learning design notes

Mayer’s makes some very good points about learning. He uses research [and big words] to make his points!

Spatial Contiguity Principle: We learn better when corresponding words and images are presented near (rather than far) from each other on the page / screen. (p81) Our learning involves us in “sense-making efforts.” In learning, we are active as we attempt to connect the “why,” “context” and “meaning” of what we are learning. But, our cognitive abilities for processing are limited. Medina’s and Meyer’s research fit together nicely on this point. Integration of images and words help our working memory to process better. We don’t waste processing capacity on searching a screen / page for corresponding text when images and text are located near each other.

Coherence Principle: “College students remember more important material from reading chapter summaries than from reading entire textbook chapters.”(p.132) Research is cited showing unfocused learning materials distract learners from retaining and transferring learning. There is some overlap with Tufte’s phluff here. Mayer uses the term “seductive details,” for images and sounds that are incorporated for emotional, or arousal appeal but are unrelated to the message. Again, because our cognitive abilities are limited, placing unneeded words, sounds and images into a learning environment takes away from the learners ability to process what they are learning. Less is more. Focused lessons are best.

Temporal Contiguity Principle: Students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented simultaneously rather than successively, (dual exposure is happening concurrently). Results here were not as clear cut with regards to retention, as they were to transference. Mayer makes this claim with regards to narration and animation.

Quotes of Note:

Cognitive Interest (as opposed to seductive details), “refers to the idea that students enjoy lessons that they can understand.” (p. 119)

“…(temporal contiguity principle) illustrates what is wrong with assuming that the instructional designer’s job is to present information….students benefit from some guidance concerning how to process the incoming material….prime the learner to build connections….” (p. 112) Mayer’s words here could be read deeper.

Thought to Ponder: Is less always more? What about Cliff Notes versus the actual Novel?

First, let me say, Mayer seems to be obsessed with the dichotomy between Behavorialism and Constructivism. He refers to Behavioralism as the “information-delivery theory.” He repeatedly draws upon the differences between the two theories in his book. My head rather hurts from this author’s witting style. However, he has very interesting things to say.

First Basic Definitions per Mayer:

• Instructional Message - a communication that is intended to foster learning (p. 3)
• Multi-media learning – dual coded learning, in its broadest sense pictorial representation with verbal (p. 2-3)
• better learning – improvements in retention and understanding of the material, focus on transfer as a measure of understanding (p. 64)

Mayer cares about the end results.  The end result being better learning, “…technology that expands our cognitive capabilities,” “…technology that complements human abilities,” and helping people learn through technology, not just get access to technology. (p. 10-11)

Mayer’s Insights:

Central to Mayer is the premise that our brains operate with limited cognitive capacities.
The intrinsic cognitive load is high when topics are complex or have complex relationships. Intrinsic cognitive load would be lighter if examining a straightforward cause and effect relationship. Extraneous cognitive load is that you want to lose from your message, because it bogs down the mind. (p. 50) Also important to Mayer’s Mulitimedia Learning is understanding that because our ability to processes is limited, we are forced to make decisions about what to pay attention to and what relationships matter. Further, Learners “must focus on building a simple structure. The organizational process is not arbitrary but rather reflects an effort at sense making….” (p. 56)

As a designer, one can lighted the cognitive load by clearing out the clutter in planning. “The instructor’s job is not only to present material but also to help guide the learner’s cognitive processing of the presented material…build connections.”(p. 68)

“Help learners by selecting the relevant material, organizing the selected material and integrating selected learning with prior experience.” – could stop there that sums it all up and the implications are profound for planning. (52)

Now for the “coup de gras.”As if these thoughts weren’t enough…. My personal favorite parts were on pages 76-78. Here he mentions a case study of textbooks and classifying their visuals into the visual taxonomy developed by Levin, (decorative, representational, organizational and explanative). Roughly a third of the illustrations were decorative. He concludes that we really don’t know the potential power of graphics.

I’m hooked and ready to read the book….despite the author’s obsessions and awkward writing style.  This book ended up being a 10 out of 10!