Menu
Annotated Bibliography 7
Kalyuga, S. (2014) The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 576-597). New York: Cambridge.
Kalyuga (2014) discusses the expertise reversal principle, which means that a learner has previous experience with the topic and when that learner is given detailed steps and instruction during the lesson to understand the topic, he generally does not perform well on post-assessments, since the information in the lesson is duplicative and unnecessary. On the other hand, when a learner does not have previous experience with the topic, and does receive detailed steps and instructions during the lesson, those learners do well on post-assessments since they have developed the skills necessary to understand the topic.
Therefore, instructional designers need to create instruction that gradually allows learners to utilize higher level skills when the learners have developed a solid foundation to complete the task independently. At the beginning, instructors need to utilize completed problems and present elements alone so the learner can understand the parts of the task. In terms of multimedia, low knowledge students appreciate inert pictures because these learners can study the task, while high knowledge students prefer moving pictures since they have a prior insight into the task.
The implication of this chapter for instructional designers is that instruction must be appropriate for the learners of the lesson. Furthermore, the pre-assessment can accurately help the instructor make instruction relevant for the learners. One way to assess learners is to see if they understand what first to accomplish with a presented task- higher level learners will be able explain the task easier than low level learners. For multimedia instruction, programs that adjust to the learner’s needs are beneficial since the program gives the skills necessary for success within the content of the lesson.
Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The individual differences in working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 598-619). New York: Cambridge.
Wiley, Sanchez, and Jaeger (2014) discuss the individual differences in multimedia learning principle, which means the learner has to utilize concentration structures in order to make meaning of the material. Knowledge is separated between low level and high level ability in the working memory, and this principle focuses on the learner utilizing high level ability, or understanding, to complete tasks. Therefore, in terms of high level ability in the working memory, the learner must utilize many different known procedures in the mind to make sense of the material in the task. Those learners with low level ability in the working memory do not have the specific procedures in the mind to make sense of the material in the task.
Furthermore, the researchers discuss experiments that make this theory true. In one task the learners were given the option of text on a screen that had a learner click to obtain more information to open a new page or, alternatively, the learner was given a text that was one long page and the learner moved the information up and down with their mouse to obtain information. The clicking scenario was better for low level ability learners because of their weak concentration skills- the long page was difficult for learners to focus.
In terms of multimedia learning, designers should follow the segmenting principle from the Mayer research in order to achieve best results for low level learners. Overall, instructional designers need to create clear goal directives so low level learners can understand the task at hand. Lessons may need to be shown two times to construct meaning for low level learners. Finally, relevant information may need to be highlighted to help learners to understand the task during a lesson.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 10–119.
Pashler, McDaniel, Roherer, and Bjork (2008) discuss their research on learning styles. Learning styles are performing better with one way of being presented information. Learning styles tests were first presented by C.G Jung, who help create the Myers-Briggs Indicator Test. Learners like learning styles because they want to know how they perceive information best, and learning styles create distinctive characteristics which educational institutions should follow for the learner to be effective in education. If the learner is not effective in a particular institution, the institution is seen as the trouble, not the learner.
Furthermore, these theories are grounded in profitable ways, as many institutions of learning state they will have classes constructed to the learner’s needs. Learning styles have been discussed in higher education textbooks to prepare new instructors. Also, institutions of learning can utilize expensive tests to determine which way to best construct instruction for learners.
However, the research base of learning styles is massive, yet flawed, because very little research has been completed ln a situation where learners are matched to their learning style in instruction to demonstrate that method is the most effective for the learner. According to the researchers, most studies that are presented on learning styles do not meet this criterion and have errors in the research design. At this time, instructional designers should be wary of including learning style assessments at the beginning of instruction because the current research base shows mixed results.
Plass, J.L. & Kalyuga, S., & Leutner, D. (2010). Individual differences and cognitive load theory. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 65-87). New York: Cambridge.
Plass, Kalyuga, and Leutner (2010) discuss three characteristics that shape individual differences in cognitive load theory: previous experience with a task (information processing category), dimensional representation in the mind, and the ability to check understanding of a task (regulation of processing). (p.66)
Previous experience with a task means the learner has developed the procedures in the mind necessary to explain and solve a problem within the task. The low skill learner needs good explanations, written words and images together, and words alone before tasks to develop understanding and meaning of the task. Overall, high skill learners may not need these abilities since they already have the procedures in place to solve a task.
