CLEAR RESEARCH QUESTIONS BUT AS A POST GRAD STUDENT I WOULD SUGGEST ‘DOES MULTIMEDIA HAVE AN IMPACT ON LEARNING? SO THE RESEARCH IS NOT SO PRESUMPTIVE AND SO SUBSIDRARY QUESTIONS FLOW MORE EASILY FROM THE MAIN QUESTION.
Embedded multimedia = brief multimedia segments threaded throughout a teacher’s lesson (Chambers et al, 2006)USEFUL DEFINITIONWERE THE FIRST TWO BULLET POINTS NEEDED – CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT BUT SO TOO IS FOCUS ON THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
DOES VERY MIXED (TRY TO AVOID QUALIFIERS) MEAN CONTRADICTORY?OHARA SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH MULTIPLE WAYS OF KNOWING AND THE FUNCTIONAL SPECIALSATION OF THE BRAINZHAO SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH DUAL LCODING THEORYI WORKED WITH KAMIL – THE RESULT IS SOUND.PEARSON VERY FOCUSED ON ONE FORM OF MULTI-MEDIA.
FIRST REFERENCE DOES NOT SHOW LITTLE IMPACT JUST ‘UNDER – RESEARCHED.SECOND SOUNDS LIKE IT IS A CRITICISM OF PEDAGOGY RATHER THAN THE POTENTIAL OF MM TO ENHANCE LANGUAGE AND LITERACY.THIRD, COGNITIVE OVERLOAD IS NOT CONFINED TO TECHNOLOGY USE…FOUND THE LAST ARTICLE INTERESTING – READ IT. MIGHT USE IT. THEY QUOTE DUAL CODING IN THE INTRODUCTION SO THEY HAVE A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND THEY STATE THEIR SELECTION CRITERIA FOR REVIEWED RESEARCH AND MOST IMPORTANTLY QUOTE EFFECT SIZES. ALL RESEARCH USED HAD CONTROL GROUPS, BUT AS THEY STATE THERE IS A NEED FOR SUSTAINABILITY (LONGITUDINAL) STUDIES.
Manipulation = “the movement of an object by a person and include virtual manipulatives that exist on a computer screen” (Reed, p52)Englelkamp’s multimodal model of action-based learning suggests that observations encode visual information about movement but performance encodes motor information differentiates between a nonverbal input (visual) and output (enactment) system and a verbal input (hearing, reading) and output (speaking, writing) systemAGAIN DCT HEREI THINK ENGLEKAMP’S WORK NEEDS MORE ATTENTION IN TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAMMES. I USE IT IN ANOTHER PAPER.THIS IS A RIGOROUS SUMMARY. WELL DONE.
Computer-initiated interactivity defined using Evan & Dabry’s (2002) model of interaction. Involves a sequence of 3 actions: 1. computer initiation (e.g. present a button for the student to push or control) 2. learner response (student presses a button) 3. computer feedback (new information is presented to the student) Active-learning hypothesis= predicts interactive group will do better because students play an active role in receiving and processing information (e.g. determine the flow of information through clicking a button, determining what information they receive by selecting options etc).Passive learning hypothesis = learning process involves the transfer of information and the role of the learner is to store it in their memory. Predicts because the content and level of learning is the same should not matter if the material is interactive or not.WE REALLY NEED TO TEACH YOU HOW TO INTERPRET EFFFECT SIZES, CORRELATIONS AND OTHER STATISTICAL MEASURE (SEE UNDER 3. RESULTS IN THE ARTICLE). ANOTHER DAY. FIRST BULLET POINT UNDER 4. DISCUSSION IS A DIRECT QUOTE SO NEEDS…??
The Implications of this Research:Designers of multimedia texts should integrate interactive features in order to promote deep learningI AM SURPRISED ENGLEKAMP WAS NOT REFERENCED.IT IS QUITE UNUSUAL TO BE DESCRIBING RESEARCH IN THE DISCUSSION AS THEY DO WITH MAYER AND CHANDLERI THINK THAT ONE OF THE KEY FINDINGS HERE IS THAT TIME ON TASK DOES NOT IMPROVE TEST SCORES. AGAIN WE SEE THAT IT IS THE QUALITY OF LEARNING THAT DETERMINES TEST SCORES AND RETENTION.WHAT IS NEAT ABOUT THIS RESEARCH IS THAT IT IS ENCAPSULATED BY A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK THAT IS USED TO EXPLAIN RESULTS – THAT IS THE MARK OF GOOD RESEARCH. I DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE WAS NO THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.
