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…