Coherence Analysis
This document is about the Multimedia Coherence Principle of keeping a lesson uncluttered and applying the "less is more" principle, It helps me remember that the pictures words, and sounds should clarify and be relevant to the learning objectives.
The Coherence Principle follows the “less is more” principle in that “adding interesting but unnecessary material to e-learning can harm the learning process.” (Clark & Mayer, 2011 p.152) It is important to only use relevant material that helps students understand the learning objectives. The three main points are: avoid extraneous words and graphics, avoid unneeded sound and music, and keep the presentation short and to the point with the minimal amount of words and graphics.
For instance, in taking a look at the following slide on anatomy. This slide is similar to the slide I had experienced in my anatomy class, and it seems they always want to include a statue of David which is what I call “fluff” as it is irrelevant to the Disciplines of Anatomy. Thus, this slide includes extraneous words and graphics that are not needed.
I have also experienced an excellent presentation on two-dimensional art such as some of the slides below portray the guidelines of the Coherence Principle of keeping the lesson uncluttered.
The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia states there are two separate learning channels; auditory and visual. Each channel is limited to the amount of processing and information that can take place at one-time, and learners actively attempt to make connections with the material. Therefore, there shouldn’t be irrelevant or extraneous words in a multimedia presentation since there is only so much processing that can occur. By adding extraneous words and video “extraneous cognitive processing” can occur. This extraneous cognitive processing does not add to the learning goals nor the learning process.
A common theme throughout the Multimedia Learning Principles is to not create “extraneous cognitive processing” by not adding extra information in a lesson that is not relevant to the learning objectives. For example, to avoid cognitive overload, the Contiguity Principle is a guideline to place the text and pictures together, and the “less is more” is also portrayed in the Redundancy Principle by explaining visuals with words in audio or text but not both. In order to avoid cognitive overload, the importance of the Modality Principle, Redundancy Principle, and the Coherence Principle is stronger when the material is complex or unfamiliar, presented at a rapid pace, and when the learner does not have control of the speed of the presentation. Furthermore, in the Coherence Principle, Modality Principle, and the Multimedia Principle all three reiterate the fact that the importance of these concepts is greater for less skilled or low prior knowledge learners than expert learners. For skillful learners, the interrelationships between concepts and prior knowledge are already there which means there are less mental processing and less overload on the learner’s cognitive capacity. Thus, in all the Multimedia Learning Principles learned so far, they want to increase productivity by decrease extraneous cognitive processing, and want relevant graphics selected that support learning to relate the words to the pictures.
The key words are simple and relevant when applying the Coherence Principle. Is the material relevant to the learning objectives? I agree with the statement that “designers should always consider the cognitive consequences of adding extraneous sounds, pictures, or words. In particular, designers should consider whether the proposed additions could distract, disrupt, or seduce the learner's process of knowledge construction.” (Clark & Mayer 2011, p. 175)
Yet, I also agree that more research needs to be done. I question the limits of the working capacity of each channel of the brain. Do they differ for each individual? How is the limit to be measured and when does extraneous cognitive overload occur? These questions promote other questions. For instance, are the studies mentioned holding “confounding variables” constant when trying to prove cause and effect? If an extraneous variable, a “lurking variable” or a “confounding variable”, effects one of the variables, the statistical results can change and the relationship between each of the variables in question can be impossible to measure. For example, the evidence for using simpler visual graphics compared to more realistic graphics, “Butcher (2006) asked college students to study a lesson on the human heart that contained text and simple illustrations or text and detailed illustrations, as shown in Figure 8.7. On subsequent tests of understanding on how the heart works, the students who had learned with text and simple drawing performed better than those who had learned with text and detailed drawings.” (Clark & Mayer, 2011 p. 164) Yet, we know that the level of students’ prior knowledge is a determining factor in deciding when to use the Coherence Principle although this confounding variable is not mentioned in the study nor do we know if it is held constant.
Furthermore, the research done for the Coherence Principle is before 2012 and on young adults. These studies need to be reexamined as the culture has changed and the studies could be irrelevant. Looking at the experiments in 2011 with college-aged students from the age of 18 to 22, Ruth Clark and Richard Mayer stated that “we cannot agree that members of the younger generation are less susceptive to mental overload as a result of intensive multimedia exposure.” (Clark & Mayer, 2011 p. 163) This should be reanalyzed as the guidelines for this principle could change. When a student is 18-22 years old in 2011, they would be approximately 8-12 years old in 2001 when console games were popular and graphics were not that great. Then, approximately five years later computer games came back into popularity and graphics changed drastically. Thus, if you did another study only seven years later, the technology culture has changed and consequently, the exposure of high-intensity multimedia has changed. The standard deviation or effect size could possibly be greater than 1 proving that the younger generation is less susceptive to mental overload.
Knowing the confounding variables and holding them constant such as student’s prior knowledge or being able to measure extraneous cognitive overload is going to be difficult. So far, the research done showing cause and effect in many of the cases could be disapproved as the confounding variable or variables skew the cause and effect in question. Consequently, more research on the Coherence Principle needs to be done.
Reference:
Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2011). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning, 3rd Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Article can be found here:
1.3 Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates demonstrate the ability to assess and evaluate the effective integration of appropriate technologies and instructional materials. This document discusses Ruth C. Clark's and Richard E. Mayer's Multimedia Coherence Principle of keeping the lesson clean, simple, and uncluttered. As in most of these principles, understanding your audience or learners is critical especially when considering the student's prior knowledge and skill level in order to ascertain the relevant graphics and words that are needed. As a general rule the "less is more" concept needs to be applied, and the key word of only using relevant words and graphics should be utilized so that the student understand the learning objectives. Examples are assess and evaluated showing the integration of this multimedia principle.