Today we’re going to go into some detail about the coherence principle of multimedia learning, but before we do that, let’s first review a bit of the information that we’ve learned so far:
Why multimedia?
Well – that’s easy. There is a lot of evidence supporting that the inclusion of linguistic and graphical elements stimulates learning more effectively than providing only one of those options.
In other words, the multimedia principle states:
Picture = Good.
Words = Good.
Picture + Words = Very Good!
So it is really that easy?
Not quite, unfortunately! There are a number of other principles which further refine the multimedia principle. Let’s take another look at some of them.
The contiguity principle:
In order to be effective, information presented in a multimedia presentation must be in proximity of other related information both spatially and temporally. In other words, don’t do what I just did.
The modality principle:
Have you ever tried to play the harmonica and sing and the same time? It’s pretty difficult, as you need your mouth to do both things (unless you’re using your nose of course!) It’s much easier to sing and play the guitar, for example. The guitar requires the use of your hands while singing requires the use of your mouth. The modality principle uses a similar logic: it is easier and more effective to combine spoken text (audio) and graphics (visual) rather than visual text and visual graphics.
The excessively superfluous redundancy principle:
You can have too much of a good thing. The redundancy principle asserts that in most cases, using graphics in combination with both spoken text and visual representations of the text is an unnecessary burden on the visual channel and in return, cognitive load.
Okay, I get it – now what about the coherence principle?
Like the other principles mentioned above, the coherence principle puts limitations on the multimedia principle by paying close attention to cognitive load, contiguity and redundancy.
The coherence principle requires the removal of all visual, acoustic and linguistic information that is not relevant to the given instruction goal, especially when dealing with low-level learners or novices. By retaining only visual and verbal elements that are related, learners are more able to make meaningful connections. In other words – coordinate your outfit, but take off the bling, it's distracting.
How do I know what’s relevant and what’s not?
Examples of information which can be considered extraneous are seductive details. These are elements which are interesting but nevertheless irrelevant. They burden the learner’s working memory and limited cognitive load. Background music, random sound effects, decorative graphics, as well as written texts that do not directly relate to the topic at hand can all be considered extraneous.
Other examples which may not be as obvious are those which are relevant but contain unnecessarily detailed information, such as three-dimensional or detailed graphics and realistic videos. These have been shown to be less effective in enhancing learning than their more simplified or schematic counterparts. Superfluous and unnecessarily detailed information can distract the learner from relevant information and disrupt the flow of related information provided.
Seductive details, as mentioned above, are often used to support the arousal theory. This theory supposes that engaging a learner’s emotional experience increases their cognitive attention and therefore their ability and/or motivation to learn. Sex sells, in other words. But, extraneous information - however seductive and arousing it may be - is said to compete for a learner’s limited working memory and reduces their chances of retaining and comprehending more relevant information. There are numerous studies indicating that the arousal theory is invalid when it comes to stimulating learning.
By weeding out extraneous information, learners can be directed toward relevant information and can benefit from a lighter cognitive load. The efforts of their limited working memory can be utilized fully toward the instructional goal at hand.
But that sounds so boring!
Perhaps. But I would argue that although it’s more challenging, finding ways to connect lesson content to relevant examples or real world associations, can be just as stimulating as cosmetic bling – with the added element of deepening understanding of the topic at hand.
How about a couple of examples?
Until moving to my new home in Malta a couple of weeks ago, I had never had to clean a swimming pool before. The following image, taken from an article entitled "How to Clean Your Own Pool" on wikiHow, exemplifies a graphic which does not adhere to the coherence principle:
Why multimedia?
Well – that’s easy. There is a lot of evidence supporting that the inclusion of linguistic and graphical elements stimulates learning more effectively than providing only one of those options.
In other words, the multimedia principle states:
Picture = Good.
Words = Good.
Picture + Words = Very Good!
So it is really that easy?
Not quite, unfortunately! There are a number of other principles which further refine the multimedia principle. Let’s take another look at some of them.
The contiguity principle:
In order to be effective, information presented in a multimedia presentation must be in proximity of other related information both spatially and temporally. In other words, don’t do what I just did.
The modality principle:
Have you ever tried to play the harmonica and sing and the same time? It’s pretty difficult, as you need your mouth to do both things (unless you’re using your nose of course!) It’s much easier to sing and play the guitar, for example. The guitar requires the use of your hands while singing requires the use of your mouth. The modality principle uses a similar logic: it is easier and more effective to combine spoken text (audio) and graphics (visual) rather than visual text and visual graphics.
The excessively superfluous redundancy principle:
You can have too much of a good thing. The redundancy principle asserts that in most cases, using graphics in combination with both spoken text and visual representations of the text is an unnecessary burden on the visual channel and in return, cognitive load.
