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.