THESE COGNITIVE ARCHITECTURES ARE REALLY WHAT I AM CALLING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS – SEE RIGHT HAND COLUMN IS PARTICULAR
DIEBLS = dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills
GOOD SIZE GROUP OF PARTICIPANTS“The results provide partial support for the utility of embedded multimedia as a component of beginning reading instruction.”TO STATE THAT the use of embedded multimedia content was the only factor differentiating experimental and control conditions IS A BIT RICH!AGAIN YOUR CRITICAL ANALYSIS RUBRIC WORKS A TREAT.The individual-level effect size of +0.32 for Word Attack (school level ES = +0.47) is educationally important, particularly given the minimal cost of the intervention. OH REALLY .32 IS BARELY A MEDIUM EFFECT SIZE. “the individual-level mean effect size was +0.17 “ – THIS IS VERY SMALL! THE EFFECT SIZE FOR COMPREHENSION WAS ONLY +0.08 – THAT IS NOTHING!WHAT DIDN’T THEY MEASURE / OBSERVE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OF INTEREST?THE GROUPS WERE WELL MATACHED
GOOD APPLAUD THE COMMENT ABOUT SUPPLYING iPAD WITHOUT ANY RESEARCH INTO THEIR EFFECTIVENESS OR HOW THEY MIGHT BE BEST USED. FAD RATHER THAN FACT ME THINKS.
Robyn 520 3
The Use of Multimedia in Learning
By Robyn Wood
By Robyn Wood
This PowerPoint builds on my earlier critique of Mayer & Sims (1994) ‘For whom is a picture
worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning’ and further
explores the role of multimedia in learning by examining the following questions:
What is the impact of multimedia on learning?
How does the way multimedia is used impact on
How does the design of multimedia impact on
teaching and learning has dramatically changed
understandings of how the brain works continually developing
Literacy now encompasses the ability to communicate through multimedia (van
Daal & Sandvik, 2012)
the use of multimedia in learning includes:
spoken or printed text, illustrations, photos, apps, graphs, animation or video
(Mayer, 2005 as cited by Reed, S, 2009) or
„”non-interactive linear presentation (e.g. a cinema presentation) and
○ graphics, audio, visual, plain text and hyperlinks intertwined to create a
generally non-linear medium of information. (e.g. world wide web) (Ohara &
Pritchard, 2010 and Wikipedia, Hypermedia, 2013
Considerable research re. the effect of multimedia on learning includes:
English speakers of other languages
embedded use of multimedia in learning etc.
Research results appear to be very mixed
Examples of research that SUPPORT the use of multimedia in learning:
Ohara & Pritchard (2010)
literature review suggests multimedia use can enhance literacy development, improve
student personal knowledge is built and modified through the rich experiences that
Zhao (2005) concluded multimedia presentations can:
create stronger memory links than text alone
video offers rich linguistic and culturally relevant material to learners
comprehension can be enhanced through learner control of multimedia (e.g. playbacks)
Kamil, Intractor & Kim (2000)
• children from language and cultural minority background can benefit
• comprehension facilitated through „mental model‟ building
Pearson et al (2005)
meta-analysis of 20 research studies relating to digital tools and learning environments
concluded digital tools enhance reading comprehension, vocabulary development and
all aspects of literacy development
Examples of research that concluded multimedia use made LITTLE impact:
Lankshear & Knobel (2003)
• effects of technology on early literacy were „radically under-researched‟
• strengths of multimedia were not being exploited therefore its effect could not be
use of technology causes cognitive overload
van Daal & Sandvik (2012)
conducted a meta-analysis re. effects of multimedia on the early literacy
development of at risk children
concluded literacy-related multimedia applications (e.g. video, TV, e-books.
