Johnson, C. & Priest, H. A. (2014). The feedback principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.

Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 449-463). New
York: Cambridge.

In chapter 19, the authors discuss giving feedback as it relates to multimedia learnings. There
are two different types of feedback that one can give: explanatory feedback and corrective
feedback. Explanatory feedback is when an explanation is given as to why the answer was
correct or incorrect. Corrective feedback is simply giving a correct or incorrect with no offer of
explanation. Explanatory is the more beneficial of the two feedbacks because it gives the learner
a chance to identify the mistake and correct the learning that was involved in making the
mistake. This helps the learner make the lesson concrete and allows for a greater chance of
transfer to the next learning task.
While I knew that explanatory feedback was the most productive and beneficial to learners, this
chapter does a good job of explaining just why it is. The research backing up the principle gives
meat to the argument. However, too often teachers, me included, give corrective feedback
instead of explanatory feedback. I feel this has a lot of do with the demand on our time. But, if
we (teachers) would just take a few more seconds on each student it would potentially save us
lots more time in the long run.
This chapter is well-written and easy to follow. However, I do not know how novel the
information presented is. It seems, to me at least, that solely providing corrective feedback
would serve no purpose in helping to grow knowledge.

Scheiter, K. (2014). The learner control principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 487-512). New York: Cambridge

In Chapter 21, the author discusses the learner control principle which implies that, when given
control over their own learning, learners will be able to successfully pace themselves, correctly
sequence, and choose aids that will aid their learning. The downside to this school of thinking is
that the learner, to successfully control his learning, must has sufficient prior knowledge from
which to call upon. Without this prior knowledge base, the learner control principle is practically
unusable. It is this prior knowledge that allows the learner to choose the correct aids and make
good choices involving the learning that must take place.
This principle, to me, does not make much sense unless it is employed in higher education
settings, not going lower than high school. Elementary learners, like the ones I teach, do not
have sufficient prior knowledge to successfully employ this principle. However, the idea of this
principle is basically what college age learners, and adult learners in general, tend to do when
learning.
While interesting, I did not find this chapter to be of much use to me in regards to employment in
my classroom. However, I think I can modify the basis of this principle for use in my classroom
with my younger learners.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2005). Role of Guidance, Reflection, and Interactivity in an AgentBased Multimedia Game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117-128.

The basis of this article surrounds the role of feedback and reflection as it relates to college
learners when learning creating a plant using an interactive multimedia game. Three
experiments were done. In the first experiment, participants were given feedback that was both
explanatory and corrective, or either just corrective alone. It was found that the learners who
received both explanatory and corrective feedback displayed better retention and transfer ability
when given both types of feedback simultaneously. However, it was found then when asked to
reflect upon the learning, there was not a noticeable difference between the two groups.
Experiment 2 was performed to test the hypothesis created from experiment 1, that adding
reflection to a lesson does not significantly increase the retention rate. The finding from
experiment 2 contradict this thought, finding that those who had reflection only fared better than
those who received reflection and interactivity. Experiment 3 was done to test the relationship
between the two and the results were the same as in experiment 2.
Some findings from the experiments were surprising. At first glance, I thought that both
reflection and interactivity would absolutely increase the learning and transfer. However, it was
found that this was not the case. It is interesting to consider the findings of the studies discussed
in this article. They seem counterintuitive to what a person would think.
This article was a great read and, once I could cipher through the data, I found it extremely
interesting. I never would have thought that reflection alone, without the addition of interactivity,
would outperform those who had both together. I will definitely have to consider this when
planning for my adult learners.

Kalyuga, S. (2007). Enhancing Instructional Efficiency of Interactive E-learning Environments:

A Cognitive Load Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387-399.

This article discusses ways in which E-learning environments can be created to better allow for
learning to happen and to decrease the amount cognitive load experienced by common types of
interactive learning environments. One way this can be done is by providing feedback and
guidance by supplying tips to the learner. Another would be to reduce the amount of dualchannel learning that must be done by the learner. This could be done by simply modifying the
way the material is presented, or even taking it out altogether. These things, along with several
others provided throughout the article, greatly decrease the amount of cognitive load placed on
the learner resulting in deeper learning and greater rates of retention and transfer.
I found myself getting slightly bogged down in the material provided in this article. However, it
was an easy read so I am not specifically sure why I was having difficulty. It may have been the
data or simply a lack of interest in the topic. Whichever it may be, I had hard time getting
through this and found myself having to reread the article several times.
This article, to me, was not very valuable in terms of research and application to my present
situation. However, with additional experience with E-learning environments, I may find this
information extremely useful and appealing.

Surjono, H. D. (2015). The Effects of Multimedia and Learning Style on Student Achievement in
Online Electronics Course. Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology - TOJET,
14(1), 116-122.

This article discusses the relationship between learning styles and multimedia applications and
the learning that takes place when they are matched to a learners preference. It was found that
when these two are matched to a learner, achievement, retention, and transfer are increased. If
these two are not matched then learning does not take place in as deep of a manner.
The findings of this article are exactly as I expected when I read the title. It only makes sense to
me that when a preferred learning style is paired with a preferred multimedia platform learning
would take place on a much deeper level. However, I found it interesting nonetheless. Before
reading this I had never given thought to what would happen if these two were matched, not-tomention the fact of how you would go about matching them in the first place.
I found this article to be very informative and entertaining. As I was reading I began thinking
about my e-learning experiences and how some were good and some were not so good. In the
best experiences, my learning style and my preferred multimedia platform were matched.