The study was conducted to "determine the possible benefits of incorporating a modest amount of computer-user interactivity within a multimedia explanation." In other words, they wanted to find if users who control the pace of a multimedia explanation—narration and animation that provides a cause-and-effect account of how something works—will better understand the content than users who are presented with the information in a continuous manner without breaks.
The researchers argue that when pictures and words are presented in a continuous manner, they become overwhelming. Therefore, learners devote much of their processing capacity to simply receiving the words and pictures and run out of capacity to mentally organize what they saw. So, based on the principles of the cognitive load theory, they predicted that when multimedia is presented part by part under the learner's control, the learner can fully grasp one segment before moving on to the next. In turn, the learner would experience less cognitive overload. Based on the 2-stage theory of mental model construction, the researchers predicted that initial user interaction with a cause-and-effect presentation would allow learners to build component models that represent how one part of the system works. Then, if they are subsequently shown a continuous presentation without interaction, they can integrate those component models into a causal model, once again reducing cognitive load.
To test if simple user interaction with a multimedia explanation would result in deeper understanding of scientific systems, Mayer and Chandler conducted two experiments. In both, they provided all test subjects with a multimedia explanation on the formation of lightning because it is a cause-and-effect account of how something works.
For experiment one, they split the subjects into two groups: Whole-Part (WP) and Part-Whole (PW). The Whole-Part group was shown the continuous narrated animation with no control over the sequence, followed by the same presentation separated into segments— with the option to "click here to continue"— giving them control over the pace of the sequence. The Part-Whole group was given the opposite scenario. They were first given control over the sequence, then shown the continuous narrated animation without any control.
Conventional ways of teaching through multimedia presentations are based on the scenario given to the whole-first group. It is commonly believed that learners would build context when watching the continuous presentation, and then reinforce parts of the context when they could see each segment separately with control over when to move on to the next. However, based on the cognitive load theory, the part-first group should more deeply understand the content.
Both groups received identical information, so the researchers assumed they would perform equally well on retention tests. The results proved them right, and both groups remembered the major idea units at about the same level. What they really wanted to test, however, was the learners deep understanding of the content. To test this, they provided a transfer tests to see if learners could use the presented information in new ways beyond what was presented. The Part-Whole group had higher transfer test performance at the end of both presentations. Lastly, the researchers wanted to explore learners cognitive load ratings after each presentation. As expected, those in the Whole-Part group said cognitive load decreased significantly from the first continuous presentation to the second presentation they could control. The Part-Whole group said cognitive load increased when they were shown the second presentation they were no longer able to control.
In the second experiment the groups were broken up into Part-Part (PP) and Whole-Whole (WW). The Part-Part group had control over the presentation they received in segments twice, and the Whole-Whole group received the continuous presentation twice. As stated above, the conventional approach to multimedia teaching is supported by the whole-first hypothesis, which aims to not disrupt the flow of information. But the researchers found that the part-first hypothesis, which is inline with the cognitive load theory, may actually be the better approach. Just as in experiment one, both groups recalled the same number of major idea units from the presentations, but the Part-Part group scored higher on the transfer test. Thus, they concluded that learning from two part presentations, with control over its speed, places less load on users' working memory than two whole presentations.
"There is more to multimedia learning than simply receiving information that is delivered by a computer," they wrote. Though the results of this study cannot account for all types of learning, it does provide us with an effective design principle for multimedia explanations when the goal is to promote understanding of how a cause-and-effect system works: provide pretraining aimed at helping learners fully master the behavior of each component before presenting a continuous explanation.
"There is more to multimedia learning than simply receiving information that is delivered by a computer," they wrote. Though the results of this study cannot account for all types of learning, it does provide us with an effective design principle for multimedia explanations when the goal is to promote understanding of how a cause-and-effect system works: provide pretraining aimed at helping learners fully master the behavior of each component before presenting a continuous explanation.
Personally, I found the topic of your blog post to be very interesting. As a student who is striving to obtain the best possible grade point average, I want to know how to present myself with information to understand it best. Granted your blog was speaking more in terms of say a professor presenting the information to a class, but I still found the information valuable.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Professor Yaros was lecturing about last week, I did not find the results of the experiment to be peculiar in any way. I expected to see that when the user is in control first, he or she will yield greater results. I know this based on personal experience from taking notes on videos. Rarely can I understand and synthesis all of the information in the first viewing. Almost always, I go back and re-watch the video several times, pausing and rewinding in particularly confusing or challenging content.
To further analyze this understanding of cognitive load, I would like to see the effect long term. The additional study should compare and contrast the effect of the conventional method of teaching (WP and WW) versus a user friendly method (PW and PP). Perhaps if studies were done long-term, institutions would be willing to test drive this user friendly method for the better of their student body.
Based on formatting, I found it easy to read because the paragraphs were relatively short. Especially the first two, which makes the blog seem less intimidating or boring. Also, as Professor Yaros said in class, I would suggest placing a graphic in the beginning because being bombarded with words alone is daunting to me as a reader. As for the writing, everything was clearly written and not difficult for me to understand. As for the citations, I didn’t see any in-text citations or citation about the experiment you are referencing. Also, the images didn’t include sources, which Professor Yaros said to include along with the graphic. Overall, I found your blog post to be clear and concise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found the study fairly ironic in nature, because the focus of the experiment involves trying to understand how students can learn most effectively, yet while actually attempting to comprehend the study, I felt myself being held back by cognitive overload. I had to re-read the post multiple times just to gain a basic understanding of what was being revealed.
ReplyDeleteOther than being difficult to comprehend initially (which is likely due to my own learning skill set more than the blog post), I was in agreement with the results of the study. Every student has their own specific way of learning, but generally, their ways of learning include repetition and controlled studying/note-taking. It has always been a hassle to take notes and focus on just writing the words down when the focus should be on absorbing the information. So, it's no surprise to me that the groups who had control over the pace of their learning did better on the transfer tests than the groups who did not have control over the pace of their learning.
I think the study was in-depth and covered most bases. However, I think one way to add to the study would be to issue the transfer tests after a longer period of time. I'd like to see whether the people who had control over their learning would be able to maintain their higher scores over the people who did not have control, because I do feel as though it's easier to retain information in the immediate aftermath of learning. If the people who had control over their learning still succeeded at a similarly high rate, I think it would further justify the PW and PP methods.
I think that the blog post could be most be improved by the addition of one more graphic, or at least moving one of the two graphics higher on the post. I think that one more graphic or picture at the beginning would ease the reader into the article. As Brianne mentioned in the comment above, 'daunting' is a very accurate way to describe my initial feeling when I first started reading, and I think that is truly because of the lack of an image to go along with text. Otherwise, I thought this was a sophisticated and organized post.