Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Response to Moreno and Mayer (1999), "Multimedia-Supported Metaphors for Meaning Making in Mathematics"
Moreno and Mayer explore a critical issue in educational technology. Schools are adopting a variety of computer programs for teaching and learning, including computer games and computer-mediated instruction (CMI). The software for this particular study illustrates several characteristics that allegedly distinguish good educational software. The software is marginally interactive, it includes game-like elements (e.g. moving the rabbit along the number line), and it records performance data for the teacher (or researchers). Some teachers (and many vendors) assume that software with a multiple-representation (MR) or "rich" multimedia design should foster faster or better learning than software with a single-representation design. Many teachers believe students learn math better when they can explore multiple representations of the same ideas. The MR version of the software in this study illustrates this "best practice."
Math teachers may be especially eager to use more software. Schools can find a large number and variety of programs for math instruction, relative to other disciplines. Learning math includes mastering many algorithmic routines, and practicing these routines requires significant individual effort. Educational software typically lets students learn and practice at their own pace, while demanding individual effort. Traditional math instruction involves learning through solving problems. But the traditional presentation of problems, either in a textbook or by the teacher, gives students very little guidance in solving them. In contrast, sophisticated software (e.g. the MR version of the software in this study) can guide students through the necessary steps. Ideally, this captures the advantages of individual attention (from the computer rather than the teacher) and solo exploration (by the student).
Unfortunately, more sophisticated software is more expensive and demands more expensive infrastructure (e.g. a sound card). Schools need to judge whether the extra expense is justified, and this study may help.
The study's design is generally appropriate in relation to the research question. Moreno and Mayer are very focused on whether MR multimedia offers significant advantages over single-representation (SR) multimedia. Appropriately, they use two versions of a program to teach the same skill. The MR version illustrates the elements that allegedly make MR superior to SR. They try to control every other variable, to draw clear comparisons between the SR and MR groups of participants. For example, both the SR and MR versions of the software include a bunny, which partially forecloses on criticisms of "impersonal" versus "friendly" CMI.
Moreno and Mayer have sophisticated theories about MR's advantages. They believe high ability in the studied skill, in memory, or in spatial skill will correlate with faster or better learning. They chose appropriate instruments to measure memory and spatial skills. Their measurement of high ability is somewhat circular, but makes sense when used to compare learning gains between high and low ability students.
The study's design isn't adequate to produce general conclusions about MR. Only one skill in one discipline is taught. MR may be especially powerful in this skill, but produce comparable or inferior learning in other skills or disciplines. Generalizability is poor, because students weren't randomly assigned to experimental conditions. Instead, they were assigned by class, which essentially reduces the units of study to n=2 for Experiment 1. The MR version of the software would seem to take longer, and certainly requires more keystrokes from the students. Since the students may have to spend more time on each problem, there could be practice or attention effects at work.
Moreno and Mayer say nothing of the students' prior experience or ability in MR multimedia. In particular, students who play games might learn better in MR because of the game-like aspect of moving the bunny on the number line. Again, since the students weren't randomly assigned, this possible confound isn't accounted for and may have skewed the results.
As discussed above, Moreno and Mayer chose appropriate instruments to probe their hypotheses about students learning with SR versus MR multimedia. They are meticulous in their discussion: they carefully and repetitively build a bridge from their methods and results to their conclusions. They neatly couple their beliefs about the effects of student differences (e.g. memory skill, spatial skill) with a call for careful design.
Moreno and Mayer directly challenge the cognitive-load argument against MR, and are somewhat successful. But because the study's design isn't adequate to produce general conclusions about MR, their broad statements about "direct instructional implications" (p. 245) aren't warranted. This is only a study about a single skill in a single discipline.
Finally, they apparently ignore a broader context necessary for considering multimedia in the classroom. Students are multimedia consumers outside of classes, and their general exposure to and use of multimedia seems a critical, absent consideration in this line of inquiry. Either this potential confound needs to be probed, or controlled for through random assignment of subjects. Ironically, Mayer and Moreno highlight the issue of "world knowledge" in math instruction (p. 216), but ignore the parallel issue in educational multimedia.
Created by Kym Buchanan | http://KymBuchanan.org | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.