Hi everyone,
Before I begin answering the questions related to this article, I feel that I need to say how interested I was in the detective work of the authors regarding the ultimate source of the "Cone of Learning." I know I have been exposed to these figures before, and for me this bogus data serve as a great example of how a conclusion that makes "logical" sense can be widely accepted without additional verification or criticism. I'd say this is a warning for all of us as we enter this teaching profession - I'm sure most of us will be bombarded by suggestions, tips, rules of thumb, etc. It'll be important to proceed with these bits of wisdom cautiously, even if they seem especially insightful or flawless at first glance.
But I digress. The main object of "Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says" is to address how multimedia tools may play a role in improving student learning. In general, the article indicates that results are positive, albeit slightly mixed (which might be more a product of specific combinations of teaching practices rather than the use of multimedia in general). I’d say this general trend is misleading however. Not everyone is going to respond equally well to the same type of multimedia learning enhancement. Much like those who assigned percentages to the Cone of Learning, anyone who believes any multimedia enhancement will automatically bring their average SOL scores up 30% is looking for a silver bullet that does not exist.
Rather, what the article is basically saying is that any classroom is full of students with different preferred methods of learning and different types and degrees of prior knowledge in a variety of subjects. As the article states, “Experienced teachers recognize that the design of lessons must adapt to the expertise and prior knowledge of the learner, the complexity of the content, and the interests of the learner.” Multimedia learning enhancement allows for teachers to design lessons that have the possibility of appealing to a variety of these learners by presenting information in a variety of ways. This variety also appears to activate different parts of the brain and thus enhance learning if they are designed and presented appropriately.
Furthermore, there are often multiple goals to learning a certain concept or subject, and the effectiveness of various types of multimedia enhancement is dependent on the particular goal being sought. As the article points out, interactive multimodal learning appears to have a greater positive influence on “higher order thinking” than non-interactive multimodal learning (although both are positive and apparently significant). Conversely, non-interactive multimodal learning has a more significant positive impact on the learning of basic skills than interactive multimodal learning. Interestingly, this latter trend seems to directly contradict the conclusion of the Cone of Learning that all interactive learning is more effective than “passive,” non-interactive modes, regardless of the situation.
So the article provides us with the fact that multimedia enhancement is generally good and it gives us a few potential rules to live by when implementing it, but the article presents a few caveats to its implementation. Beyond the fact that the usefulness of different types of enhancement are goal-specific, the article cites several potential aspects of multimodal enhancement that, if not designed appropriately, can hinder learning. Including extraneous information (a common mistake in PowerPoint), presenting information redundantly, and presenting words and pictures sequentially (as opposed to simultaneously) will not improve learning. I’d say the take home message is that the limitations are not inevitably inherent in multimedia enhancement, but rather a product of poor design. Therefore, this aspect of the practice makes it no different from any other educational tool.
