Including Graphic Illustrations
Brian Deyo Graphic Illustrations7.1 Include graphics that make courseware easier to interpret and use in order to maintain learner attention and to build confidence • What is the validity and generalizability of the proposed design principle (based on evidence cited, other evidence familiar to you, and/or your own experience as a educator and designer)? What are the most important constraints that define the circumstances under which this principle can be appropriately applied? Several studies have been conducted to support principle 7.1. Both Hartley in 1987 and Levie & Lentz in 1982 concluded that graphics help readers use and understand text (Fleming and Levie, pg. 41). In 1982, Brody asserted that direct references to a graphic in the text help to connect the graphic with the text describing the graphic (Fleming and Levie, pg. 43). Illustrating complex relationships between large amounts of data can be conveyed to the learner through maps, graphs, or charts since in readers can easily get lost if these relationships are only explained through words (IBID). However great the support is for including graphics, some constraints are also employed when using graphics. Brody (1982) suggests to find a happy medium that includes enough graphic information to facilitate learning, but not too much to overload or confuse the learner (IBID). Felker from 1981 and Hartley from 1987 give a few guidelines for displaying graphics that revolve around simplicity in presentation of graphics, clearness in labeling of graphics, and clear methods for interpretation of graphics (IBID). 2a) Describe and/or include example(s) of successful and unsuccessful attempts to apply the design principle as you have seen such attempts in actual instruction and training, especially as it might be implemented in PowerPoint-based instruction and training (broadly conceived). Have you ever seen this principle violated or abused? Describe the context of the application/violation in terms of conditions and outcomes. "Walk" the reader/audience through an explanation of how the generalities in the principle relate to the specific attributes of the example(s).
I think that the abuse of design principle 7.1 can be seen in the non-examples associated with the Coherence Principle. Interesting, yet extraneous pictures can cause distraction for the learner. Clark and Mayer give an example of irrelevant graphics dealing with a lesson on ammunition safety accompanied by video of the history of ammunition (2003, pg. 121). The history had nothing to do with familiarizing the learner with the appropriate guidelines for ammunition safety. Unnecessary graphics can distract the learner by occupying his/her attention with unrelated information. The history of ammunition doesn't relate to ammunition safety. Irrelevant graphics can also incorrectly trigger misguided recall of background knowledge that creates inefficient long-term memory connections that impede future knowledge recall. The unwanted graphics can also disrupt the learner's ability to connect relevant pieces of information. The history of ammunition and its video occupies the learner's working memory and momentarily prevents the learner from focusing on the actual task at hand of ammunition safety. • Discuss the relationship of the design principle to more general design principles as these were examined in course readings and discussions. IMD Principle 7.1 (including graphics that make courseware easier to interpret and use in order to maintain learner attention and to build confidence) relates to the multimedia principle (Clark and Mayer, 2003) that uses words and graphics rater than words alone. If the graphics are explanative and not decorative, the learner can make connections between the words and pictures. Graphics can be used to represent content types, visibly illustrate invisible phenomena, and organize topics. As expressed in the multimedia effect, "people learn more deeply from words and graphics than from words alone" (Clark and Mayer, 2003, pg. 61). The research of Mayer, 1989b; Mayer and Anderson, 1991, 1992; Mayer, Bove, and others, 1996; and Mayer and Gallini, 1990; helped to document the multimedia effect (IBID). The multimedia effect relates to cognitive theory by viewing the learner as actively attempting to make sense of the information s/he is processing. Instruction can't just deliver the information to the learner. Instruction has to be packaged in a way to facilitate the learner's ability to construct and connect representations of the words with the pictures. Combining words with pictures, especially in a multimedia format, is more likely to aide the learner's active processing of these words and pictures. Yet, if we excessively bombard the learner with graphics, we can distract and disrupt the learner's processing of the information being presented. Then, we have lost the attention of the learner and have moved into creating more non-examples for the coherence principle. • Discuss the relationship of the design principle to fundamental theories of psychology as developed in the course readings, videotapes, and discussions. Working memory is where the process of rehearsal and cognition takes place. When learners are trying to make sense of the information they receive, they need proven techniques to chunk or combine items so that they can reduce their load on working memory and therefore process the new information more efficiently. Efficient management of this limited working memory allows the learner to rehearse the connection of these new items with existing long-term memory knowledge. The mental images of the words and pictures can become fused into one unified memory item. This, in turn, can help to reduce the load of working memory. As in the contiguity principle, if the related words and pictures are presented onscreen in close proximity, the learner has a better chance of fusing these 'separate' images into one memory item. These fused memory items will also be fused when retrieved from long-term memory. The learner can then use these fused items in the new problem-solving event or job activity. Easier encoding into long-term memory and easier retrieval from long-term memory is possible when the words and graphics are processed by the learner as one memory unit. • What do you personally like or dislike about this principle? Present a coherent, informed opinion and explain why you hold this opinion. Are there any limitations or qualifications of the principle (caveats) which the authors did not consider and, if so, what are they? Regarding the combined use of words and pictures to ease the interpretation of information and to maintain learner attention, I view the effectiveness of this principle similar to Mama Bear in Goldilocks. You want to be 'just right.' You don't want too few graphics and you don't want too many. You need just enough graphics to facilitate connections between the words and pictures without distracting or disrupting the formation of these connections. In the wording of the principle, I would include the words "appropriate and explanative" to clarify what type of graphics should be included. As seen in previous examples, any random graphic might not be appropriate and might not be explanative in the context of the lesson. Principle 7.1 when applied effectively can reinforce the multimedia principle while not abusing the coherence principle. ReferencesFleming, Malcolm and Levie, W. Howard, editors. (1993). Instructional Message Design: Principles from the Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, 2nd. ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc. Clark, Ruth Colvin and Mayer, Richard E. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning . New York: Cambridge University Press. |