Second, dimensional representation in the mind means how the learner utilizes pictures in understanding tasks. Learners with high dimensional representation generally can perform well on tasks that have pictures with the written words. Low dimensional representation means the learner utilizes other abilities such as word deciphering in order to understand a task.
Third, if a learner is aware of actively making sure they understand a task, they will generally be better able to solve the task than learners who have low level ability in this area. The researchers note that the way the task was planned plays into the ability to check understanding of a task-- if clear instruction is given at the beginning and gradually released, this method will help the learner.
Finally, researchers state instruction should be flexible to the learners’ needs as in computer programs that guide the learner to the next step in instruction. In order to gauge learner ability, tests that look at what the learner does first in a task and selecting the correct steps in a timely manner are successful ways to determine ability.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4
I selected the Neuhauser (2002) article because the researcher feels that learning style does not impact learners in either the electronic or the live classroom. The researcher taught the class in two formats: live- one class per week- or electronic (utilizing a system similar to Moodle) and each section applied electronic messages for assignments in each class. Learners registered by themselves for the class without being given a learning style diagnostic to determine the learning style that would best fit the learner needs.
Neuhauser (2002) examined “…gender, age, learning preferences and styles, [and] media familiarity…” to investigate if these characteristics amounted to any huge statistical difference between the groups (p.99). In order to measure learning styles, the learners finished the Modality Preference Inventory, which classified learners as pictorial, audio, or physical learners (Neuhauser, 2002, p.111). Also, the learners finished the Keirsey Temperament Inventory which labeled learners as reserved or sociable and their personality (Neuhauser, 2002, p.111). Finally, learners were given a questionnaire on how they liked the content of the course for either format.
The results from the experiment showed that learning style or preference did not affect achievement at all in either the live or electronic classroom. One implication of this study is that the instructional designer must be wary of utilizing learning styles or preferences to gauge learners before content is taught. Finally, learning can be achieved in electronic formats as long as instruction is created effectively for all learners.
Kalyuga (2014) discusses the expertise reversal principle, which means that a learner has previous experience with the topic and when that learner is given detailed steps and instruction during the lesson to understand the topic, he generally does not perform well on post-assessments, since the information in the lesson is duplicative and unnecessary. On the other hand, when a learner does not have previous experience with the topic, and does receive detailed steps and instructions during the lesson, those learners do well on post-assessments since they have developed the skills necessary to understand the topic.
Therefore, instructional designers need to create instruction that gradually allows learners to utilize higher level skills when the learners have developed a solid foundation to complete the task independently. At the beginning, instructors need to utilize completed problems and present elements alone so the learner can understand the parts of the task. In terms of multimedia, low knowledge students appreciate inert pictures because these learners can study the task, while high knowledge students prefer moving pictures since they have a prior insight into the task.
The implication of this chapter for instructional designers is that instruction must be appropriate for the learners of the lesson. Furthermore, the pre-assessment can accurately help the instructor make instruction relevant for the learners. One way to assess learners is to see if they understand what first to accomplish with a presented task- higher level learners will be able explain the task easier than low level learners. For multimedia instruction, programs that adjust to the learner’s needs are beneficial since the program gives the skills necessary for success within the content of the lesson.
Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The individual differences in working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 598-619). New York: Cambridge.
Wiley, Sanchez, and Jaeger (2014) discuss the individual differences in multimedia learning principle, which means the learner has to utilize concentration structures in order to make meaning of the material. Knowledge is separated between low level and high level ability in the working memory, and this principle focuses on the learner utilizing high level ability, or understanding, to complete tasks. Therefore, in terms of high level ability in the working memory, the learner must utilize many different known procedures in the mind to make sense of the material in the task. Those learners with low level ability in the working memory do not have the specific procedures in the mind to make sense of the material in the task.
Furthermore, the researchers discuss experiments that make this theory true. In one task the learners were given the option of text on a screen that had a learner click to obtain more information to open a new page or, alternatively, the learner was given a text that was one long page and the learner moved the information up and down with their mouse to obtain information. The clicking scenario was better for low level ability learners because of their weak concentration skills- the long page was difficult for learners to focus.
