Module 8: Teaching (Part 2)
(Developing Instructional Materials)
Design Tools
Camtasia Studio 4
Typical fancy-ware with lots of gadgets and gidgets, buttons and options, toolbars and extras. Apparently, as you will find out below if you read it, these are the last serious competitors to Adobe's Captivate software. This might only be the case because they had first movers advantage over RoboDemo (I think), which was the original name of Captivate before Adobe bought it and rebranded it.
Here is the Captivate version of the CSS tutorial intro (flash video formatted, w/file size: just over 11 megabytes)
RenderSoft Camstudio 2.0
Here is version 1 (much smaller) of the Camstudio version of the same tutorial (in DivX format, w/file size just over 6 megabytes)
Here is version 2 (much BIGGER) of the Camstudio version of the same tutorial (in MS Video 1, AVI format, w/file size just over 36 megabytes)
Up until VERY recently, Camstudio was freely available at http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rendersoftware.com/products/camstudio/ for FREE, but now (as of Dec. 10th, 2007) redirecting to Adobe's site (presumably, for financial reasons). Apparently, Adobe didn't like someone giving software away for FREE, what they charge millions of users a large sum of money for.
You might be able to legally get this software somewhere on the internet right now. However, the original site has removed it (probably bought out by Adobe) and even their archived pages have been removed from the Internet Archive where versions of the product page for Camstudio previously did exist, but have apparently been removed, as the below screencap shows (from http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rendersoftware.com/products/camstudio/)
I obviously have a legal copy of this software, and here is what the license reads when you install it:
-----------// BEGIN USER LICENSE AGREEMENT //----------------
Unless otherwise specified, RenderSoft Software and Web Publishing owns all title to this software and its copyright, which are protected by international copyright law.
This product is FREEWARE and you are free to duplicate and distribute this software through the internet or any preferred media.
The AVI and SWF files created with CamStudio may be used for any purposes, including commercial purposes. You may sell your recorded AVI/SWF files or charge users for products that include them.
RenderSoft Software and Web Publishing specifically disclaims ALL warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infingement with respect to this software, its source code and any accompanying written materials.
IN NO EVENT will RenderSoft Software and Web Publishing be liable to you for damages, including any loss of profits, data, or other incidental or consequential damages arising out of your use or inability to use this software, even if RenderSoft Software and Web Publishing has been specifically advised on the possiblility of such damages.
By agreeing below, you indicate that you have read and understood the above licensing aggreement, and accept it as legally binding upon you.
If you choose not to accept any of the terms of this licensing agreement, please click the 'Exit' button now.
-----------// END OF USER LICENSE AGREEMENT //----------------
~back to top~
Cognitive Load Theory
Note that the Article by Ruth Clark can be found at:
..but can also be found at 2 other locations:
- http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/091002DES-H.pdf
- http://www.clarktraining.com/content/articles/Guild_E-Learning.pdf
Basic Principles
The below 3 images are from Clark (2005)
Design Guidelines
The below table of guidelines and strategies are from Edutech Wiki at http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Cognitive_load:
According to Rebetez (2006:12-13) Sweller, based on his cognitive load theory, describes a series of effects and guidelines to create learning materials:
- Goal free effect: novice learners with a specific learning goal (like a precise question to answer) focus on the goal and pay no attention to other information. This is detrimental to learning.
- Worked examples effect: using known and resolved examples diminish cognitive load and improves comprehension.
- Problem completion effect: the worked out example should be followed by a similar but unresolved problem to maximize motivation.
- Modality effect: two messages on similar elements should be provided through different sensory modalities. Research suggest that more memory capacity is available when dual modalities were used, however it may lead to a split-attention effect and excessive animated multimedia may lead to a general overload.
- Split-attention effect: occurs when learners have to process and integrate multiple and separated sources of information. For instance, a geometrical sketch is better understood when textual information is spatially integrated rather than separated . This effect is very similar to Mayer spatial and temporal contiguity principles
- Redundancy effect: when the same information is presented more than once the multiple processing is negative for comprehension since it increases external cognitive load. If novices can benefit from partially redundant information (integrated text and picture for example), expert's performances can be impaired . These six first effects try to minimize extraneous cognitive load (to reduce the number of cognitive processes involved that are unnecessary for learning).
