Have you ever found yourself listening to music while browsing the internet (or writing a report) and felt the need to turn down the volume when trying to concentrate? I find myself doing this quite often and have even noticed that, for me, certain musical genres can be less distracting. Furthermore, I found that less dynamic (more compressed) studio mixes can also be more distracting. Though you may not think you are giving it much attention, your brain is processing the music; the lyrics and complex melodies are both vying for your attention. Somehow, the music which you have been listening to for an extended period of time becomes noise or a distraction, even though the music isn’t physically blocking your eyes from reading or writing.
This phenomenon can be attributed to the cognitive load theory, an educational theory that states each cognitive task we approach and process has an intrinsic cognitive load. This main task can then be disrupted by extraneous cognitive load, or “high levels of element interactivity…that unnecessarily increase the number of interacting elements that learners must process” (Paas & Sweller, 2016. p. 38). Thinking back to my earlier example, it makes sense: as you increase your concentration to putting words on a page, or reading and interpreting words, you suddenly find that the Eagles or Led Zeppelin are crowding your thought process, or increasing your cognitive load. To combat this situation, you lower the volume, thusly decreasing the extraneous cognitive load.
But then how is multimedia learning effective? Online learning and interactive classrooms make use of both audio and visual components, sometimes in conjunction with a live instructor. Our brains have a difficult time processing too much information into a single “channel,” such as our visual channel, where we might be relating information on a chart to our notes or the backside of the page. The task stresses our visual channel, making it difficult to make connections to the interrelated content. In the example of listening to music while working, we have difficulty concentrating because the music and content we are reading are also not interrelated and are causing cognitive dissonance.
Instruction, then, must be carefully crafted with the modality principle in mind to ensure that the multiple sources of information using a mixed-mode presentation are complimentary and contribute to a superior learning experience (Low & Sweller, 2016. p.227). To give an example, “when pictures and words are both presented visually, the visual processor can become overloaded but the auditory processor is unused. When words are narrated, they can be dealt with in the auditory processor, thereby leaving he visual processor to deal with the pictures only. Thus, the use of narrated animation reassigns some of the essential processing from the overloaded visual processor to the underloaded auditory processor” (Low & Sweller, 2016. p.238). This information isn’t new, but I felt as though it needed to be mentioned for those who may not have heard of these principles before.
My real concern is how this applies to the content that I create every day — video. With the ubiquity of video in our world, we should expect our students to be familiar learning from it and, therefore, focus on creating better instruction using it. For this argument, I’m going to focus on one of the most basic approaches to video: the talking head. You know, the medium shot of a person sitting in a chair who speaks directly to or slightly off camera? Though typically regarded as being rather rudimentary or flat out boring, if done well, filming a subject talking to the camera can be a cost effective way to have someone relay information and engage your viewer.
In the article “The talking-head video 2.0: Findings from eye-tracking research,” Pernice discusses ways to successfully keep the viewer’s attention with simple techniques. However, “make no mistake, nothing is going to save a video with a dull message” (Pernice, 2017.). The study followed the eye movements of viewers during a two-subject discussion. Aside from having an enthusiastic and animated host, Pernice emphasizes the importance of changing the visual. “When the video looks the same except for moving lips and blinking eyes, users get bored. But a greater chance in facial expression, subject position, and even camera angle can reawaken the user’s attention” (Pernice, 2017.).
While the article discusses aspects such as using less-distracting background elements and taking advantage of residual fixations, I want to focus on two aspects revealed in the study that support the modality principle. The first actually has nothing to do with the video itself, but rather the content on the page that resides outside of the video frame. As users listen in and inevitably become visually “bored,” their eyes begin to wander. Having content on the page with the video that supports the topic of the video actually keeps users engaged and can reactivate their visual channel with relevant information and increase learning and focus. The second aspect that I’d like to note is that including appropriate graphics also helps to reinvigorate the visual channel. “Visuals that appear in the video attract attention, and seeing and hearing the same message reinforces it to the users” (Pernice, 2017.). Does that sound familiar?
Even though the results of this study were intended for a broadcast production audience, I do find it fascinating when educational theory finds a crossover with multimedia production. As time goes on, these types of connections are going to become increasingly important for instructors as they search for more effective ways of teaching new audiences of all ages on a variety of digital learning platforms.
Even though the results of this study were intended for a broadcast production audience, I do find it fascinating when educational theory finds a crossover with multimedia production. As time goes on, these types of connections are going to become increasingly important for instructors as they search for more effective ways of teaching new audiences of all ages on a variety of digital learning platforms.
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2016). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 227-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2016). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 27-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pernice, K. (2017, August 20). The talking-head video 2.0: Findings from eye-tracking research. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/talking-head-video/
