen information spreads the cognitive processing across processing channels, presenting audio and identical on-screen text results in redundant information being processed by the learner i.e. the same information is being processed by both channels. Studies show that learners who viewed multimedia presentations containing animations and narration outperformed those who viewed the same presentations that contained animation, narration and on-screen text. Further research by Mayer and Johnson confirmed this but with the addition of a limitation “except when the on-screen text is short, highlights a key action described in the narration, and is placed next to the portion of the graphic that it describes”. Therefore, the example in Figure 6 would not be an example of redundancy and the text is short and is positioned near to the part of the image that the narration is describing.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7

    The screen example shown by Figure 7 is an example of redundancy when the on-screen text is replicated by the audio narration being spoken. However, Figure 6 is an example that has had the redundant text removed except for a key piece of text that is timed to appear on-screen as the audio is being spoken.

    Personalisation Principle

    Another aspect of designing multimedia presentations is the style of writing used throughout. The opinions of designers is often divided when asked if it is better to write in a formal or conversational style. In studies by Mayer, Fennell, Farmer and Campbell, a multimedia lesson on how the human respiratory system works, the word ‘the’ was changed to ‘your’ in 12 places throughout the lesson. The hypothesis was that “using the self as a reference point increases learner interest and encourages the learner to use available cognitive capacity for active cognitive processing of the incoming information”. Results found that learning was improved on subsequent transfer tests but there was no significant improvement on retention tests. While the studies support the personalisation principle in multimedia instruction the authors caution the overuse of personalising as it may cause the instruction to contain interesting yet irrelevant details which in turn may distract the learner.

    The use of on-screen coaches or ‘pedagogical agents’ has also been examined to determine if they assist or hinder learning in multimedia presentations. Research found that learning was improved in groups whose multimedia contained an agent over those whose did not. Furthermore, it was also found that the agent did not have to look ‘real’ as there was no significant difference in results from groups who had a cartoon character agent.

    Summary

    Delivering instruction via multimedia presentations is widely used in many organisations. In order to improve learning from multimedia, instructional designers should look to apply evidence based principles of multimedia instruction into their designs in order to improve learning outcomes. This essay has discussed the cognitive theory of multimedia instruction along with the assumptions of how the human memory system operates. Furthermore, principles of multimedia design that can improve learning such as the multimedia principle, contiguity principle, modality principle, redundancy principle and personalisation principle were also discussed and applied to a sample eLearning module.

    References
    Clark, R., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning. San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
    Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven  guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley and Sons  Inc.
    Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning. San Francisco: John  Wiley & Sons Inc.
    Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, C. (2004). A personalisation effect in  multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in a conversational style rather than a formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.
    Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:  When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
    Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia  learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380-386.
    Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia  learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
    Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of  modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
    Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational  Psychologist, 41(2), 87-98.

  • The Human Memory System

    This blog post is a slightly modified version of an essay that I recently submitted as part of my Master of Education (Educational Psychology) studies.

    Human Memory System

    The ability of the human brain to process, store and retrieve information has been the subject of much research and debate by cognitive psychologists over a long period of time. Whilst the terminology and functioning of the components of the human memory system (also known as our human cognitive architecture or HCA) have changed based on the findings of research, it is widely accepted that our memory system consists of a sensory memory that receives information from our surrounds, a working memory to process this information and also to retrieve information from our storage area known as the long-term memory.  This essay will discuss the research and findings about how the human memory system operates and furthermore, the application of these findings to learning and instruction.

    As far back as 1890, the human memory system was proposed by William James to be a dual-system comprising of a primary memory (or conscious awareness) and a secondary memory (containing lasting memories). However, it was not until the late 1950’s that evidence and acceptance for the division of the memory into multiple systems began to emerge. Around this time, research by Peterson and Peterson found that unfamiliar information could only be held for a matter of seconds before being forgotten. In addition, Brown proposed that memory traces decay over time and his experiments also demonstrated forgetting occurring over short time periods. This in turn led to the proposal that human memory be separated into short-term and long-term systems. These findings added to the earlier research of Miller (1956) who found that there were limitations to the capacity of information that can be processed by the human memory system, in this case he discovered that only about seven (plus or minus two) pieces of new information could be held at any time.