- Element interactivity effect: interactivity with the material increases negative effects such as split-attention and redundancy effects.
- Isolated interacting elements effect: with complex models containing multiple interacting elements it is advisable to begin with presenting every element separately.
- Imagination effect: mentally simulating the functioning and interaction of elements allow experts to obtain better results.
- Expertise reversal effect: with experts, several effects are inversed. In this case, classical design rules are advisable instead of those based on cognitive load.
- Guidance fading effect: as expertise is obtained, learners should be less guided in their exercises.
Other Strategies to Diminish Cognitive Load
* Computer-supported authoring tool could scaffold and facilitate cognitive processes by alleviating the cognitive load.
* In collaboration the persons can share cognitive load by dividing it up into smaller portions. Each of them will be mainly treated by one of the persons.
* Appropriate selection of processing strategies can diminish cognitive load.
On the other hand, the difficulty with metacognitive processes is that they enter into competition with lower cognitive process for resources (especially working memory). Metacognition involves an increased cognitive load. Supporting cognitive and metacognitive processes with tools may benefit the metacognitive layer (which often comes after other attention mechanisms).
These strategies go somewhat beyound the debate on cognitive load in the sense that some instructional design models do not try to minimize intrinsic and germane cognitive load. E.g. some project-oriented learning designs even require that learners are exposed to authentic cognitive load situations and that they learn how to handle this by acquiring appropriate learning strategies. This being said, a designer always should take into account cognitive load and make sure that it is not unnecessarily high. |
The above table of guidelines and strategies are from Edutech Wiki at http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Cognitive_load
Note that many of the above are strikingly similar to those of Mayer's (2001) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML).
Application within my Tutorials
As discussed in my own article on Cognitive Load Theory, the Expertise Reversal Effect, and Chunking (Richardson, 2007, see here) I attempted to capitalize on the natural progression of students from novice toward expertise in the domain under study.
Where as the first two units of instruction were reserved in my course outline (teaching part 1, Unit 7) for the most basic and simple tasks of becoming more and more familiar with the interface and environments students would be working in for the rest of the course, this was not the case for unit 3.
In unit 3, I was able to capitalize on the idea that students were very familiar by this stage with the browser and general actions being taken. The only new material really being incorporated into their schemas by this point in time was related to the small new steps performed with the same tools, in very subtle yet new ways and combinations of ways.
Although there was high intrinsic load at this point, because of high interactivity with the material and number of items on the page, there was still a very low level of germain load, since essentially, the only thing the users have to do while watching my videos, is to focus on the screen with their eyes, and listen to my voice. In fact, I was able to guide their attention toward the items of interest usign the mouse in both cases of software tool testing (in both the development of the tutorial with Camtasia, and with Camstudio).
Lastly, before actually diving into the conceptual or procedural material, I sequenced in a small demo of the EFFECTS of the programming code and a the associated website first. This way, there is even more time for students to mentally prepare and begin to focus before I begin to deliver new terminology, and walk them through the procedures to use it.
For those who have absolutely no prior expertise with programming HTML, or with creation of websites, there may be quite a high level of intrinsic load in my tutorials, even after the slow and laborious process of getting to the actual exercises where the examples are undertaken by the student. However, this is mitigated by the last and perhaps most useful mechanism of my tutorials --- LEARNER CONTROL.
By including the ability for students to download, and play the animated, narrated tutorials at a speed they are confortable, and to do so over and over, learners are empowered to fast forward, fast rewind, pause, stop, and play over and over any segement of video instruction at their own pace. My utlimate goal is to provide easy access to these videos by publishing them in numerous formats (particularly those popular with both Mac and PC users).
References
Clark, R. (2005). Efficiency in e-Learning: Proven instructional methods for faster, better online learning. The eLearning Guild
Edutech Wiki (2007) DB Entry on "Cognitive Load" Retrieved Dec. 8th, 2007 from http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Cognitive_load
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
Richardson, P. J. (2007) Chunking of e-Learning Content for Improved Cognitive Load. Draft of paper under construction.
~back to top~ |
