The Metiri Group’s presentation of data on multimodal learning enriches our understanding of the topic and its implications for students and teachers’ curriculum design. While the effectiveness of multimodal learning varies with respect to the objective in mind, learning that incorporates a thoughtful combination of visuals and text as opposed to the traditional unimodal approach (reading or lecture) reflects an improvement. The misinterpreted “Cone of Learning” suggests to us that reading and hearing comprise only a small part of the learning experience, and place an emphasis on interactive experiences. Indeed, this Cone has been perpetuated to the point that it would seem that reading (unimodal), for example, holds no value. The Metiri Group asks the reader to reconsider what we have recently taken for granted, and instead develop a comprehensive understanding of multimodal learning—the goal being optimal teaching and curriculum design.
As the article notes, multimodal learning should be correctly implemented to achieve high results. Basic skill building, for example, is often best learned through reading and drill/practice. With exercises that ask the student to explore relationships, on the other hand, a more interactive, multimodal design might be best. Teachers must also be aware that successful implementation of multimodal design impacts students’ learning, as does student interest. A multimodal approach that is too overwhelming and requires the student to multitask too much will have an adverse effect and will detract from learning. Furthermore, the best learning incorporates prior knowledge that can be built upon in a meaningful way. Basically, teachers’ strategies should provide the proper scaffolding (assistance to students to be successful with something previously beyond their reach)—nothing more and nothing less—for their students to succeed.
In order to successfully utilize multiple modes, teachers can benefit greatly from the Metriri Group’s findings. To revisit basic skills teaching, multimodal learning is beneficial when it incorporates non-interactive modes, like texts with visuals and texts with audio; a 21% increase in learning is reflected here. When that learning tacks on interactivities—such as modeling, real-world experience, and working in teams—the increase in learning is only improved by 9%. This is obviously an improvement to single-mode learning, but if a teacher wanted to optimize efficacy, he/she should be aware of this distinction. I suppose it makes sense. When one is learning basic skills, too much activity and socializing are probably distracting—at least they will be to certain students (hence the lesser improvement).
With respect to higher-order thinking, a teacher had best learn to implement multi-modal, interactive learning: the increase is a remarkable 32% as compared to single-mode non-interactive learning. Even when higher-order learning involves only multi-modes, its impact is impressive: 20% increase. With this in mind, it is crucial for the modern teacher to build upon traditional, uni-modal approaches. If they do not, their students will clearly be deficient as compared to those students whose teachers took the effort to include various forms of learning. At the same time, it is important that we do not get carried away with the benefits of what technology provides. We cannot hope to optimize our students’ knowledge of the principles of the times table or the various parts of a sentence if we are not abreast of what works best for each objective. One thing is certain: unimodal learning should not be practiced in our classrooms if we really want the best for our pupils.
I'd heard "the myth" of what we remember when we read/hear/see/etc. a few times in my life. In fact, I think I remember seeing it on a power point in a class we took over the summer. When I thought about this myth, being someone who doesn't always think critically about what I'm told, I briefly considered these percentages and, though obviously a ballpark estimate, they sounded reasonable to me. So after reading through the first part of this paper on multimodal learning through media, I was very interested in reading where this myth came from. Now, when I really think about what this cone means, I'm kind of embarrassed I accepted it as somewhat factual in the past. Its been emphasized in many of our grad courses that every learner has a unique style of learning. How, then, would this Cone be an accurate reflection of what all learners retain? This helped me remember the importance of educating individuals instead of a class, as each of our students will have different needs and abilities.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, I think it is important to teach through a variety of channels and use multiple approaches to a concept. Thank you, Caitlin, for succinctly talking about how to successfully utilize multiple modes. I found that section of your post particularly helpful! By using these different modes, students will be exposed to many ways of understanding the lesson, helping them grasp the concept better.
As a teacher, it’s hard to know what will be the best approach to teach your students. Especially at the beginning of the year! How will you all envision yourselves figuring this out during your first year teaching? I suppose it is a lot of "experimenting" and using your good sense to get students excited about learning and interested in the subjects. I think the things we've been learning in technology will be a great way to grab students' attention and really help them be excited to learn each day.
I do remember seeing those statistics as well over the summer. I never really completely bought into it and I'm glad to find that research doesn't back it up. As you said, Jennifer, it has been emphasized a number of times that all students will have different ways of learning and its difficult to be able to know these right off the bat. I think the most important thing I've gotten from this article and our responses is that we don't want to bombard the students with information. Interactive learning is good so long as it's used wisely throughout. I agree that the technology we have been learning about is a great way to grab students' attention, but we have to make sure we don't make that technology so exciting to them that they forget to learn the information and focus on the technology instead. Teaching through text-and-visual, I believe would be a good way to begin the school year and then using that to judge my students' learning would probably be the approach I originally use. As well, keeping on top of the many technological advances and slowly incorporating them into lessons (experimenting with them as you said) would go a long way in helping to figure out how to best approach your students at the beginning of each year. But that's just my thought.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very thought provoking. It raised some questions that I had not thought previously about. Obviously, we have an abundance of available data on the World Wide Web these days that we can access in mere seconds. How are we supposed to know if the data we find on the Internet comes from a reliable source? Primary sources are always a good start. Wikepedia cannot even be trusted these days. “Bogus data” seems to be an issue today that educators and students face in schools. Research Methods professors emphasize the importance of obtaining accurate and reliable data. Occasionally, we find web pages where generalizations are made with no substantial evidence. Edgar Dale’s visual representation is an example of this falsehood.
