Coherence Analysis

The coherence principle is an essential principle of instructional multimedia design focused on eliminated extraneous information that is not necessary, irrelevant, distracting, or a detriment to cognitive load that hinders achievement of the overall learning outcomes. It urges instructional designers to take a “less is more” approach when learning is the primary goal (Clark, 2002). Extraneous information, which may come in the form of graphics, text, or audio, should be avoided. The coherence principle is often violated but generally, with a careful eye and conscious effort, easily remedied. The task of adhering to the coherence principle is often referred to as “weeding,” as extraneous information is trimmed from the instructional multimedia (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 151).

Proper application of the coherence principle is a refreshing sign that the instructional designer values the product, the anticipated learning outcomes, and the learner’s time. To me, when the coherence principle is applied, the design and instruction seem clean, crisp, and easy to follow. Learners spend less time trying to determine what is necessary and what is not. In my own organization, I have had the opportunity to serve on a committee that created electronic manuals for unit operations. Over time, we found that the senior operators and process engineers that served as the subject-matter experts had an abundance of technical knowledge that they wished to capture. Although, we found some of the information they shared to be interesting, it was beyond the scope of learning objectives and expected outcomes of the electronic manuals. Instead of adding the extraneous words and associated graphics, the committee remained focused on the learning outcomes and goals to create concise and accurate manuals without implementing the deeper technical information. By eliminating these details, the committee was utilizing the coherence principle and following the recommendation of our Clark and Mayer (2008) textbook which suggests the removal of additional words that are only meant for interest, expanding on key ideas, and technical details that go beyond the key ideas of the lesson (p 168).

As much as discovering multimedia instruction that exemplifies excellent implementation of the coherence principle, finding an example of a coherence principle violation, especially in PowerPoint, is too easy to accomplish! I can think of a presentation that I saw concerning Mad Cow Disease when I was in my undergraduate program. The presenter chose to use extraneous graphics and sound in an attempt to add interest and humor. I assume that the presenter subscribed to the arousal theory and sought to provide interest through the use of extraneous elements. On each slide of the presentation, a cow graphic would animate around the screen and present several cow “mooing” sounds. It got a laugh out of the class on the very first occurrence, but by the third and fourth occurrence the students were getting pretty irritated. I believe his presentation suffered due to the inclusion of the graphic and sound. Neither item was necessary. Although it had some relevance to the subject, it was quite distracting and only was utilized as an attempt to add interest. Our textbook authors state “that adding interesting but unnecessary material to e-learning can harm the learning process by preventing the learner from processing the essential information” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 161). I believe that is what occurred with the Mad Cow Disease presentation.

Aside from meeting the requirements of the coherence principle, an instructional designer who closely adheres to it may unknowing comply with other multimedia learning principles. At its core, the coherence principle is closely connected to many other multimedia learning principles. The multimedia principle states that “people learn more deeply when words and relevant graphics are combined” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 70). The key word is “relevant.” The coherence principle aims to ensure that all text, audio, and graphics are relevant and necessary for the instruction. Secondly, the modality principle states that “people learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when graphics are explained by audio narration rather than onscreen text” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 117). If onscreen text is used, the learner may experience an increase in visual processing. The coherence principle seeks to limit extraneous text that may limit cognitive processing. By explaining graphics through narration, as described by the modality principle, the coherence principle is being utilized. Thirdly, the redundancy principle further details the need to explain graphics by narration while not including redundant onscreen text (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 135). The redundant text is extraneous text that is not needed and can be distracting. The coherence principle would recommend removing any text that is distracting to the user.

