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.
This article is incredibly interesting -- it is nice to have concrete research to back up the idea that teachers cannot just throw technology at a problem and expect students to learn better. It definitely makes me think about how to best use technology in the social studies classroom. Because we now know that "adding visuals to verbal (text and/or auditory) learning can result in significant gains in basic and higher-order learning," my desire to use programs such as photostory and iMovie greatly increases. While observing a World History class on ancient civilizations last week, I started thinking about WHY I couldn't remember ANYTHING from ancient history -- I literally remember nothing. After watching this teacher last week use Google Earth to show images of the Nile and its effects on agriculture, etc, I realized that it was because I had almost no visuals when I was learning ancient history. All I had was photos of sculptures. And now I realize that what I really needed was visuals to put the story together and to help me remember the differences between different civilizations.
ReplyDeleteAs Matt said, I think it is very important to remember Mayer and Moreno's principles related to multimedia and modality instead of throwing any just any visual technology at students. The idea of putting corresponding words and pictures close together, presenting them simultaneously instead of successively, no extraneous sounds and pictures (definitely applies to PowerPoint!), avoiding redundancy... These are all rules that I will now go over before introducing any technology into the classroom!
I agree with both of you that the article was very interesting. I was especially interested in the 8 principles outlined at the end of the article. Some of them weren't suprising; I'd heard them before. For example, I knew that images reinforced learning for students. But I did not know that "Students learn better when information is not represented in more than one modality-- redundancy interferes with learning." That's not what I would have thought. I believed that the more ways you could present information to the students, the better.
ReplyDeleteI think the major point of the article is that what you think does not matter. You need to get the facts. It's so make assumptions because of experiences and numbers that (as we saw in the article) may not be based on research. For the sake of my future students, I need to get the facts. The knowledge that students (especially low-level learners) will most benefit from interactive learning for higher order skills and non-interactive for lower order skills will really help me to reach my students.
Like other articles and readings that have been assigned, this article discusses various learning patterns of students and that teachers need to involve all students. This article stresses the importance and benefit of using various forms of technology to involve students. This article falls into the same trap that other articles/readings do that promote one form of teaching/learning over another. Agreeing with Catherine and Matt, you can't just pick one form of multimedia, or lesson structure to teach to the students. One thought process that has passed through my mind is if students have different means of learning something, how do you accommodate everyone's learning styles with each lesson? Each lesson can not be possible taught with every type of teaching method.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that needs to be developed among students is for them to have an understanding of how much they know and why they know it. This metacognition will help the students in all forms of future learning.
The article does provide tips for how to introduce new material through technology. The research does suggest that the teaching done with the technology is successful, and is probably more successful than just on the tests that the researchers are measuring. Just seeing the technology in action will help prepare them to use it in future contexts.
Multimodal learning through media is a complicated issue. Just last week, I was reading an article about children being shown image after image and getting confused. The child brain does need a break after being shown image after image. However, in the Cone Experience, visual learning ranks in the middle of the cone. It is higher than just hearing verbal commands, but is not as memorable as direct purpose experiences. From what I've observed from classroom experiences, the children do seem to enjoy the experiences the best, which helps with remembrance.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the effectiveness of instruction augmented with multimedia tools and resources is fine. These seem to work best with a certain spacing and a variety of materials that is shown.
When selecting interactive or non-interactive multimedia tools and resources, it is important to consider many things. I particularly found the bit about voluntary versus involuntary memory fascinating. I am not sure if I have this 100% correct, but it seems that there are strands of involuntary memory when students are exposed to images in which they are not truly interested. It further states that the strands soon transfer to long memory and shortly after that, with overload, conversations and other images may become blurry. So, it helps to know your students. When choosing multimedia, it's got to be something that gets their attention.
I'm with you about the detective work, Matt. It's fascinating how quickly a myth becomes incorporated into our knowledge base.
ReplyDeleteYou've all done a great job highlighting the salient points from the article. I'm encouraged that your discussion has focused so much on drawing connections and limitations between research findings and individual students' learning styles and preferences.
I also appreciate how you've all discussed the lack of a magic bullet for teaching - particularly as it relates to technology. The effectiveness (or lack thereof) of any technology tool or resource is directly linked to the pedagogy and technology. When all three are "in sync," the chances of a positive impact are much greater.
In the end, "research suggests." Experience, grounded in sound pedagogy, is the ultimate arbiter of teaching effectiveness.