Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 320|Likes:
Published by Muhd Sayuty

More info:

Published by: Muhd Sayuty on Oct 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Pedagogic design guidelines for multimediamaterials: a mismatch between intuitivepractitioners and experimental researchers
Educational Media Production TrainingJack Koumi[jack.koumi@btinternet.com]
This paper argues that pedagogic efficacy for multimedia packages cannot beachieved by experimental or by summative research in the absence of acomprehensive
 pedagogical screenwriting
framework. Following a summary of relevant literature, such a framework is offered, consisting of micro-level design anddevelopment guidelines. These guidelines concentrate on achieving pedagogicsynergy between audio commentary and visual elements. The framework isgrounded in the author's experience of producing multimedia packages at the UKOpen University.
This paper offers micro-level design guidelines for pedagogic harmony betweensound and images in multimedia packages. These guidelines are compared withdesign recommendations in the research literature. It is argued that suchrecommendations have minimal value for practitioners because they address themacro-level. To be of practical use, the research needs to derive from micro-leveldesign principles that are tacitly employed by practitioners.Van Merriënboer (2001) notes that little is known about the optimal combination of audio or speech, screen texts, and illustrations in pictures or video.In fact, some substantial papers do exist, written by educational technologists suchas Laurillard and Taylor at the UK Open University. These address several detaileddesign techniques, which appear below, but mainly they discuss over-arching,macro-level questions, such as how learners might cope without a fixed linearnarrative (Laurillard, 1998;Laurillard et al, 2000) and an
analytical framework for describing multimedia learning systems
(Taylor, Sumner and Law, 1997).However, for the practitioner who is trying to design a pedagogically effectivepackage, the literature is of little help. There appears to be no published
framework of micro-level design principles for optimal integration of 
visuals and audio. This is despite the many investigations into the use of audiocommentary in multimedia presentations. Some of these investigations aresummarised below, exemplifying the mixed results in the comparison of screen textwith audio commentary.Following this summary, the major part of this paper presents a framework of designguidelines for multimedia packages. These guidelines are in the form of practicable,micro-level pedagogic design principles, such as
there are occasions when the audio commentary should come first, in order toprepare the viewer for the pictures, such as,
In the next animation,concentrate on the arms of the spinning skater <ANIMATION STARTS WITH SKATER'S ARMS HELD WIDE, THEN PULLED IN>
 The framework has been compiled from the practices of designers of multimediapackages at the UK Open University. It incorporates an abundance of 
 practitioners' knowledge
regarding pedagogic design of audio commentary and graphic build-up.The width and depth of the framework offers a substantial basis for futureinvestigations – a set of design guidelines that can generate fruitful hypotheses.
Makalah ini menawarkan pedoman desain mikro-level untuk harmonipedagogik antara suara dan gambar dalam pakej multimedia. Kod iniberbanding dengan cadangan rekabentuk dalam sastera kajian. Dikatakanbahawa cadangan tersebut mempunyai nilai minimum untuk pengamalkerana mereka alamat peringkat makro. Untuk kegunaan praktikal, kajianini perlu berasal dari prinsip-prinsip desain peringkat mikro yang digunakanoleh pengamal secara diam-diam.Van Merriënboer (2001) mencatatkan bahawa sedikit yang diketahuitentang kombinasi optimum audio atau pidato, teks paparan, dan ilustrasidalam gambar atau video.Bahkan, beberapa kertas substansial memang ada, ditulis oleh teknologipendidikan seperti Laurillard dan Taylor di Inggeris Universiti Terbuka. Inialamat beberapa teknik desain yang terperinci, yang muncul di bawah,tetapi terutama mereka membincangkan selama-lengkung, kadar makro-soalan, seperti bagaimana peserta didik dapat menyelesaikan tanpa narasilinear tetap (Laurillard, 1998; Laurillard