Week 5 EDU 626 Dr. Phillip Orlando evaluating JIT training PLO 3 and/or 6

1.
Week
5
Assignment
Evaluating
JIT
Training
EDU
656
Technology
Solutions
for
JIT
Training
&
Learning
Thomas
Wilson
Phillip
Orlando
November
27,
2012

2.
One
of
the
first
things
which
was
blatantly
obvious
when
we
viewed
the
Training
App
Mockup
was
the
usage
of
“Associated
Audio”
which
is
according
to
the
text
(Clark
&
Mayer
2011,
Ch.
7,
Pg.
135
Applying
the
Redundancy
Principle)
It
says
in
Redundancy
Principle
1:
Do
Not
Add
On-­‐Screen
Text
To
Narrated
Graphics-­‐
what
we
see
throughout
the
Ppt.
presentation
is
this
reoccurring
and
it’s
a
confusing
use
of
too
much
content
which
will
cause
Cognitive
Overload
because
the
employees
will
be
doing
extraneous
processing
(Thinking
about
the
narration
and
the
text
and
not
upon
the
content)
It
states
further
in
the
text
“If
you
are
planning
a
multimedia
program
consisting
of
graphics
(such
as
animation
video,
or
even
static
pictures
or
photos)
explained
by
narration,
should
you
also
include
on-­‐screen
text
that
duplicates
the
audio?
We
say
emphatically
“NO!!!”
(Design
Flaw
1-­‐
no
audio
narration
duplicating
text)
Another
area
we
noticed
was
the
usage
of
the
Cow
Bessie
on
at
least
half
of
the
slides
which
was
actually
distracting,
In
the
text
in
Ch.
5
“Applying
the
Contiguity
Principle”
Pg.
101
“Avoid
Simultaneous
Display
of
Animations
and
Related
Text”
You
may
want
to
use
an
animation
to
depict
movement
such
as
to
show
how
much
to
perform
a
computer
application
or
to
illustration
how
equipment
works.
If
the
animation
is
playing
at
the
same
time
as
the
text
is
displayed,
the
learners
can
either
view
the
animation
or
read
the
descriptive
text.
If
they
read
the
text,
they
miss
much
of
the
animation
or
if
they
watch
the
animation
then
they
will
read
the
text
after
the
animation
has
run”
In
other
words
for
our
purpose
using
a
visual
of
a
Cow
Bessie
to
assist
the
learner
is
actually
counterproductive
and
they
will
either
pay
attention
to
the
visual
of

3.
the
Cow
and
not
the
text.
(Design
Flaw
2-­‐
Don’t
display
animation/visuals
and
related
text
at
the
same
time)
The
third
area
which
was
noticeable
as
to
need
improvement
was
the
addition
to
the
presentation
of
extraneous
content
of
a
trivia
box/window
to
one
side
of
the
slide
which
was
another
thing
which
would
cause
the
learner
(employee)
to
experience
a
possible
momentary
cognitive
overload
again
by
having
them
do
extraneous
processing
of
irrelevant
information,
which
isn’t
germane
to
the
primary
goal
of
teaching
employees
how
to
make
a
latte.
In
the
text
(Clark
&
Mayer,
Ch.
7
Applying
the
Redundancy
Principle)
on
pg.
139,
Evidence
for
Omitting
Redundant
On-­‐Screen
Text
(we
pick
up
the
thought)
“Kalyuga,
Chandler,
and
Sweller
(1999,
2000)
provide
complimentary
evidence.
One
group
(non-­‐redundant)
received
training
in
soldering
(that
is,
techniques
for
joining
metals)
through
the
use
of
static
diagrams
presented
on
a
computer
screen
along
with
accompanying
speech,
whereas
another
group
(redundant
group)
received
the
same
training
along
with
on-­‐screen
printed
text
duplicating
the
same
words
as
the
audio.
On
a
problem
solving
transfer
test
involving
trouble
shooting,
the
non-­‐redundant
group
outperformed
the
redundant
group-­‐
producing
an
effect
size
of
.8
in
one
study
and
greater
than
1
in
another.
(Though
this
isn’t
exactly
the
same
as
what
was
mentioned
about
the
trivia
box/window
the
principle
is
sound
in
that
presenting
two
type
of
conflicting
content
isn’t
a
good
usage
of
time
or
resources
in
a
Training
Presentation
such
as
this
which
we’re
talking
about
improving.
(Design
Flaw
3-­‐
Having
conflicting
content
(text)
on
the
slide
with
the
primary
one
of
teaching
the
employees
how
to
make
a
latte.
The
next
thing
(
the
fourth
one)
which
could
use
improvement
was
the
way

4.
that
the
slides
were
made
in
Slide
4,
5,
6,
and
7
seem
to
be
in
a
manner
of
speaking
to
be
“talking
down”
to
the
reader
as
if
they
were
10
years
old,
or
the
like.
This
isn’t
to
go
along
with
any
citation
but
simply
putting
it
in
layman
terms,
that
it’s
demeaning
for
a
presentation’s
syntax
to
be
speaking
to
a
target
population
as
if
they
were
mentally
deficient.
(Design
Flaw
4,
don’t
have
the
speech
which
is
over
half
of
the
presentation
appearing
to
be
speaking
to
the
target
audience
in
a
condescending
tone)
And
finally
last
but
not
least
also
not
a
cited
flaw
is
that
there
are
spurious
(
unnecessary)
visuals
in
Slides
4
&
8,
because
it’s
obvious
that
there
is
a
further
delineation
(weakening
of
the
effectiveness
of
this
presentation)
of
this
presentation.
(Design
Flaws
4
&
5-­‐
don’t
have
the
language
the
presentation
is
written
(the
text)
in
to
be
of
a
condescending
tone,
and
avoid
the
use
of
unnecessary
visuals
which
could
detract
from
the
overall
quality
of
the
presentation)

5.
References
I
e-­‐learning
and
the
Science
of
Instruction
Clark,
R.C.
Mayer
R.E.
(Authors)
Pfeifer
Publishing
(2011
3rd
ed.)
Ch
5,
pg.
101
Ch.
7,
pg.
135,
139,
ISBN
978-­‐0-­‐470-­‐87430-­‐1