crescitelli - edtech 513 - coherence paper

8/7/2019 Crescitelli - EdTech 513 - Coherence Paper

1/7

Coherence Principle vs. My High School Daughters

Pedagogy vs. Real World High School

Abstract

The research evidence cannot be denied extraneous information in all itsvarious forms clutters cognitive processing in short term memory and

hinders learning outcomes. But does it really? Todays high schoolstudents are more plugged in than entire households, and yet they still

thrive and grow as learners. The coherence principle is clear in its premiseof less is more, but in todays high school environment, for the

coherence principle to continue to exist, it must adapt its perspective onhow learners process information, and how differentiation of instruction is

more vital than ever.

John T. Crescitelli

Boise State University

Dr. Hall/EdTech 513

March 23, 2011


2/7

Coherence EdTech 513 2

2011 John T. Crescitelli Boise State University

Introduction

I sit silently in a corner of the room, highlighter in hand, reading e-learningby Clark and

Mayer. All attention is on the text and extracting valuable information. You can hear a pin drop.

I glance across the room and into the office. I can only laugh. There sit my two high school

daughters, headphones on, music playing, multiple windows open on their desktops including

Facebook and YouTube. One is using a graphing calculator for physics homework while

communicating with classmates and the teacher online. The other is working on an honors

English essay while listening to music for her upcoming Chamber Choir performance.

How we process and retain information is certainly more diverse than ever. I could not

follow the practices of my daughters and be successful. Yet, as I sit and read the text, I cannot

help but wonder how the Coherence principle is going to survive in a world that is not going to

ever return to a less is more philosophy. From all areas of modern society, people are

demanding more, not less.

The Coherence Principle

The Coherence principle is an easy one to understand in theory. You minimize any

extraneous sounds, words, and graphics from instruction in order to maximize learning

outcomes. It is important to weedthis unnecessary information out of the instructional model in

order to limit cognitive overload when processing new learning (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).

Although designers are tempted to create instructional models that are flashy and incorporate

some of the newest technologies, this process of adding seductive detail inhibits cognitive

processing and greatly inhibits attaining mastery objectives (Garner, Gillingham, & White,

1989).


3/7



Before we look deeper at the Coherence principle, we need to understand the cognitive

process in general. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggests that there are dual

channels in working memory, the visual/pictorial and the auditory/verbal. Each of these channels

is very limited in capacity and can easily experience cognitive overload (Pavio, 1990). This is

called the Dual Coding Theory. The goal is to actively engage both channels of working

memory to transfer knowledge to long term memory.

In order to address this cognitive theory of learning, the Coherence principle concentrates

on three particular design properties that are poor in their psychological understandings about

how people learn best, and ultimately inhibit rather than enhance instruction. These three design

faux pas directly conflict with what we know about cognitive theory.

The first principle concentrates on audio. It is critical that the designer not fall into the

trap that placing background music behind instruction will stimulate learner interest, or in any

way improve learning. Working memory is incredibly limited in capacity, so background music

and sounds can overload auditory/verbal working memory (Clark & Mayer, 2008). Learners

focus on the music, missing much of the auditory lesson. This is especially relevant when

learning new material or material that is highly complex.

Even John Dewey back in 1913 knew the shortcoming of inserting background music,

noting that adding music does not make a topic more interesting (Dewey, 1913). Several studies

from Moreno and Mayer (200) to Kenz and Hugge (2002) support the Coherence Theory of

extraneous audio, but none more eloquently as Ransdell and Gilroy (2001) who try in vain to

warn college students that any music will, cause ones writing fluency to be disrupted (p. 147).

The second Coherence principle focuses on the use of extraneous graphics. It is well

documented that adding extraneous pictures, videos, and other graphics distract the learner from

making sense of the instructional materials and inhibits learning. Graphics are often not relevant


4/7



to the main theme of the instruction, but are merely relational sideshows that distract from the

main message (Mayer, 1993).

Extraneous graphics can cause cognitive overload in the visual/pictorial channel. It has

been further noted that graphics actually can have a three-fold relationship that negatively effects

cognitive processing. Graphics can distractthe learner from the pertinent and relevant material,

can disruptlearning by blocking access to key information, and can seduce the learner, tapping

into learners background knowledge without the ability to connect to new learning (Harp &

Mayer, 1998). This can be particularly problematic for special education students and those with

distractibility issues like ADD in their learning profiles (Sanchez & Wiley, 2006).

The third Coherence principle focuses on the excess use of words in instructional models.

