Coherence Analysis

Week 6 Coherence Analysis

Jenny Incelli

EDTECH 513: Multimedia

Diane Hall

July 19, 2014

A Brief Analysis of the Coherence Principle

In short, the Coherence Principle tells us that we learn best from multimedia when extraneous material is removed. In other words, “avoid adding any material that does not support the instructional goal” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 151). Designers of multimedia are therefore cautioned against adding content solely for interest or depth. All audio, graphics, and words should be chosen carefully and included only when they meet stringent criteria for coherence.

The Coherence Principle, like other Multimedia Learning Principles, is derived from our understanding of cognitive learning processes. Given that we have only two channels for taking in information, with limited processing power in each, learners will be most successful when these channels are optimally loaded. “The coherence principle is also based on the idea that learners are more likely to make appropriate connections between animations and narrations when they can hold corresponding visual and verbal representations in working memory at the same time” (Mayer, 1999, p. 620). In this way, concise, deliberate, and simple presentation of material allows for active learning and increased transfer of skills. Extraneous audio, graphics, and words do not promote active learning, as they may overload, distract, disrupt, and seduce learners away from the instructional goal (Clark & Mayer, 2008).

Anyone who has had a job in the last couple decades can probably remember some unsuccessful presentations. Learners may not be able to explain why a training was a failure, or boring, or confusing… but we all know it when we see it. And we’ve all been forced to sit through PowerPoint meetings that seemed to sloooooowwww theeeee paaaaaaace of tiiiiiiiime.

Because this paper will be posted online, I hesitate to provide too many details, but I can definitely say that I’ve seen an incoherent slide presentation or two. Generally, there are just too many details. This is a failure to apply the Coherence Principle. Presentations with endless data sets and bullet points tend to influence audience in one of two ways: they may become disengaged and unfocused, or completely overwhelmed and frustrated. To avoid this, designers and facilitators of multimedia should directly tell the audience what they should know or be able to do as a result of the presentation, and they should stick to only that content. Elaboration and overly-technical depth do not belong in PowerPoint presentations. Nor should a designer feel the need to “jazz up” a PowerPoint by using every available animation and transition effect!

For an example of a presentation that successfully applied the Coherence Principle, I immediately thought of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. I saw this presentation in Boise, Idaho, in 2007, and I was blown away by how a slideshow with narration could be so informative and engaging. In addition to being a fine example of other Multimedia Principles (including Contiguity, Modality, and Redundancy), “An Inconvenient Truth” was extremely efficient in its use of time, and very focused on the content that would support the instructional goals. I cannot recall any extraneous words, images, or audio. As a result, it was very easy for me to follow the presentation, and the main points have stayed in my long-term memory.

In examining successful and unsuccessful examples of multimedia, it is useful to see how this fits in with fundamental theories of psychology. Clark and Mayer state that the cognitive theory of multimedia learning predicts the Coherence Principle (2008, p. 157). They also go on to explain and dismiss the arousal theory, which is “the idea that students learn better when they are emotionally aroused” (2008, p. 160). Clark and Mayer cannot find any evidence that the arousal theory is true or that it applies to multimedia learning, and recommend instead that we simply focus on ensuring that the learner gets satisfaction from making sense of the presented material. “Interest cannot be added to an otherwise boring lesson like some kind of seasoning” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 161).

The Coherence Principle shares several traits with other Multimedia Learning Principles. They all have consistent scientific evidence to support their hypotheses (Clark & Mayer, 2008; Mayer, 1999; Moreno & Mayer, 2000). They all stem from the concept that a learner has limited cognitive processing (in the dual channels of “images” and “sounds”). The Multimedia Principles acknowledge cognitive limitations while highlighting ways to take advantage of actual processing. In the end, most Multimedia Principles can be summed up with the “less is more” adage. We are repeatedly cautioned to design multimedia materials that are focused, simple, and in line with how we are proven to learn.

To me, the Coherence Principle makes a lot of sense. I think that experts, when designing instruction or multimedia materials, tend to include a lot of extras. As a teacher, I can understand how easy it is to want to pack in more content, or to make the content seem more appealing with extraneous details. But as a student, I can see that these extras simply detract from the learning purpose.

I was disappointed to read the evidence against listening to music while learning or studying, because I have often done this to “stay focused”. But through my disappointment, I also wasn’t surprised; I don’t have any personal evidence that music helps me be any more efficient or attentive when studying. I just do it because I like it. I may reconsider in the future, given that music is shown to distract and overload the cognitive process.

My only lingering concern about the Coherence Principle (and other principles that we have studied) is that the scientific evidence presented as support often comes from shortened learning experiences, delivered in a laboratory setting. I would be interested to see similar studies carried out, but over a longer timespan, and in a variety of face-to-face, online, and blended classrooms. I would also like to see more research or consideration of how these multimedia principles apply in face-to-face lessons. When teachers use multimedia in their instruction but also play a large role in the delivery, how do these principles hold up? I suspect that the transfer is fairly consistent, but I have noticed that Clark and Mayer usually refer to “e-lessons” rather than, simply, “lessons”.

In conclusion, the Coherence Principle is yet another sound piece of advice from Clark and Mayer. I am certain that designers and consumers of multimedia instruction would be well-served to follow this principle. It seems obvious to me now that when extraneous audio, graphics, and words are removed, the instructional goal can more easily be achieved.

References

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 611-623.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 2004-07. Retrieved July 14, 2014 from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2000/2/05/index.asp