The Value of Rich Media

Chapter 30 has excellent information on the use of graphics and audio for instructional presentations. This should be of interest to all designers of instructional materials, especially those who have training and interest in multimedia. Because visual and aural elements can be so engaging for their surface characteristics, it is very important to understand how they can be used productively, and how they can also diminish learning if not used appropriately. It should seem obvious by now that using multimedia effects only for their “wow” factor is neither professional nor productive.

Visuals have been shown to improve learning (R.C. Clark & Mayer, 2003; Mayer, 2001). Note that this does not necessarily resolve the Clark/Kozma debate, which was over the issue of whether media cause learning. Knowing this is valuable, but equally important is to know that the visuals need to have important functional features, versus extravagant surface features. In other words, illustrations work as well, or better, than photographs, and still images work as well as animations. Likewise, a single audio element, such as narration is more effective than multiple audio elements together (narration, music and sound effects). The reason for this is that the human brain can process two channels of information, one audio, the other visual, provided that the individual channels are not themselves overloaded.

Looking at graphics, there are a variety of psychological functions served. Graphics can support attention, activate prior knowledge, build mental models, support the transfer of learning and support motivation. These benefits have been demonstrated in studies; so that it is with substantial empirical evidence that we can say graphics improve learning.

At the same time, it is necessary to minimize unnecessary visuals and text. This is an instance when a professional understanding of instructional design is very important. In studies by Harp and Mayer (1997), learners rated lesson versions with seductive graphics as more interesting, but they demonstrated a learning gain of 105% when they used lessons without the seductive graphics (seductive graphics are graphics added with no functional value, in other words “eye candy”). The problem is that the distraction of the extra visuals interfered with the building of a mental model and activated inappropriate prior knowledge.

The conclusion presented is that the best source of motivation is cognitive sources, or in other words, the material itself must have substantial elements to cause and improve learning. An example of a cognitive source would be analogies. Harp and Mayer (1997) recommend, “the best way to help learners enjoy a passage is to help them understand it”.

A further conclusion is that multimedia is most effective with learners that have little prior knowledge, and that as learners gain knowledge, the value of multimedia diminishes. It seems that learners with a great deal of prior knowledge can mentally compensate for poor presentations.

As a graphic designer, it is exciting to reframe the challenge of graphics in a way that is grounded in function. This should be the way all commercial graphics are approached; advertising graphics create desire, educational graphics stimulate learning and so on. However, especially without appropriate training, many in business either discount graphics excessively thereby missing an opportunity, or use graphics as a superficial type of attraction to enhance perceptions of content, without actually offering a better product. Of course, as excellent students of instructional design, we are not going to fall into either of those diminished approaches…

Distributed Learning in the Years to Come

Distributed learning, as defined by Dempsey and Van Eck (chapter 28) sounds very much like blended learning, where e-learning is combined with traditional learning means and methods. I personally prefer the term blended learning because in computer terminology there is the process called: distributed computing, which is when a process is broken up and worked on by several computers in a computer network.

Here is the definition of blended learning excerpted from Wikipedia:

Researchers Heinze and Procter have developed the following definition for Blended Learning in higher education:
Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004).

The question as to how education will look in 15 years can most assuredly be answered by saying that distributed learning (blended learning) is here to stay and will inevitably continue to grow.

One important reason is cost. Education costs a lot of money and schools are competing more than ever for students. Some of those costs are direct, and others are indirect. So, in the first place, to manage tuition costs, lower-cost alternatives to buildings with classrooms and real-time instruction to a relatively small group must be developed. An indirect cost is gaining access to brick and mortar campuses. The school that can offer on-line learning programs can attract a worldwide audience that will put their money into tuition rather than cost of living expenses.

Another reason is cultural. An increasing percentage of people prefer to access their lives through the medium of the computer. Shopping, entertainment and education are all possible through the computer. The business world expects employees to accept and respond to change quickly. Only distributed learning has the inherent quality of such rapid response.
The question for us, as instructional designers is to understand our value – will we be seen as valuable after the mystery of this new technology is lifted through experience, or will our role diminish and be taken by technology itself, through the eventual development of advanced applications that do much of the design work for us? No individual will determine the outcome of this issue, but as individuals it is important that we understand our personal worth. We can support the idea of certification. We can discipline ourselves to produce work worthy of making our field a profession, rather than a trade.

Designing for the World at Large: A Tale of Two Settings

The section heading: “The Challenge of Diversity” would be an appropriate title for this topic while “Designing for the World at Large” is rather grandiose. The point of this topic (from Chapter 23) is that the world at large is a single world with multiple cultures that have various needs that diverge rather dramatically from the United States centered model of education and instructional design.

One extreme would be a country that has little if any centralized infrastructure. Furthermore, such a country may have a variety of needs that simply do not exist in a country such as the United States. Would it make sense to send FOSS (Full Option Science System) curriculum to Papua New Guinea (most of the population lives without electricity)? The challenge of education in locations most unlike the United States is great because there is a need for instructional designers who can work with alternative frameworks for learning, as well as understand the complex and challenging economic and social realities. Although there has been growing attention to the needs of the young, adult learners must be considered since the learning opportunities of their own childhood were very limited by today’s standards.

Until recently, most educational models were borrowed from the models used during colonial times. While this has seemed logical and “understandable”, it has worked for and mostly benefited those living in urban centers, while the masses continue to live in rural conditions. This also explains the slow rate of change in thinking related to these issues – the poor masses have had little voice in politics. This began to change at the World Conference on Education for All in 1990, where it was recognized that developing countries were using obsolete models of educational practice.

The importance of diversity is that the world needs diversity for healthy evolutionary growth, not only biological, but in terms of knowledge, learning and the development of thought and creativity. To acknowledge diversity and serve it accordingly is more productive and a more hopeful course than creating a one-size-fits-all mentality. Rather than transfer technologies, we need to reinvent them according to local needs.

A personal observation I made on a recent trip to Mexico was the contrast between high and low technology. It is possible to see a restaurant that is little more than a concrete shell with a tarp, and in the same city see a restaurant comparable to a modern sit-down restaurant such as Denny’s. In one government center the employees were typing forms on manual typewriters while the workers at the cellular store used networked computer workstations. Such a society has certain educational challenges greater than a highly industrialized society such as the United States because there are less universal standards throughout the infrastructure of the country. Just imagine if schools in the United States still had to teach the use of slide rules because half of the businesses in this country could not afford calculators!

I also feel that the challenges of reaching diverse populations are an excellent challenge for creative instructional designers because of the lack of predefined solutions.

Evaluation in Instructional Design

The implicit importance of evaluation in instructional design seems so obvious that it is surprising to learn that companies rarely engage in level 3 and 4 evaluations. Certainly one of the most basic reasons for this is cost. To develop a program costs money, but that expense cannot be avoided since the existence of the project depends on an investment. On the other hand, once a project is completed and put into practice, any further costs are an expense above and beyond the product itself. One can see the temptation to use the product and hope for the best as to its effectiveness. I've had this experience as a graphic designer designing advertisements. The clients accept the fees for ad development and ad insertion into a magazine, but are loathe to invest in follow-up as to the effectiveness of the ad. Their reasoning works something like this: If the ad is working, we'll have more business which means the ad will pay for itself and then some (and we don't want to reduce the profit by spending money on follow-up analysis of effectiveness). If the ad is not working, spending money to find that out will only contribute to the loss. It is as though they are arguing that it is most profitable to do what should work, but remain ignorant of the actual final results. One way to change this is to embed the social costs into the project. In other words, the results gained determine the final amount paid for the project.