#1: Kalyuga, S. (2014) The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 576-597). New York: Cambridge. This chapter discusses the expertise reversal principle for multimedia learning. The premise concerns research and theory surrounding prior knowledge of a learner. Mainly discussed in the redundancy principle, is the idea that using multimedia principles such as modality principle, signaling principle, etc., to enhance learning materials for novice learners can sometimes hinder expert learners. Not much research focuses on learners with prior knowledge and there is a need for more research to show that learners with prior knowledge need modified multimedia learning materials. Specifically, formats and procedures in learning material need to change based on level of expertise. The expertise reversal principle occurs when cognitive overload happens to a learner because they are viewing multimedia that is designed for a novice learner. The material may benefit the novice in learning but will cause cognitive overload for the learner with prior knowledge, causing focus to become unavailable for more important activities for high-knowledge learners. Research discussed in the chapter supports these facts and shows in many group studies that students with prior knowledge experienced cognitive overload. This included learners who were once novice learners and through working through instructional material following the multimedia principles previously discussed, also experience this overload as they continued to view the instructional material. One suggestion is to create adaptive multimedia systems that tailor instructional methods to meet the specific levels of learner expertise to help with cognitive overload. #2: Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The individual differences in working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 598-619). New York: Cambridge In this chapter, Wiley, Sanchez, & Jaeger (2014) discuss working memory capacity and the individual differences that create challenges in creating effective multimedia learning materials. Working memory capacity is the ability to use working memory effectively and efficiently and this varies between individuals. There are low working memory individuals and high working memory individuals, according to the authors and the research they reviewed. The working memory system has limited-capacity in its ability to manage the retrieval and storage of information in order to carry out complex, cognitive tasks. Examples of these tasks include learning, reasoning, and comprehension. The authors discussed a variety of approaches that tested the success of learners on viewing multimedia materials. Time and time again, the studies proved that historical principles of multimedia design helped low working memory capacity (or low knowledge) learners. Principles such as segmenting and signaling guided novice learners in understanding material. However, the same did not apply to high knowledge learners. The same material causes cognitive overload for these learners. Many reported distraction and frustration in attempting to acquire the concepts of the learning material. Some take-a-ways of the approaches in the studies include attentional control where an individual’s ability to selectively allocate attentional resources to some information while ignoring irrelevant information. High working memory capacity learners were able to successfully ignore material not relevant to the purpose of the multimedia presentation, while low memory capacity learners were not. This was true for seductive details, adding interesting but tangentially related material to the same presentation as the main topic. As this relates to instructional design, those designing material need to allow for more individual differences and support choice or integration of information by learners.
#3: Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 10–119. In this paper, Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2008), discuss learning styles, the review of literature surrounding research on learning styles, and the outcomes they discovered on how educator’s focus on learning styles affect student learning. Learning styles refer to how individuals learn differently based on modes of instruction. Those in agreement with this concept believe that educator’s should understand an individual’s learning style and tailor instruction to meet those needs. The hypothesis discussed in the paper is the meshing hypothesis whereby instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the learner. In attempting to support this hypothesis, learners are asked their preferences and learning materials are developed in an attempt to match those needs. New educators are also taught that students have different learning styles and learning materials should accommodate those individual styles. The results of the research showed no support of this hypothesis. The approach in assessing whether this hypothesis holds included analyzing the concept of learning styles to determine what forms of evidence is needed to justify the pedagogy and review of the literature, as stated. The literature fails to provide adequate support for this hypothesis in an educational setting. In finale, both analysis and literature, results show a contradiction in the hypothesis that learning styles should be tailored toward learner preferences, although instruction may differ successfully.
#4: Plass, J.L. & Kalyuga, S., & Leutner, D. (2010). Individual differences and cognitive load theory. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 65-87). New York: Cambridge. In this paper, Plass, Kalyuga, & Leutner (2010) discuss individual differences in learners that can affect cognitive load and subsequently working memory. Much of the research in this area surround aptitude-treatment interactions. Individual learning differences include how material is presented, the environment where the presentation occurs, the learner’s cognitive ability and learner intelligence. The correlation between the two is student aptitude for learning and differing learning outcomes. The author’s main focus is on three categories of individual differences in learning: 1) information gathering, 2) information processing, and 3) regulation of processing. They seek to answer questions of how these individual differences effect cognitive load and available working memory. Information gathering relate to learning styles and preferences. Information processing include cognitive controls and prior knowledge. Regulation of processing involves learner’s motivation and self-regulation.
#5: Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self‐regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology‐based training. Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 267-306. This paper discusses research related to an individual’s self-paced learning. Historically, it is shown that learner’s do not effectively use this self-control over their learning. Given the fact that more and more training systems using today’s technology give the learner significant control over their pace through learning material, the authors feel more research is needed to look at efficacy of self-paced learning and the use of adaptive guidance on learning and performance. I chose this paper because I am interested in developing multimedia presentations for students in technology, primarily computer science, information systems, and technology systems. Many departments desire to move these types of courses to an online environment, but the issue with distance hinders how to provide effective instruction.