ReplyDeleteAs a result of this article, I realized how important it is to differentiate our curriculum. Differentiate instruction is one of the most important facets of teaching, so that we may help our students according to the situation and according to them as learners. As teachers, we should help our students develop schemas that aid them in building knowledge. We must be aware of our students’ verbal/text channels and visual/spatial channels. In doing so, we are providing students with various approaches to tackle complex issues. I know a lot of us will use multimedia learning in our classrooms. We must not forget, however, that traditional learning and teaching has an important place too.
I found this section of the article to be most helpful in my studies:
How People Learn
(An abbreviate view)
1) Engage students in the learning process
2) Expertise is developed through a deep understanding
3) “Think about one’s own thinking”
I believe these three points summarize the main idea of what teachers should be cognizant of when developing their curriculum, assessment, and lesson plans. Additionally, one should always remember: visuals do matter, especially in a teaching context!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am definitely on the same page as Jennifer about the Cone of learning. I remember being taught the cone theory over the summer and buying into it. Perhaps with everything we've learned about a constructivist approach to teaching, it seemed to make sense at the time! After reconsidering it, however, I can see where it fails to capture truly how we learn. After all, reading and less "interactive" methods certainly have merit when they are utilized strategically in the appropriate context. As the author points out, the role of the teacher, then, is to "understand that the optimum design depends on the content, context, and the learner" (8).
ReplyDeleteThe Redundancy principle was perhaps the most surprising idea presented in the article: "students learn better when information is NOT represented in more than one modality – redundancy interferes with learning" (13). This contradicted what I thought to be true about learning, especially in light of differentiation strategies for multiple intelligences. The author's point became clearer to me as I read Caitlin's helpful overview. As she point out, multimodal learning is effective only when it is not distracting! This reminds me of our discussion of effective and ineffective powerpoint presentations in class a few weeks ago. Through my own experiences subjected to poorly constructed powerpoints and other instructional methods, I can definitely appreciate the author's point about unnecessary visuals as distracting.
Overall, this article reinforces what we've discussed here and in other classes -- that is, designing curriculum should be strategic and purposeful. Avoid adding excessive bells and whistles only to grab students' attention (likely, you'll only lose it!) Rather, make learning meaningful and relevant, and your students will listen and learn.
As for the cone of learning, in general I would agree with it (not with the percentages, but with the hierarchy). I guess this goes with what was said over the summer, that after a myth becomes engrained it's difficult to change your beliefs, even after you learn the truth. I feel like I don't remember that much of what I read because most of the time when I'm reading, I'm not reading to remember, same with seeing, or the combination. Obviously, if I am reading something very striking, or looking at something very striking, I'll remember it better. The reason why teaching to someone would be the widest at the bottom, is because in order to teach it to someone else I would have had to, see, hear, read etc in order to know that material already.
ReplyDeleteI'm probably just stuck in my old ways.
This article was an interesting read nonetheless.I would agree with Megan that the redundancy principle. I guess I would find it annoying if someone tried to teach me the same thing I already learned, but using different words. But if I did not understand the first time, it would be nice to do it again in a different way. Not all students learn the same ways, so it seems the teacher should use more than one modality, if only to reach out to more students(?) Maybe, instead of teaching the entire class again, wait until the gifted students are pulled out or do it during small group instruction so not everyone will get it all again.
These articles are really making me think about what to do in classrooms. As are the readings from all of my classes. The first year is going to be difficult because I will be trying to incorporate so much of the stuff we are learning about that it might end up a little overkill. The students in my cooperating teacher still seem to be learning and having fun, even though her classroom is not constructivist and (I'm pretty sure) she does not actively think about multimodal learning. I think after getting experience as with student teaching, including everything will become more natural and a lot less forced.
Great summary of the key points in the article, Caitlin! You all chimed in with insightful points, including connections with other theories and ideas from your other courses.
ReplyDeleteJennifer, I think you said it well when you said, "This helped me remember the importance of educating individuals instead of a class, as each of our students will have different needs and abilities." This is both the most important and challenging realization about teaching, in my opinion.
I like the point you made, Erin, about being measured in terms of technology use to make sure that the emphasis is on the learning rather than on the technology itself.
As far as the redundancy principle, I think the key is that presenting info in multiple ways that interfere with one another is the real problem (i.e. lots of text on PowerPoint slides with a lecture). With complementary modes (e.g. a visual with a discussion), learning is generally improved.
I know this is all a lot to take in. This is why we emphasize "reflective practice" in the SOE. It's really in your student teaching and your first years of teaching that you'll really learn what works best for you and your students. As several of you mentioned, it's often a moving target. It's always helpful, though, to have some criteria to help you make your initial decisions. From there, you will each develop your own style and approach.