    During the 1960’s, short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM), also referred to as the long-term store (LTS), were conceptualised as separate systems and this was reflected in the various models that began to emerge. Of these, Atkinson and Shiffrin’s Modal model (1968) became the most influential depiction of the human memory system. This model “assumes that information comes in from the environment through a parallel series of sensory memory systems into a limited-capacity short-term store (STS), which forms a crucial bottle-neck between perception and LTM. The STS was also assumed to be necessary for recall, and to act as a limited-capacity working memory” (Baddeley, 2000, p.81).

    Despite the influence of the Modal model, two shortcomings became apparent in the early 1970’s. The first the assumption was that if information was held in the STS for a sustained amount of time, there would be an increased likelihood that it would be transferred to the LTS. This did not account for any processing of the information and was contested by Craik and Lockhart in 1972, who incidentally, were not in favour of multi-store models, instead conceptualising memory as being “tied to levels of perceptual processing” in what they referred to as the primary memory. This resulted in the development of their framework of levels of processing known as Type 1 or surface processing and Type 2 or deep processing. The second shortcoming of the Modal model was that the structure of the model itself implies that a person with a damaged STS would therefore experience problems processing information and also long-term learning, however further studies on people with impaired STS found that this was not the case.

    Working Memory
    While the Modal model proposes a single STS, Baddeley and Hitch (in 1974), conceptualised a working memory comprising of three components – two slave systems known as the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad both of which are controlled by the central executive – that replace the STS. The term working memory has largely been adopted in preference of the term short-term memory and better reflects the processing activities carried out by this part of the human memory system. The phonological loop is somewhat similar to the conceptualisation of the STS and is comprised of a phonological store that holds “acoustic or speech-based information for 1 or 2 seconds” (Baddeley, 1992, p. 558) and an articulatory control process that, with repetition, circulates information from the phonological store via an inner voice. In addition, the process also converts “visually presented material such as words or nameable pictures” into a form that can be registered by the phonological store (Baddeley, 1992, p.558). The role of the visuo-spatial sketch pad is to process visual as well as spatial information. Coordinating the activities of both slaves systems is carried out by the central executive however, unlike the phonological store and visuo-spatial sketchpad, the empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of a central executive has not been found.

    This model of working memory was modified by Baddeley in 2000 in order to address two concerns arising from the original model. The first concern was in relation to the integration of the working memory components (due to each component coding information differently) and the second was around how the working memory communicates with long-term memory. To address these concerns a fourth component known as the episodic buffer was added to the model was assumed to be “a limited capacity temporary store that forms an interface between a range of systems all having different basic memory codes. It is assumed to do so by having a multi-dimensional coding system” (Baddeley et. al. 2010, p.229). However, rather than the active link between the subsystems, it was found that the episodic buffer was a more passive store of bound information and not responsible for binding coded information.

    It must also be mentioned that information enters the working memory from one of two sources, either from our sensory memory through our interaction with the world around us or it is retrieved from our long-term memory.

    Long-term Memory
    Whilst the working memory is responsible for the active processing of information, the long-term memory is the storage area of the human memory system. Our long-term memory “consists of a large, relatively permanent store of information” (Sweller, 2004, p.11). It was the work of De Groot who found that chess grand masters were able to defeat novice players because they held vast numbers of board configurations in their long-term memory. This was demonstrated when grand masters were able to accurately reproduce real game board configurations compared to novice players. This finding was confirmed by Chase and Simon (1973) who found that grand masters could reproduce mid-play board configurations with fewer referrals back to the mid-play board. Interestingly, Chase and Simon also found that grand masters performed worse than novice players when attempting to reproduce random chess board configurations because they were attempting to apply actual configurations to a haphazard setting.

    Information is stored in the long-term memory in knowledge structures known as schemas. Also known as mental models, schemas “permit us to treat a large number of information elements as a single element” (Clark et. al, 2006). The reason that chess grand masters performed better than novice players in reconstructing actual board configurations is because they have many more board configuration schemas stored in their long-term memory that they can access. The number of schemas held is what differentiates experts from novices therefore, the focus of any instruction should be the formation and construction of schemas in the long-term memory.