computer assisted instruction) have a small to moderate effect on literacy
learning outcomes for children at risk
second language learners appear to benefit the most
further research is required
Mayer (2011) suggests:
the use of video does not make good learning
there is no one multimedia better than another
good learning is determined by effective teacher with sound pedagogy, learning
objectives identified and a strong program design
Mayer developed a design of multimedia learning systems based on Paivio‟s dual
• multimedia principle (using both pictures and words)
• coherence principle (avoiding extraneous media),
• modality principal (using narration rather than text)
• spatial contiguity principle (placing words and pictures close together)
• temporal contiguity principle (present words and pictures at the same time)
• redundancy principle (learn better from animation and narration than from animation,
narration and on-screen text)
• Individual differences principle
Reed, (2009) challenges Mayer‟s principles
suggests „manipulation‟ rather than perception of objects
based on Engelkamp‟s (1998) multimodal model of action-based learning
suggests the performance of an act creates “additional memory codes” and results
in better recall
manipulation of objects may be a promising method of instruction
Chambers et al., (2006) suggest
embedded multimedia enables learners multiple pathways to retain and
to be effective embedded multimedia must be in association with other effective
teaching practices, such as co-operative groups, working with the teacher etc.
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH:
to determine whether the addition of interactivity enhances the process of learning from computer-based systems
to determine the hypothesis of active-learning or passive learning (see notes)
Participants - 33 second-year Business and Management undergraduates
Randomly split into interactive group (I) and not interactive (NI)
2 computer-based multimedia versions were developed to teach how a bicycle pump works
Interactive features (I system) –included control of pace, self-assessment questions and interactive simulation
Non-interactive features (NI system) – involved clicking a button to show static images /annotations
Post-tested on (i) memory recall and (ii) understanding based on problem-solving
MAIN FINDINGS OF THIS RESEARCH:
No significant difference in the overall post-test results
performed significantly better in transfer test
took significantly less time to complete post-test
took significantly longer to complete actual lesson
did not significantly increase their retention of material
Test scores suggest:
interactivity increased the depth of learning or understanding
confirmed the active-learning hypothesis
interactivity does not appear to increase memory retention
A Critical Review of this Research
easy to understand, quantitative research
builds on the considerable works of Mayer (1994, 1999, 2001, 2003)
discusses Mayer‟s principles (2001) regarding the design of multimedia learning system
does not discuss the theoretical framework underpinning this research
literature review relies heavily on the work of Mayer and perhaps lacks depth and breadth
methodology appears quite simplistic – I wonder if it were too simplistic?
limitations were not acknowledged however suggestions are given for future research
the implications of this research (although sparse) are appropriate given the results (see notes)
builds on the significant contributions of Mayer‟s research regarding the use of multimedia in
learning and in particular its design.
given its strong alignment (e.g. it used the same example of the bicycle pump), the simplicity of
the research, and the clear results (when broken down – not necessarily overall), I believe the
conclusions and implications are reasonable
How does the design of multimedia impact on learning?
Reed (2006) suggests the 6 cognitive architectures relevant to multimedia learning are shown in table 1 below
suggests these theories are not rivals as they focus on different aspects of multimedia learning
Rieber’s (1990) research supports hypothesis that cognitive practice promotes deeper levels of mental
processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
Based upon this and others research, it would seem logical that the design of multimedia should include a
Multimedia learning is underpinned by cognitive load
using up the word limit capacity does not use up the picture limit capacity
the design of multimedia can ‘off-load’ meaningful information from one modality to another by using fewer
words or pictures. NB this only works if the pictures and words directly support each other (Mayer, 2001a
as cited in Chambers et al)
Example of research examining the design of multimedia
Bette Chambers Ph.D, Alan Cheung, Nancy A Madden Ph.D., Robert E. Slavin, Ph.D.
all based at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
involved with the Success for All foundation (reading program)
Purpose of Research:
To determine the academic effects of embedded multimedia on learners beginning to read
394 first graders from 10 different schools
5 schools used embedded multimedia program, 5 schools same program without multimedia
Year long study – pre and post tests
Qualitative data collected relating to word attack, word identification, passage comprehension
and DIBELS* .
Analysed with hierarchical linear model
experimental group did significantly better on word attack but other areas tested were not
unable to determine if Hispanic sub-group benefited
the researchers suggest embedded multimedia use has the potential to enhance the
effectiveness of beginning reading instruction for disadvantage children
partially supports the expectation that the addition of embedded multimedia would enhance
children‟s reading content
relatively easy to understand, good use of tables, large sample of participants
discussion suggests embedded multimedia has “potential to enhance the effectiveness of beginning
reading instruction for disadvantaged children” however there is no mention in the purpose that this
research was investigating at risk learners
builds on earlier research
the separate investigation into the effect on Hispanic children was hidden within the research and not
stated in the purpose or method. Had this been deliberately planned for in the methodology, would
there have been a different result?
development of a two level model for hierarchical analyses seemed appropriate, however I did not
necessarily understand re. covariates and regression coefficients
the suggestion that the study partially supports the use of embedded multimedia to improve
children‟s reading achievement is wise given the results are not statistically significant for individuals
but as a group
study is underpinned by solid theory and literature review.
limitations and the need for further research are acknowledge.