In terms of multimedia learning, designers should follow the segmenting principle from the Mayer research in order to achieve best results for low level learners. Overall, instructional designers need to create clear goal directives so low level learners can understand the task at hand. Lessons may need to be shown two times to construct meaning for low level learners. Finally, relevant information may need to be highlighted to help learners to understand the task during a lesson.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 10–119.
Pashler, McDaniel, Roherer, and Bjork (2008) discuss their research on learning styles. Learning styles are performing better with one way of being presented information. Learning styles tests were first presented by C.G Jung, who help create the Myers-Briggs Indicator Test. Learners like learning styles because they want to know how they perceive information best, and learning styles create distinctive characteristics which educational institutions should follow for the learner to be effective in education. If the learner is not effective in a particular institution, the institution is seen as the trouble, not the learner.
Furthermore, these theories are grounded in profitable ways, as many institutions of learning state they will have classes constructed to the learner’s needs. Learning styles have been discussed in higher education textbooks to prepare new instructors. Also, institutions of learning can utilize expensive tests to determine which way to best construct instruction for learners.
However, the research base of learning styles is massive, yet flawed, because very little research has been completed ln a situation where learners are matched to their learning style in instruction to demonstrate that method is the most effective for the learner. According to the researchers, most studies that are presented on learning styles do not meet this criterion and have errors in the research design. At this time, instructional designers should be wary of including learning style assessments at the beginning of instruction because the current research base shows mixed results.
Plass, J.L. & Kalyuga, S., & Leutner, D. (2010). Individual differences and cognitive load theory. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 65-87). New York: Cambridge.
Plass, Kalyuga, and Leutner (2010) discuss three characteristics that shape individual differences in cognitive load theory: previous experience with a task (information processing category), dimensional representation in the mind, and the ability to check understanding of a task (regulation of processing). (p.66)
Previous experience with a task means the learner has developed the procedures in the mind necessary to explain and solve a problem within the task. The low skill learner needs good explanations, written words and images together, and words alone before tasks to develop understanding and meaning of the task. Overall, high skill learners may not need these abilities since they already have the procedures in place to solve a task.
Second, dimensional representation in the mind means how the learner utilizes pictures in understanding tasks. Learners with high dimensional representation generally can perform well on tasks that have pictures with the written words. Low dimensional representation means the learner utilizes other abilities such as word deciphering in order to understand a task.
Third, if a learner is aware of actively making sure they understand a task, they will generally be better able to solve the task than learners who have low level ability in this area. The researchers note that the way the task was planned plays into the ability to check understanding of a task-- if clear instruction is given at the beginning and gradually released, this method will help the learner.
Finally, researchers state instruction should be flexible to the learners’ needs as in computer programs that guide the learner to the next step in instruction. In order to gauge learner ability, tests that look at what the learner does first in a task and selecting the correct steps in a timely manner are successful ways to determine ability.
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_4
I selected the Neuhauser (2002) article because the researcher feels that learning style does not impact learners in either the electronic or the live classroom. The researcher taught the class in two formats: live- one class per week- or electronic (utilizing a system similar to Moodle) and each section applied electronic messages for assignments in each class. Learners registered by themselves for the class without being given a learning style diagnostic to determine the learning style that would best fit the learner needs.
Neuhauser (2002) examined “…gender, age, learning preferences and styles, [and] media familiarity…” to investigate if these characteristics amounted to any huge statistical difference between the groups (p.99). In order to measure learning styles, the learners finished the Modality Preference Inventory, which classified learners as pictorial, audio, or physical learners (Neuhauser, 2002, p.111). Also, the learners finished the Keirsey Temperament Inventory which labeled learners as reserved or sociable and their personality (Neuhauser, 2002, p.111). Finally, learners were given a questionnaire on how they liked the content of the course for either format.
The results from the experiment showed that learning style or preference did not affect achievement at all in either the live or electronic classroom. One implication of this study is that the instructional designer must be wary of utilizing learning styles or preferences to gauge learners before content is taught. Finally, learning can be achieved in electronic formats as long as instruction is created effectively for all learners.