    Implications for Learning and Instruction
    The study of the human memory system and its components has provided extensive evidence about how humans process and store new and existing pieces of information. This knowledge is essential when it comes to designing instructional activities and account for the processing and storage capabilities of the human memory system. When learning something new, there are three types of cognitive load: intrinsic which is the inherent level of complexity of the content, germane which allow cognitive resources to be put towards learning and extraneous which are irrelevant elements that actually impose extra mental processing. These forms of cognitive load are additive, therefore in order for instruction to be effective and permit transfer to long-term memory, they should not exceed working memory capacity.

    Cognitive load theory is “a universal set of instructional principles and evidence-based guidelines that offer the most efficient methods to design and deliver instructional environments in ways that best utilise the limited capacity of working memory” (Clark et. al, 2006, p.342). Examples of these principles include: the worked example effect – giving novice learners worked solutions of unfamiliar problems to study, the split-attention effect – reducing the need to integrate multiple sources of information in order for it to be understood, the modality effect – presenting information via both the visual and auditory channels and the redundancy effect – not presenting the same information via both the visual and auditory channels. Applying these principles to instructional design will facilitate improved learning outcomes because they incorporate the findings of research into the functioning of the human memory system.

     

    References

    Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.

    Baddeley, A. D. (2000). Short-Term and Working Memory. In Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Memory, 77-92, Oxford University Press.

    Baddeley, A. D., Allen, R. J., & Hitch, G. J. (2010). Investigating the episodic buffer. Psychologica Belgica, 50(3&4), 223-243.

    Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning, San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

    Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

    Ricker, T. J., Vergauwe, E., & Cowan, N. (2014). Decay theory of immediate memory: From Brown (1958) to today (2014). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1-27.

    Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9-31.

  • Working with Cognitive Load

    When I first started working as an eLearning instructional designer I became interested in the learning process and how people learn. I figured that if I knew more about information processing and learning, I could hopefully design more effective courses and materials. I came across a book called Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load by Ruth Colvin Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller. In this book I discovered – among other things – Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) which is based on studies of human cognitive architecture – how we process and organise information.

    In our brains, we have two types of memory. One is our working memory, which we use to process new information. The capacity of our working memory is quite limited so it can only handle so much before it becomes overloaded. The second is our long-term memory, which is where we store information from our working memory and where we retrieve that information from later. Within our long-term memory, information is organised into schemas, which are organisational frameworks of storage (like filing cabinets). Not exceeding working memory capacity will result in greater transfer of information into long-term memory.

    CLT proposes that there are three types of cognitive load:

    Intrinsic: this is the level of complexity inherent in the material being studied. There isn’t much that we can do about intrinsic cognitive load; some tasks are more complex than others so will have different levels of intrinsic cognitive load.

    Extraneous: this is cognitive load imposed by non-relevant elements that require extra mental processing e.g. decorative pictures, animations etc. that add nothing to the learning experience.

    Germane: these are elements that allow cognitive resources to be put towards learning i.e. assist with information processing.

    The three types of cognitive load are additive so according to the theory, for instruction to be effective:

    Intrinsic load + Extraneous load + Germane load < Working memory capacity

    To assist learners in transferring information from their working memory to their long-term memory, we need to present the information in such a way that it reduces extraneous cognitive load (non-relevant items) and, if possible, increases germane cognitive load (items that assist with information processing). Note: I’ve found that much of the literature tends to focus on reducing extraneous cognitive load.

    Mayer and Moreno (2003) conducted research into ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Their research, built on CLT, was based on three assumptions:

    1. Humans possess separate information processing channels for verbal and visual material (Dual Channel).
    2. There is only a limited amount of processing capacity available via the visual (eyes) and verbal (ears) channels (Limited Capacity).
    3. Learning requires substantial cognitive processing via the visual and verbal channels (Active Processing).

    They found that designers should do the following to assist learners in processing information:

    • Present some information via the visual channel and some via the verbal channel.
    • Break content into smaller segments and allow the learner to control the pace.
    • Remove non-essential content – this includes background music and decorative pictures that don’t add value.
    • Words should be placed close as possible to the corresponding graphics.
    • Don’t narrate on-screen text word-for-word.
    • Synchronise visual and verbal content i.e. don’t place them on separate screens.

    As instructional designers, we need to be aware of the cognitive requirements our designs impose and ensure that our learners can meet those requirements. We must also ensure that all aspects of our design focus on adding value to the learning experience.

    References:

    Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load (2006) by Ruth Colvin Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller. Pfeiffer

    Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist. 38, (1), 43-52.