I believe this research builds strongly upon Mayer‟s assertion that teacher practice along with strong
pedagogy makes a difference however the use of multimedia may further enhance student
Wide reading suggests debate re. the actual impact of multimedia on student learning
Paivio‟s DCT suggests it should be easier for students to retain information using
multimedia however Mayer suggests that this in itself is not the magic wand for
enhancing achievement. I tend agree with this.
An analysis of the differing research methods reviewed in this assignment (and
preceding), suggest that an element of teacher effectiveness could in fact have a large
impact on achievement. None of the research I reviewed examined this factor.
Perhaps this is why there is little difference between some experimental and control
Logic suggests research should inform practice, however I would argue this is not
always the case (e.g. teachers adopting new multimedia (e.g. iPads) without having
explored underpinning theories around this) . Going full circle, In topic 1 of this
course, Rich, (2013) stated computer screens as being a “stimulus poor environment”
and challenged the impact of technology on learning, which in turn leads me to Mayer‟s
research into the design of multimedia and the role it has on enhancing learning.
My final comment – I believe further research is required. As we continue to
understand more about the brain and how it learns, the way we use and design
multimedia should reflect these understandings in everyday practice.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A.C.K., Madden, N.A., Slavin, R. E. & Gifford, R. (2006). Achievement effects of
embedded multimedia in a Success for All reading program. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1), 232237.
Evans, C. & Gibbons, N.J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education,
49, 1147-1160. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.008
Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive Architectures for Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 8798.
Reed, S.K. (2011). Manipulating Multimedia Materials. In Zheng, R. (Ed). Cognitive effects of multimedia
learning (pp. 51-64). San Diego, USA: Information Science Reference.
Rieber, L.P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in scientific instruction with children. Journal of
Educational Psychology82) 1, 135-140.
van Daal, V. & Sandvik, J.M. (2012). Synthesis of Multimedia Effects on Literacy Achievements in Children
at Risk. Paper presented at the Early Education and Technology For Children Conference, Norway.
Retrieved from http://www.eetcconference.org/wp-content/uploads/Multimedia_Meta_EETC2012.pdf
Youtube (2011). Prof. Richard E. Mayer – On the role and design of vide for learning. Retrieved from
Youtube (2011). Rich. M. (M.D., M.P.H.) The orienting response. Retrieved from
Assignment 3. 'FINAL POWER POINT' 40%
Three focused research questions listed on the first slide of your Final Power Point.
References to up to THREE on-line empirical studies related to your topic.
May include graphics and hotlinks (to websites etc).
Notes reflect your critical synthesis of material rather than being solely descriptive.
Aspect 1: Descriptive and interpretative skills:
The reviews are impressive, and apart from the statistics, accurate interpretation of articles
Aspect 2: Analytical skills:
This was part of your critical analysis and done well with the help of a rubric
Aspect 3: Analytical, argumentative and creative skills:
I think you come to a fair conclusion/summary that is based on the evidence
You show clear, relevant connections that show a thorough understanding of Paper Readings, as well as
additional, relevant readings. No much change to exemplify precision and flair in word choice, fluency
and grace in syntax but the register was excellent. Accuracy in referencing.
Aspect 1: Descriptive and interpretative skills: An 'A' student will clearly evoke what happened in a particular piece of research and will show the ability to
theorise about what happened from more than one perspective or position. (15%)
Aspect 2: Analytical skills: An 'A' student will shown convincingly that they are aware that epistemology creates and shapes reality (that is how the way
knowledge is constructed shapes our beliefs about the world). They will illustrate this awareness by making connections between the research method
(the way the knowledge was constructed) used, the language of a text and the way these construct literacy or literate practices in a particular way.
Aspect 3: Analytical, argumentative and creative skills: An 'A' student will provide evidence and argue a case for a relationship between the research and
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.