Okay, I get it – now what about the coherence principle?
Like the other principles mentioned above, the coherence principle puts limitations on the multimedia principle by paying close attention to cognitive load, contiguity and redundancy.
The coherence principle requires the removal of all visual, acoustic and linguistic information that is not relevant to the given instruction goal, especially when dealing with low-level learners or novices. By retaining only visual and verbal elements that are related, learners are more able to make meaningful connections. In other words – coordinate your outfit, but take off the bling, it's distracting.
How do I know what’s relevant and what’s not?
Examples of information which can be considered extraneous are seductive details. These are elements which are interesting but nevertheless irrelevant. They burden the learner’s working memory and limited cognitive load. Background music, random sound effects, decorative graphics, as well as written texts that do not directly relate to the topic at hand can all be considered extraneous.
Other examples which may not be as obvious are those which are relevant but contain unnecessarily detailed information, such as three-dimensional or detailed graphics and realistic videos. These have been shown to be less effective in enhancing learning than their more simplified or schematic counterparts. Superfluous and unnecessarily detailed information can distract the learner from relevant information and disrupt the flow of related information provided.
Seductive details, as mentioned above, are often used to support the arousal theory. This theory supposes that engaging a learner’s emotional experience increases their cognitive attention and therefore their ability and/or motivation to learn. Sex sells, in other words. But, extraneous information - however seductive and arousing it may be - is said to compete for a learner’s limited working memory and reduces their chances of retaining and comprehending more relevant information. There are numerous studies indicating that the arousal theory is invalid when it comes to stimulating learning.
By weeding out extraneous information, learners can be directed toward relevant information and can benefit from a lighter cognitive load. The efforts of their limited working memory can be utilized fully toward the instructional goal at hand.
But that sounds so boring!
Perhaps. But I would argue that although it’s more challenging, finding ways to connect lesson content to relevant examples or real world associations, can be just as stimulating as cosmetic bling – with the added element of deepening understanding of the topic at hand.
How about a couple of examples?
Until moving to my new home in Malta a couple of weeks ago, I had never had to clean a swimming pool before. The following image, taken from an article entitled "How to Clean Your Own Pool" on wikiHow, exemplifies a graphic which does not adhere to the coherence principle:
The picture above was used to describe step 2 of cleaning a pool:
"First, once you discover that your pool water moved all swampy and also green you should not try and use a pool vac without delay especially if you can't see the bottom of the pool any longer or if you find that plenty of large items of debris have dropped in to the water. Getting your own automatic pool cleaner right into a chaos such as this might damage your filtration system plus your pump."
Grammatical errors and linguistic acrobatics aside, the picture does nothing to reinforce the message implied by wikiHow's instructions. I can only assume that this picture indicates that I should clean the pool by hand instead of with a vacuum. This image violates the coherence principle as it is primarily decorative and does nothing to support, deepen or direct knowledge. If anything, it confuses the learner as to what exactly it is depicting. In addition, although due sympathy should be given to the author of the text (who I hope is a non-native speaker), the description is not at all concise. The learner is left to piece together the linguistic and visual information in order to decipher what exactly is meant by "Step Two."
To see the entire article from wikiHow, click HERE.
The next example (also taken from wikiHow), depicts an image which is consistent with the coherence principle:
The image is simple, focused and clearly depicts the action that is necessary. In addition, it also demonstrates the contiguity principle, linking the text and visual in close proximity.
To see the entire article from wikiHow, click HERE.
But wait a minute...
In general, I agree with the coherence principle, but an interesting point was made by B.E. Wiggins (2013). His study indicated that learners in different control groups were neither positively nor negatively affected by extraneous background music, which was inconsistent with expectations based on the coherence principle. He attributed this inconsistency to the fact that the learners in his experiment reported very high motivational and interest levels in the lesson material provided. He concluded that high interest may negate the potential that extraneous information has in distracting the learner from the relevant information provided.
One could argue that, regardless of the findings, the fact remains that extraneous information does not appear to benefit the learner and is therefore unnecessary. I would agree with this. However, I think the conclusion that Wiggins comes to highlights an important point about the way in which the coherence principle is presented. Clark and Mayer (2011) portray the coherence principle as mainly an avoidance of both extraneous material and seductive details as well as the general illegitimacy of the arousal theory. Perhaps the emphasis should instead be placed on the inclusion of arousing, seductive details that are coherent with overall instructional goals in order to create a motivated environment in which distraction has little power.
Resources
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Fransisco, CA : Pfeiffer.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 611-623.
Wiggins, B. E. (2013). Flexible coherence: Re-thinking e-learning design principles for linguistically and culturally diverse students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(1), 30-49.