6.4: Shaping the Looks and Sounds of CAPs

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 57857

Samuel Sennott, Sheldon Loman, Kristy Lee Park, Luis F. Pérez, Michael J. Kennedy, John Romig, & Wendy J. Rodgers
Portland State University via Portland State University Library

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

The CTML is grounded in cognitive load theory (Chandler & Sweller, 1991), which states that all humans are subject to cognitive overload when capacity in working memory is overwhelmed by environmental stimuli. This theory also builds upon Paivio’s (1986) dual processing principle (people learn using visual and auditory inputs), and Baddeley’s (1986) model of working memory (people remember about three seconds worth of auditory and visuospatial information, respectively, without taking explicit cognitive action to remember it). Multimedia instruction is a known perpetrator of overwhelming viewers with fast-paced, visually rich, instructionally redundant features that make no explicit effort to structure content so that viewers have time for processing (Clark, 2009; 1983; Mayer, 2009). The CTML and accompanying instructional design principles help instructors do a better job of creating instruction that is a match for how people learn (Mayer, 2009).

Table 6.4.1 contains a rubric used by Kennedy, Aronin, Newton, O’Neal, and Thomas (2014) to score CAPs’ adherence to Mayer’s instructional design principles. This rubric is simple, but it can help an instructor carefully study each of Mayer’s principles and consider how it influences the looks and sounds of instruction throughout a CAP. Before attempting to create a CAP, we recommend careful study of Mayer’s principles and use of the rubric to evaluate multimedia currently being used to teach students.

Table 6.4.1: Mayer’s Instructional Design Principles as Rubric for Evaluating Multimedia Instructional Materials.
Name:
Research-Based Instructional Design Principles (Mayer, 2009, 2008)	Rubric for Evaluating Multimedia Instructional Materials
Coherence Principle ES = .97, 14 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Includes Excess Some Irrelevant Content Standard Met Irrelevant
Signaling Principle ES = .52, 6 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Lacks Explicit Cues Some Cues Provided Standard Met
Redundancy Principle ES = .72, 5 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Extensive Text Occasional Redundant Text Standard Met
Spatial Contiguity Principle ES = 1.12, 5 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Words and Pictures Some Content Not Standard Met Not Near Each Other Closely Aligned
Temporal Contiguity Principle ES = 1.31, 8 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Audio & Text Some Misalignment Standard Met Misalignment
Modality Principle ES = 1.02, 17 Studies	Does Not Use Audio/Visuals Uses Audio/Visuals
Segmenting Principle ES = .98, 3 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Excessive Length Contains Explicit Breaks Standard Met & No Explicit Breaks But is Excessively Long
Pretraining Principle ES = .85, 5 Studies	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 No Advance Organizer Limited Use of Standard Met Or Hierarchy of Content Pretraining Strategies
Multimedia Principle ES = 1.39, 11 Studies	Not Multimedia Standard Met
Personalization Principle ES = 1.11, 11 Studies*	Not Personalized Standard Met
Voice Principle *	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Formal Narration Some Formal Standard Met Some Conversational
Image Principle *	1 -----------------------------------------2----------------------------------------3 Images Are Vague &/or Most Images Clear Standard Met Blurry

Note – Personalization Principle’s 11 Studies Includes the Voice and Image Principles. They are separated here for the purpose of guiding instructional design.