The introduction to Mr. Fadel's research clearly presents his thesis on multimedia based learning. Students using a well-designed combination of visual and text learn more than students who only use text. He is likely intentionally vague on this claim as factual evidence has historically been misused.
Namely, the cone of experience is hotly criticized in this article. Its original author, Dale, intended for it to be a visual metaphor depicting learning from the visual (bottom) to the abstract. It had nothing to do with percentage of retained information regarding these experiences. Instead it was taken by educational researchers to diminish the importance of learning through abstract means such as reading and hearing. As it turns out, this basic claim does a terrible job and explaining the complex nature of learners, their environment, and how material is presented. In other words, recent research has detailed the effectiveness of presented material based on how the brain works, how students learn best, and how much interplay exists between media and text in this material.
What factors of the brain must be considered when presenting any material? The first (as those in Heideman's minute sketch class are certainly aware) is the three types of memory and how they relate to actual learning. Before acquiring knowledge, learners must be sensorially alert. Obviously, information must actually be picked up by one of the five senses in order to enter working memory. This, in short, is why so many accidents occur while drivers are on their cell phones. Secondly, Working memory is, as Dr. Moore would say, the grappling process. It is creating, analyzing, and grouping schema. Finally, this information can be stored in long term memory in what we define as knowledge. Multimedia, should then seek to keep students alert by using all senses while helping to group and process information without distracting learners' attentions.
"How students learn", a topic general enough to describe human life; but in this article used describe three essential features to optimize learning. These are: Student preconceptions must be built on prior knowledge,
Fadel's final subsection presents the meat of the article in how it relates to our class: multimedia design in its visual and verbal modes. He presents 7 basic tips (one of which seems to completely contradict his message). One should always include text and visuals as retention increases when words are paired with media. Group words and pictures of the same idea in the same spatial region. This allows students minds to organize information better. Present similar ideas simultaneously rather then successively as students learn better this way (Does anyone have a hypothesis for why this may be true). Exclude any extraneous information that may be distracting. Positive benefits of this method are greater for low knowledge and high spatial learners. One heuristic that I'd like to analyze in further detail and get the group's opinion on is the Redundancy Principle. It states, "Students learn better when information is not represented in more than one modality-- redundancy interferes with learning." This seems to go against his conclusion with affirmatively says, "the most effective designs for learning adapt to include a variety of media, combinations of modalities, levels of interactivity, learner characteristics, and pedagogy based on a complex set of circumstances." Any thoughts???
This article details the complexity of the learning process that the "cone of ignoran...-I mean- learning" does not do justice. Using a variety of media in a succinct, flowing manner which is at harmony with students' natural learning process is certainly the take home message. The challenges of doing this are great. Our minds are constantly flooded with information, especially through the media. Teaching should not flood the mind, but allow our learning circuits to process and store information appropriately. In my opinion, effectively choosing what media to use in your classroom is a tremendous challenge. Suggestions or experience with well-tailored media would be lovely.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteTwo things about the redundancy theory. I agree that his theory seems to contradict the idea that using more than one method to present information is a good thing. I think his point for the redundancy theory is that sometimes students can be confused when a concept is presented in a variety of ways. I know that if I understand an equation or a principle, sometimes a different way to look at that principle may make it more difficult. Students in high school classes may be unable to forget about the confusing method and just use the helpful method. This theory benefits students who understand information easily.
My second point is about the idea of using more than one mode to present information as helpful. This is the other way to look at a variety of modality. In this theory, students may not understand one mode, but they may understand another one. For me this would be when I get presented with a principle one way and am not understanding it, but a different way of looking at the principle makes it clear. This theory gives the benefit to students that do not understand information as easily.
I believe that students get more out of information when it is presented in a variety of modes. This allows for students to try and grasp information in all ways possible. All principles are not presented in only one way and students need to be ready for any presentation in reality. This includes using technology in the classroom when it is appropriate and most useful. Students need stimulation in the form of technology and they need it in other traditional forms as well. This leads me to believe that a variety of modality is important.
Charlie: thanks for the great initial post.