The cognitive theory of multimedia learning and the arousal theory are at odds. The arousal theory states that the use of entertaining or interesting media will increase the learner’s emotional arousal and motivation (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 156). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning states that the emphasis should be on creating instruction that can be more easily processed by the learner (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p 156-157). As learners have limited memory capacity, efficient instructional delivery is needed to maximize transfer. Audio, graphics, and text are designed to help the learner select, organize, and integrate information (Lohr, 2008, p. 60). Using both visual and auditory channels to present information, rather than overloading a single channel or providing extraneous stimuli is key to knowledge transfer, supports selection, organization, and integration – therefore, aligning with the cognitive theory of multimedia learning and the coherence principle.

I feel that the coherence principle is an essential component of successful instructional multimedia design. As an individual involved in corporate training initiatives, there are generally two main goals – (1) ensure that employees receive and learn from training opportunities and (2) maximize time efficiencies as workers in training sessions are workers who aren’t currently doing the job they are being paid for. The coherence principle helps to limit the amount and kind of information or graphics we utilize within a training module. We can cut down on irrelevant data, utilize a simplified static graphic when animation would be overkill, and keep a clean interface that users can easily navigate. I believe the best time when we could diverge from the coherence principle is when we attempt to simulate real-world industrial environments, where learners must make operational decisions while surrounded by loud/realistic ambient sound and general work distractions.

References

Clark, R. (2002, Sep. 10). Six principles of effective e-learning: What works and why. Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/384/six-principles-of-effective-e-learning-what-works-and-why

Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lohr, L. (2008). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Reading Quiz

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1m5TeJmoER129a1PwQkUPq1cudnZuH0sMmPczjSqsM9Y/pub?start=false&loop=false&delayms=60000

Introduction Image

To introduce myself, I thought I’d do something abstract. I’m a fairly reserved individual, so I often keep a lot of things to myself. I chose to edit an image of me with my son that my wife took of us during our first family vacation. I chose to construct the image out of the most vital key words that make up who I am. Those words are: (1) Christian, (2) Husband, (3) Father, (4) Son, (5) Friend, (6) Teacher, (7) Student, (8) Musician, and (9) Perfectionist. When designing the image I began using more words to describe who I am, but then chose to limit the design to those nine items as I believe that is the core of who I am. I also dabbled with the font family and size before settled on a font that is readable but requires some examination because although I believe these items describe me, I am not overly expressive and it sometimes requires deeper examination by others. One hidden element about me lies in the color scheme I chose. I am an avid University of Kentucky basketball fan so I chose to make my image blue and white – UK colors.

Digital Inequality Assignment

Digital divide and digital inequality are two ideas I don’t often think of. I’ve had access to the Internet for over 15 years so it seems foreign to me to consider that individuals do not leverage the Internet or other associated technologies. I found this assignment to be quite interesting as it shed some light on my home state, Kentucky, and how digital divide and digital inequality is a real issue, particularly for the eastern portion of the state. Atkinson and Coleman described that the lower socio-economic individuals within the eastern part of the state live in very mountainous regions that don’t lend themselves to very good wired or wireless access options (2011). Helping to bridge the digital divide gap for these people tends to be a challenge. It is important to consider the general socio-economic status and topography of a region to develop a plan to address digital divide and digital inequality.

Participating as a group was nice but yet challenging. Our group represented 5 different states and 3 different time zones. Arranging time to meet was often challenging, but we were able to more both asynchronously and synchronously to complete the project. We used several Google tools to complete this task. Technology was heavily involved in helping us pull the assignment off. From compiling our thoughts on a shared Google document, to meeting online using Google Hangouts, to completing the presentation together in a Google presentation, technology was used for every aspect of collaboration.

By completing this assignment I have shown competence in meeting the AECT 2.4, 3.2, 3.4, and 4.2 standards. We affectively integrated audio and graphic elements into a shared online presentation. We shared and vetted ideas and discussed state policy/regulations openly in a collaborative setting. We used Google documents to work together, track our progress and complete this project.

