Advertisement

Words

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology book series (BRIEFSECT)

Abstract

The usage of text within a learning environment provides the designer with some unique challenges and possibilities. For all the discussion about using and developing multimedia for the Internet, the primary means of communicating ideas is text. Text can be the most useful yet the most restricted. Its utility derives from its direct communication of ideas. That is, while one picture can be worth a 1000 words, that picture can be interpreted differently by different users. A text message allows specific ideas to be sent concisely. It is restricted since unlike images, animations, or sounds, there are only a few means to manipulate it and in turn the meaning that it is trying to convey. The attributes of text that can be manipulated are boldness, italicizing, size, color, font size, font type, line spacing, underlining, and contrast. Special code within a website can allow additional text features such as blinking. Text can create numerous challenges. If a window is minimized, the scrolling ability can be compromised. Blocks of text can have long unbroken passages and the font used may not be of the proper size or format. Also, is text contained within tables readable? Is the usage of text color appropriate? While blinking text is useful in providing warnings, the overusage of them can be irritating and distracting (Davidson-Shivers and Rasmussen, Web-based learning: design, implementation, and evaluation, 2nd ed., Springer, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2018).

Keywords

Message design Modality 

References

  1. Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. (1997). Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Barron, A., & Atkins, D. (1994). Audio instruction in multimedia education: Is textual redundancy important? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(3/4), 295–306.Google Scholar
  6. Barron, A., & Kysilka, M. L. (1993). The effectiveness of digital audio in computer-based training. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 277–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blake, T. (1977). Motion in instructional media: Some subject-display mode interactions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44(3), 975–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler, P. A., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Childress, M. D. (1995). Effects of three multimedia instructional presentation formats containing animation and narration on recall and problem solving performance (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3430.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson-Shivers, A. G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2018). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elison-Bowers, P., & Snelson, C. (2007). Micro-level design for multimedia enhanced online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 383–394.Google Scholar
  14. Guan, Y. (2003). Is dual-modality presentation really beneficial? In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2003 (pp. 2650–2653). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  15. Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1989). Understanding machines from text and diagrams. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 171–194). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning. Learning and Individual Differences, 9(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeung, H. J., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences: Learning & Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Koroghlanian, C. M., & Sullivan, H. J. (2000). Audio and text density in computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.2190/5QVQ-3XXQ-X1JC-T2F2
  22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein, J., & Koroghlanian, C. (2004). The effect of audio and animation in multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 23–46.Google Scholar
  24. Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lohr, L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E. (1994). Visual aids to knowledge construction: Building mental representations from pictures and words. In W. Schnotz & R. W. Kulhavy (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 125–138). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 12–20.Google Scholar
  38. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Richey, R. C. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London, UK/New York, NY: Kogan Page/Nichols Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definitions and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Seyed, Y., Lowe, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of Cognitive Load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257–287.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationWalden UniversityNorth ChelmsfordUSA

Personalised recommendations