In a study performed at the university of California, Santa
Barbara, subjects were tested to find the most effective way to teach students
to have a deep understanding of unfamiliar material through a multimedia
explanation. A multimedia explanation consists of words or pictures that
provide a cause-and-effect account of how the system works.
The conclusion was that the most effective way is to provide
pretraining aimed at helping learners understand the individual behaviors of
each component, (which will keep the learners cognitive load down), before
presenting a fast-paced continuous explanation of how a cause-and-effect system
works.
The pretraining that the subjects encountered was a simple
user interaction of the multimedia explanation, meaning that the subjects were
allowed to move through the multimedia exclamation at their own pace, deciding
when they were ready to move to the next image. This consisted of 16 successive
segments of images with descriptions below them of how lightning works. The fast-paced
continuous explanation was a 140 second video of the 16 successive segments of
how lighting works.
In the first of two experiments performed, two subject
groups were taken and show the multimedia explanation twice. The first group
was presented the multimedia explanation with simple user interaction (part),
followed by a second viewing of the multimedia explanation in a fast-paced
(whole) form. The second group saw the multimedia explanation in whole,
followed by a second viewing in part.
In the second experiment, the first subject group saw the
multimedia explanation in part, and then again in part. While the second
subject group saw the multimedia explanation in a whole, and then again in
whole.
Upon completion of both viewings of the multi media
explanation, before subject groups Took part in a three-part test to test their
Cognitive Load Rating, Retention Test, and Transfer Test.
The Cognitive Load Rating was a simple question on a scale
of 1 to 7 with 1 being very easy and 7 being very hard: How difficult was it
for you to learn about lightning from the presentation you just saw?
The Retention Test asked the subjects: Please write down how lightning works. The
Retention test WAS used to see the major ideas that the four subject groups
gathered by watching and/or interacting with the multimedia explanation.
The Transfer Test included 4 questions that tested the
subjects on how they could apply the knowledge and find a deep understanding of
the multimedia explanation that they saw. The 4 questions they were asked were:
1.
What could you do to decrease the intensity of
lightning?
2.
Suppose you see the clouds in the sky but no
lightning. Why not?
3.
What does air temperature had to do with
lighting?
4.
What causes lightning?
The results from the Retention Test showed that all 4
subject groups maintained the same amount of big ideas whether they watched the
multimedia explanations part-whole (PW), whole-part (WP), part-part (PP), or
whole-whole (WW).
But the results from the Transfer Test gave the researchers
conclusive results for what they were looking for. The Transfer Test showed
that the PW performs better than the WP, as well as the PP performed better
than the WW.
The study was looking to see if simple user interaction
affected the cognitive load theory that simple user interaction reduces the
learners cognitive load on working memory, thereby enabling the learner to
progressively build a coherent mental model. The data from the Transfer Test
supports this theory because the interactivity promoted a deeper learning of
the multimedia explanation because the subject was able to work through the
material at a slower pace and learn each component rather than being rushed
through it in the conventional whole presentation.
When the subject takes time to learn each component at a
slower pace, as given the opportunity with the PW or PP presentation, they can
then build on what they previously learned to apply a larger deep understanding
of the material they are being presented.
Whereas in a WP or WW presentation, the flow of words and
pictures is overwhelming and the learner must devote more processing capacity
to receive the words when fast-paced that they have no capacity left to
mentally organize the incoming material and mentally integrate it with other knowledge.
In both experiment one and experiment two, the Cognitive
Load Theory favors part presentation being presented first, as seen in PW and
PP, because the user has time to slowly process information, and then see it
again to learn minor details missed.
However, inserting interactivity does not improve learning.
This is seen in the first experiment where one subject group sees the
multimedia explanation whole, and then part, WP. This is because learn best
when done how people I meant to learn (minimize cognitive load and allow to
build using the two-stage construction of a mental model).
Through these experiments we gathered that Transfer Tests
are a better measure of evaluating how well learners understand a multimedia
explanation than Retention Tests. Transfer Tests show a deep understanding and
the ability to apply their knowledge elsewhere, while Retention Tests show if
the main and big ideas are retained.
Situations where the WW or WP presentations may be better
would be in a situation when the goal is to promote automatic performance of
the skill, or a situation where the goal is to promote learning of a larger
academic lesson.
A few result limitations were that more research would be
needed to show weather PW produces deeper learning than WP in long-term results
as well. Another limitation is subjects in PP received more time than WW, so
the results may not show if pace was a factor or longer study time for PP was a
factor in improved Transfer Test results.
All in all, slowing down your cognitive workload by using
simple user interactions to understand individual components of a
cause-and-effect multimedia explanation is a more effective way to have a
deeper understanding of material than the conventional whole presentation form
of learning.