Atkinson, J. K., & Coleman, P. D. (2011). The digital divide in kentucky: Is rural online learning sustainable?. Journal of sustainability education, 2, Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/the-digital-divide-in-kentucky-is-rural-online-learning-sustainable_2011_03/

Google Presentation

Narrated Presentation (SWF)

Technology Use Planning Overview

Success has different meaning to different people.  To some individuals, success might be a specific pay scale, the perfect career, a particular college degree, or any other attained achievement.  Success is often difficult to quantify unless the outcome we hope to measure is dear to our own hearts.  In any case, success is generally determined by comparing where we are at the start of our journey, the milestones we aim for and/or hit along the way and the perceived “finished product.”  Technology Use Planning is essentially our guide to success within the realm of the implementation of technology within the educational setting.  It is a combination of understanding where we are, where we think we should be going and how we get there.  It involves critically evaluating our current state and making observations and predictions concerning the technology that will be needed to positively influence future learners.  The Guidebook for Developing an Effective Instructional Technology Plan describes a Technology Use Plan as a device that helps explain various points of interest and destinations upon a technology planning road map to help promote continuous action with creation and maintenance of a technology-rich educational environment (1996).

The United States Department of Education’s National Education Technology Plan (NETP) 2010 is a great resource to begin development of a localized technology use plan.  By using the NETP document, educational technologists may gain a deeper understanding of the goals and desires of our current government officials as it pertains to education and the use of technology.  The NETP acknowledges that technology is a core aspect of virtually every U.S. citizen’s life and there is great desire to adopt technological solutions to improve learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure and productivity (2010).  Although, implementing the full range of recommendations provided by the plan may prove to be difficult due to time, financial, and resource constraints, the NETP is an excellent resource to shape a local technology plan through a national vision.

A technology use plan must always be developed with educational goals in mind.  Utilizing technology for technology’s sake is often a hindrance to education.  In the early 200s, a study conducted by the University of Munich showed that students that were oversaturated with technology performed at an undesirable level as compared to students with more limited access (MacDonald, 2004).  So how do we know when we have “just the right amount” of technology?  An effective Technology Use Plan will guide you to that solution.

When developing a plan, a long-term goal of educational improvement should be addressed through the realization of short-term goals.  John See, Technology Integration Specialist for the Minnesota Department of Education, states that effective technology plans are short term less than five years in length (See, 1992).  These short-term milestones should be flexible because the nature of technology is rapid and ever changing.  Even for the most technologically astute teachers, predicting what technologies will be available five years from now would prove to be a deeply challenging task.  Take Social Media for example; in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) dominated the untitled “social network” allowing for asynchronous communications amongst users.  These messages were text-only and required a personal computer for development and retrieval of messages.  Flash forward 20 years, users can send and receive text and multimedia (audio / video / still photography) messages both asynchronously and synchronously on various platforms (personal computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones) through a number of areas such as Facebook, Instant Messaging, E-Mail, Blackboard, Moodle, MySpace, and LinkedIn (Goble, 2012).  Aiming for short-term goals provided the opportunity for flexibility while maintaining an attainable vision.

A technology use plan must also be feasible to implement.  This feasibility evaluation should encompass metrics related to financial, stewardship, and outcomes.  See recommends that the technology use plan should be tied to the school district’s budget cycle (See, 1992).  If the budget does not provide an opportunity for the desired technology, the plan is of little use and should be revised.  Secondly, having teachers and faculty that can appropriately operate the technology is extremely important.  How are we to implement mobile learning solutions if our facilitators are not properly trained on how to use mobile technology?  See suggests that technology plans should be tied to staff development plan through awareness, application, integration, and refinement of technological skills (See, 1992). Thirdly, educational outcomes should always be considered.  Does the use of the technology make sense?  Does it really make a considerable difference?  See states that “effective technology plans focus on application and not technology” (See, 1992).  If incorporation of a basic slideshow conveys the same information and leads to the same outcome as a more expensive technology element, the cost savings outweighs the benefits of the new technology as it pertains to application.