ReplyDeleteSome things I want to respond to:
1. "Present similar ideas simultaneously rather then successively as students learn better this way (Does anyone have a hypothesis for why this may be true)." I would be interested in hearing what the author's meant by simultaneous presentation versus successive presentation. Do they mean simultaneous as in presenting the similar ideas on the same slide or on the same board, explaining the ideas, and then moving to applying the ideas? Or, do they mean simultaneous as presenting one idea with examples and then moving to another idea in the same class period (would this be their definition of successive)? I would actually argue introduction successively (defined as one idea with some examples and then another idea) with some connections between them would be the best, as the students would learn where to place each idea within their schema. I believe this works with what we have been learning in Heideman's class, in that the students would be better able to chunk their knowledge and have the connections necessary to free up their working memory for more complex processes.
2. "One heuristic that I'd like to analyze in further detail and get the group's opinion on is the Redundancy Principle. It states, "Students learn better when information is not represented in more than one modality-- redundancy interferes with learning." This seems to go against his conclusion with affirmatively says, "the most effective designs for learning adapt to include a variety of media, combinations of modalities, levels of interactivity, learner characteristics, and pedagogy based on a complex set of circumstances." Any thoughts???"
I have major issues with the Redundancy Principle as well, in that I also think it goes against two other points the article raises. The first is on page 10, and the authors state, "Convergence in the creation of memory traces has positive effects on memory retrieval. It creates linked memories, so that the triggering of any aspect of the experience will bring to consciousness the entire memory, often with context." The second is on page 11, "In order to deeply understand a topic, learners not only need to know relevant facts, theories, and applications, they must also make sense of the topic through organization of those ideas into a framework (schema) of understanding." The first quote suggests we should help the students have convergence when creating memory traces, and so that any triggering of one part of the memory triggers another part, and so forth. This also applies to creating "chunks" that relate to each other, and using those to accomplish what the second quote wants students to accomplish. The second quote suggests that students need multiple attempts to interact with the facts, theories, and applications, so would the authors consider this redundancy? My gut reaction from the little bit we have studied in Heideman's is that redundancy is a good thing, so long as we ensure the students are creating a system of organization within their own schema. This could be accomplished through very specific organizing notes, or a broader discussion of the main principles the students had learned.
3. The last point comes from figure 8 on page 13. This figure seems to suggest that we should be teaching students basic skills with non-interactive multimodal learning strategies and higher order skills with interactive multimodal learning strategies. I feel like many of the courses we have had thus far completely trashed the lecture based teaching, but this actually is a slight redeemer for it. Taking the non-interactive as a teacher simply lecturing by talking and drawing a board or using slides with pictures works well for the basic skills, and this makes sense. I am also glad to see some research on the issue, because of the extremely negative light it has received.
First of all, excellent job on a very thorough post, Charlie.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think that all learners are different and that the 8 principles listed on pages 12-13 will encompass them all, but that not all learners will learn in an optimal fashion under each principle.
I found Fadel's correction of the oft-quoted and oft-misrepresented "Cone of Learning" quite interesting. I've heard it said numerous times that we only remember 10% of what we hear and have often felt skeptical of the claim. It was rather enthralling to see the original Cone and read the creator's original "disclaimer," if you will, because it is such a far cry from the watered down version that is so frequently reproduced.
As for the rest of what Fadel says, most of it seems like a lot of fluff to me. Did he give any concrete examples of multimodal learning? The rest seemed rather intuitive to me. Of course students are going to learn better when topics are presented in a rich and ordered fashion. I think he could have simply listed the 8 principles (which I found interesting) and gotten his entire point across.
In reference to the Redundancy Principle, I took that to mean something like "beating a dead horse." Don't explain something over and over again, whether or not you've got multiple ways to describe it, because your students will tune out and not learn what you're trying to teach them.
I agree with Erin on the Redundancy Principle - if an idea is presented with two or three options for understanding it, students will benefit. If, however, the instructor gives numerous examples of how to approach a problem, students may become confused and forget what the aim of their learning was in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the "Cone of Learning" depended more on a learner's traits - it makes no sense to try and apply the same set of rules to how people pick up information when there are so many subcategories of learners. Visual learners probably pick up what the read better than what they do themselves, where as hands-on learners are the opposite.
I'm still trying to figure out what the author meant by simultaneous presentation of similar ideas - the vision that popped into my head when I read that was a PowerPoint full of way too much information. Perhaps he meant that teachers shouldn't "flip flop" as we discussed in Classroom Management, but rather present their information in a neatly flowing continuum. This manner of teaching is a way to cut down on wasted instruction time as well as student confusion.
Rock on, Team Techno Beets.