et al, 2000) dan sebuah rangkakerja analitis untuk menggambarkan sistem pembelajaran multimedia(Taylor, Sumner dan Hukum, 1997).Namun, bagi para pengamal yang sedang cuba untuk merancang pakejpedagogis berkesan, kesusasteraan membantu. Tampaknya tidak adaditerbitkan rangka menyeluruh tentang prinsip-prinsip desain mikro-leveluntuk integrasi optimum dari visual dan audio. Hal ini walaupun banyakpenyelidikan dalam penggunaan ulasan audio di multimedia persembahan.Beberapa penyelidikan dirangkum di bawah ini, mencontohkan keputusandicampur dengan perbandingan teks paparan dengan ulasan audio.Berikut ringkasan ini, bahagian utama dari makalah ini menyajikan suaturangka pedoman desain untuk pakej-pakej multimedia. Kod ini dalambentuk praktikal, desain peringkat mikro-prinsip pedagogik, seperti• ada kesempatan ketika komentar audio harus didahulukan, untukmempersiapkan penonton untuk gambar, seperti, Dalam animasiberikutnya, menumpukan pada lengan skater <berputar Animasi BERAWALDENGAN skater'S ARMS Dimiliki LEBAR, MAKA memarkir DI >
Rangka kerja yang telah disusun dari amalan pakej multimedia desainer diInggeris Universiti Terbuka. Ini termasuk kelimpahan pengetahuanpengamal tentang desain pedagogik dari komentar audio dan grafikmembina-up. Lebar dan kedalaman menawarkan rangka asas yang cukupbesar bagi penyelidikan masa depan - seperangkat pedoman desain yangdapat menghasilkan hipotesis berbuah.
The literature relating visuals and audio commentary
Tabbers, Martens and Van Merriënboer (2001) report several recent studies byMoreno, Mayer, and others, in which multimedia presentations consisted of pictorialinformation and explanatory text. Many of these studies demonstrated thesuperiority of audio text (spoken commentary) over visual, on-screen text. Invarious experiments learners in the audio condition spent less time in subsequentproblem solving, attained higher test scores and reported less mental effort. Theinvestigators attributed these results to the
modality effect.
This presupposes
dual coding
, whereby auditory and visual inputs can be processed simultaneously in
working memory 
, thereby leaving extra capacity for the learning process.In their own study, Tabbers et al (ibid) presented diagrams plus audio commentaryto one group, but to a second group they replaced the audio commentary withidentical visual text, on screen for the same duration. They found that the audiogroup achieved higher learning scores. However, when two other groups spent asmuch time as they liked on the same materials, the superiority of the audio conditiondisappeared. The authors conclude that the purported modality effect of earlierstudies might be accounted for in terms of lack of time rather than lack of memoryresources. (Mind you, the students in the visual text condition had to spend longeron task to achieve their comparable scores, so the audio condition could still claimsuperior efficiency)Others have found that addition of audio need not be beneficial to learning. Beccue,Vila and Whitley (2001) added an audio component to an existing multimediapackage. The audio was a conversational version of a printed lab manual that collegestudents could read in advance. The improvement in learning scores was notstatistically significant. Many students suggested that the audio imposed a slowerpace than they were used to. The authors theorized that the pace set by the audiomight be helpful for slow learners and detrimental to fast learnersKalyuga (2000) observed a similar effect, finding that
performed better witha diagram plus audio than with a diagram-only format. However, the reverse wasfound for
experienced learners
.In another experiment, Kalyuga (ibid) found that audio commentary did indeedresult in better learning, but only when the identical visual text was absent.Specifically, a diagram was explained in three different ways: visual text, audio text,visual text presented simultaneously with identical audio text. The visual-plus-audiogroup achieved much lower scores than the audio-only.

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Atikah Adam Putra added this note
dh dapat dh....
Marzita Mokhtar liked this
Adhistia Amelia liked this
harnojason liked this
rahmiati khamalt liked this
Akmal Mundiri liked this
nor_kamarudin_2 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->