My experience with technology in an educational setting has been one of extremes.  Educators who have embraced technology often over utilize their desired tools and never plan for the pitfalls that come with technology.  These instructors implemented the technology as the lesson, rather than technology to support the lesson.  In these instances, when network access abruptly stops or streaming web media becomes unavailable the lesson itself broke down.  Instruction stopped.  Learning stopped.  The focus was now on “how to restore the technology” instead of focusing on transitioning the lesson to another effective method of instruction.  On the other hand, I have also seen educators who entirely diminish the value of technology.  In my corporate role, I see many instructors who only embrace “paper copies” when digital formats are available.  These instructors refuse to use available technology and in turn introduce inefficiencies and unnecessary cost to the learning environment.  I believe we need to find the healthy balance between technological and non-technological solutions to learning.  The thorough development of a Technology Use Plan will aid in the process and guide our steps toward the future.

Sources:

Graduate Students at Mississippi State University. (1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan. Retrieved from: http://www.nctp.com/downloads/guidebook.pdf

Goble, G. (2012, 09 06). The history of social networking. Retrieved from http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/the-history-of-social-networking/

MacDonald, G. J. (2004, 12 06). Too much computer exposure may hinder learning. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-12-06-complicating-things_x.htm

See, J. (1992, May). Developing effective technology plans. The Computing Teacher, 19, (8). Retrieved from: http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm

U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National education technology plan. Washington D.C: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

The development of this post addresses the AECT 3.4 Polices and Regulations Standard.  The standard states:

3.4 Policies and Regulations
Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that
affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology.

By completing this activity, I have effectively reviewed policy developed by the United States Department of Education to influence my writing concerning key aspects of developing a localized Technology Use Plan for local use.

Tech Trends Assignment

This assignment was very challenging for me for several reasons. First, my experience is limited to the corporate training environment and I chose to complete a lesson plan directed to much younger learners. Secondly, I feel much more comfortable with designing support material than I do designing an entire lesson. In the end, I feel that I created an interesting lesson that utilizes various technologies and will engage students.

I chose to use three technologies within my lesson:

1. A Youtube.com Streaming Media Element – Schoolhouse Rock “The Bill of Rights”: I chose this video as an introduction to the topic. I feel that this video would be much better received by the students than an introduction provided by lecture. This video element incorporates technology through streaming directly from the Internet and viewed by the class through a projection screen/SmartBoard display.

2. Android Tablet PCs with Free Mobile App: Providing students with tablet PCs delivers an interactive element to the lesson. I chose Android tablets because they may be purchased at a cheaper price than Apple iPads, reducing the cost burden on the school district. The mobile application I chose to use was the “We the People” app built by Robert Bushman. At the time of this posting, this application was free of charge, had over 100,000 downloads, and an average rating of 4.6 stars (out of 5) on Google Play.

3. Interactive Flash Game: Incorporating a SmartBoard activity is a great way to encourage participation and interaction. I created a custom Flash-based SmartBoard activity that allows the students to practice recalling the knowledge that they have learned.

This assignment effectively meets the AECT 1.1, 3.1, and 3.3 Standards.

AECT 1.1 Instructional Systems Design (ISD)
AECT 1.1.2.b Create instructional plans (micro-level design) that address the needs of all learners, including appropriate accommodations for learners with special needs.

AECT 1.1.2.d Incorporate contemporary instructional technology processes in the development of interactive lessons that promote student learning.

AECT 1.1.3.b Demonstrate personal skill development with at least one: computer authoring application, video tool, or electronic communication application.

3.1 Media Utilization
3.1.1 Identify key factors in selecting and using technologies appropriate for learning situations specified in the instructional design process.

3.3 Implementation and Institutionalization
3.3.1 Use appropriate instructional materials and strategies in various learning contexts.

By completing this project, I have met the listed AECT standards by developing a lesson plan that incorporates various technologies to achieve a desired learning outcome.

View this document on Scribd

Click here to view the Interactive Flash Game