It is important to stay away from informational vignettes, unnecessary titling, or other

unnecessary words that do not directly relate to the mastery objective of the lesson. Keeping

words pertinent and to a minimum falls in line with the modality principles goal of keeping

related text and graphics together. There are three areas of extraneous text that are of particular

conflict with maximizing instructional input: words added for interest, words added to expand on

key ideas, and words that add technical depth (Clark & Mayer, 2008). These may all seem like

great ideas, but each has been soundly investigated and deemed to overload working memory

and distract the learner.

No Understanding of Coherence

I presented at the New England League of Middle Schools national conference in March

of 2005. I created a twenty-five slide presentation on a project that integrated technology into the

classroom curriculum. As I look at that presentation today, I am embarrassed at what I created

and presented. Thank goodness no one there understood the Coherence principle, as my reviews

were tremendous. But I digress.


5/7



As I look at the presentation today, each slide has a very distracting background image.

Although consistent on each slide, the image has nothing to do with the instruction and competes

with both the text and the photos. Although the slides follow both the Spatial Contiguity

principle and the Temporal Contiguity principle well, as far as proximity and timing of

information, the visual cognitive overload is significant (Mayer, 1999). The background image

is merely to decorate the page, and the research is clear. Extraneous graphics disrupt and distract

the learner from maximizing learning outcomes and can actually hurt learning (Sanchez &

Wiley, 2006).

The slides are incredibly text heavy. Several slides do not follow the Seven-plus-or

minus-two rule of information processing capacity (Miller, 1956). The overuse of bulleted lists

shows the level of naivet of the design, and some slides are so text heavy they are

overwhelming. Although there is no sound, the slides are sufficiently busy enough so as to

inhibit my instructional message from coming across successfully.

Conflicting Principles

In theory, the Coherence principle makes perfect sense. The myriad research studies

support and justify instructional practices that promote a less is more design. Yet, all I have to

do is look across the room at my daughters as they toil away at their high school work. Mind

you, they are no slouches. My senior daughter has taken numerous AP classes and has taken one

of the most rigorous schedules a high school could offer. She is a member of the national honor

society and is ranked highly in her class. She is a three season athlete, has been the producer for

two plays, and has been in musicals and other performances. She is the epitome of a high

achieving, active high school kid. And you know what? She has been plugged-in since fourth

grade. Could she have done better? I guess so, but she certainly could have done much worse.


6/7



How does one measure cognitive overload? Certainly, my daughters scenario is far

from unique; in fact, it is much the norm. Just how much information can working memory

handle before it reaches cognitive overload? Is it the same for everyone? I agree with Clark &

Mayer that it is not a generational issue; thats not the point. All learners are different, and hence

have a different capacity for processing incoming information. How can my younger daughter

work on an honors English essay and process incredibly complex chamber choir music at the

same time? Research says she cant, but the evidence is in her performance. Schools try to

generalize learners in order to create instruction that maximizes the target audience. However,

that approach denies the diverse learning styles of students and conflicts with differentiation

principles. There is not enough information about the diverse cognitive capacities in learners to

use the Coherence principle to drive multimedia instructional design.

Conclusion

Knowing what we do about todays high school and college learners, we must learn that

the coherence principle can be applied to todays multi-tasking, multi-sensory learners. But just

how can the coherence principle be applied to todays 4G products so that their application can

be properly utilized to maximize learning when they all compete for attention? We cant make

modern society slow down and simplify for the sake of learning. Its just not going to happen.

Modern society wont have it. It may be true that less is more (Mayer, Bove, Bryman, Mars,

and Tapangco, 1996), but in todays high schools, more is more.

What we need to do as educators is develop structures that allow learners to organize data

input, thereby addressing the problems with cognitive overload. Applying the three processes

associated with the Coherence principle to the myriad learning devices must center on

maximizing differentiation and streamlining cognitive input. Currently, these devices are

competing for the attention of the learner. Only when they work together to simplify cognitive


7/7



input can we address the needs of todays learner. Applying the Coherence principle to the

weeding out and simplification process will help guide the proper implementation in this

paradigm shift.

References

Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelinesfor consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2

nded.). San Francisco, CA:

Pfeiffer.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Garner, R. Gillingham, M., & White, C. (1989). Effects of seductive details on macroprocessingand microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition andInstruction, 6, 41-57.

Gilroy, L. & Ransdell, S.E. (2001). The effects of background music on word proceeded writing.

Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 141-148.

Harp, S.F. & Mayer, R.E., (1998).How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitiveinterest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.

Mayer, R.E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional

psychology (Vol.4, pp. 253-284). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayer, R.E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of

Educational Research, 31, 611-623.

Mayer, R.E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more:meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64-73.

Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.

Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity

for processing information. The Psychological Review, vol. 63, 81-97.

Pavio, A. (1990). Mental representations: a dual coding approach (2nd ed.). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sanchez, C.A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of

working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344-355.

crescitelli - edtech 513 - coherence paper

Documents