Meaningful Learning
#1: Driscoll, M. (2005). Meaningful learning and schema theory. Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 111-152). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. In this chapter, Driscoll (2005) discusses meaningful learning as developed by Ausubel (p. 114, as cited in Ausubel, 1965, p. 8) and schema theory. He begins with two scenario lesson, one on democracy and the other on making mayonnaise. Though seemingly unconnected, the idea is that both involve learning and making use of information (p. 114). In the cases of the scenarios, even though both topics are familiar to the subjects, it is not meaningful. This leads to Ausubel’s view that meaning is the core of cognitive experience, where Ebbinghaus (p.114, 1885 as cited in Chapter 1) states that learning and memory should be uncontaminated by old associations or meaning. Ausubel made distinction between receptive learning (learners internalize for use later) and discovery learning (learners sort new information, integrate it with current knowledge, and add it to a new combination of stored information). Ausubel goes on the separate rote learning (memorization) from meaningful learning (relating new information to current knowledge). He continues to assert cognitive organization where learners structure ideas in memory as a hierarchical structure with anchoring ideas providing the “entry points” (p. 117) for new information and its connection to experiences. These are considered the prerequisites to meaningful learning. Driscoll goes on to discuss schema theory as proposed by Anderson, Spiro, and Anderson (p. 126, as cited 1978, p. 439), as bringing precision to Ausubel’s meaningful learning. Schema is active organization of past experiences (p.126) and perceptually based. Therefore, learners not only activate prior knowledge but attach their perceptions to the subject matter. Changes to schema occur via accretion (comprehension of an event), tuning (make new information more consistent with prior experience), and restructuring (create an entirely new schema to replace old ones). These concepts have instructional implications in that cognitive load can be managed through activating prior knowledge via use of advanced organizers and schema signals, instructional designers can make instructional material more meaningful, instructional designers can create more engaging and thought-provoking activities, and insert context with examples that will allow learners to apply prior knowledge. #2: Driscoll, M. (2005). Situated Cognition. Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 153-184). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. In this chapter, Driscoll refers to topics discussed in chapter 4, context plays an important role in learning, and chapter 3, declarative knowledge (knowing that) versus procedural knowledge (knowing how). He reminds us that learners can relate to new information and skills more easily (p. 155) when they already have experience relating to the information. Using this as a basis, Driscoll discusses cognition as a social and situated activity (p. 156, as cited in Kirshner & Whitson, 1997). The basis of this theory, situated cognition, is that humans adapt to an environment because of what they ‘perceive’, how they ‘conceive of their activity’, and what they ‘physically do’ develop together (p. 157, as cited in Clancey, 1997, pp. 1-2). In other words, learning is modified based on interaction with others, whether lived practices or community participation. Antecedents to this theory include the ecological approach to perception, critical pedagogy, and everyday cognition, which are summarized by Wenger (p. 164, as cited in 1998) as the basic premises of situated cognition: 1) humans are social beings, 2) knowledge is a matter of competence with respect to valued enterprises, 3) knowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of such enterprises, and 4) meaning. Driscoll goes on to discuss a process of situated cognition as legitimate peripheral participation (p. 165), which defines ways of belonging to a community of practice. The three broad levels of this participation include individual, communities, and organizations. Instructional implications include cognitive apprenticeships, anchored instruction, learning communities, and assessment in-situ. #3: Mayer, R.E. & Pilegard C. (2014) Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 316-344). New York: Cambridge. In this chapter, Mayer (2014) discusses an individual’s ability to learn when presented information using multimedia. Material presented at a fast pace can cause cognitive overload. Primary concerns are ways to reduce cognitive overload. Beginning with the definition of cognitive capacity, which is the total amount of processing that can be supported by both auditory and visual channels of the learner’s working-memory at any one time (p. 317), Mayer discusses essential overload and three multimedia design methods intended to minimize essential overload. These three methods are segmenting, pre-training, and modality principles. Essential overload occurs when the amount of essential cognitive processing required to understand the multimedia instructional message exceeds the learner’s cognitive capacity (p. 316). The segmenting principle states that more learning takes place when the individual is provided with learner-paced segments rather than a continuous stream of information. When learners are provided the names and characteristics of the main concepts from a multimedia message, the pre-training principle is in play. Providing spoken words rather than printed text refers to the modality principle. Each of these principles are supported in the research experiments discussed by Mayer. In the remainder of the chapter, Mayer describes a variety of instructional material given to learners followed by the results based on effect size from a transfer test given after the presentation. Any range from 87 to 100 percent of the experimental tests yielded a median of .75 or higher effect size. The effect size is the score of the control group subtracted from the experimental group, divided by the standard deviation of the entire pool (p. 326). The effect of the principles are more pronounced for low-knowledge learners (they are able to learn more deeply) than high-knowledge learners. Further research is needed to determine why this is so and what is needed for high-knowledge learners. The results are clear for low-knowledge learners that providing one of these three principles is a benefit. This knowledge will assist instructional designers in creating useful instructional material for education. #4: Oberfoell, Amy Marie, "Understanding the role of the modality principle in multimedia learning environments" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 14602. In this paper, Oberfoell discusses the modality principle first broached by Mayer and Moreno in 1989 (p. 8). The modality principle states that learner’s receive knowledge more effectively when words are spoken rather than presented as on-screen text. The reason for this is the fact that presenting information visually and with on-screen text can cause cognitive overload. This can happen because the learner is trying to use both visual and auditory attention, but if words are spoken, processing can occur without overloading the visual channel. In the next fifteen years of research, not only does this principle proof beneficial to learners by not creating cognitive overload, but discovered was the fact that environment and other parameters can affect the outcome of these results. Understanding these parameters will become more important as educators seek to implement best practices for its learners (p. 8-9), especially in the digital age of millennials. In the new research studies, this principle did not aid in knowledge retention for low-knowledge learners. The author explains that re-creating the original experiment was difficult and the new sample size is smaller. I chose this paper because I am interested in learning more about the modality principle. I currently use the segmenting and pre-training principle in the classroom. I am researching different ways to present material using multimedia. I would like to make sure that I understand the ramifications of this before expending the resources to create the instructional material.
0 Comments
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |