Design Dilemma:
You have been working on a script for a narrated lesson. As a teacher, you are convinced that a more relaxed, less formal conversational style is the way to go. However, you need to get this approved by your instructional design team, one of whom is an English major and a stickler for “proper” English and grammar.
When you show him your script, he is aghast.
How might you respond?
Team,
While I understand the vernacular used in the script is not aligned with traditional learning standards, the decision was not made due to lack of knowledge of the standards. I am aware of the expectation of formal language, specifically the use of passive voice and direct instruction. According to Clark and Mayer, “This argument is based on an information delivery view of learning in which the instructor’s job is to present the information and the learner is to acquire the information” (2008, p. 184). There are cases in which this methodology is appropriate, such as employee orientation or when the goal of the session is to simply “build awareness or provide information” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 20) with “no specific expectation of new skills to be acquired” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 20). This type of instruction is classified as inform programs or briefings (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 20).
I would argue that the instructional goal of the proposed training includes aspects of perform programs. The students are expected to demonstrate some level of mastery of procedural knowledge through near transfer or strategic knowledge through far transfer (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 21). While learning is possible through a receptive manner, empirical knowledge supports higher levels of engagement when directive or guided discovery architectures are employed. “Learning is possible from any of these three architectures if learners engage in active knowledge construction” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 23). The cognitive learning theory suggests “Instruction should not only present information but also prime the appropriate cognitive processing in the learner,” aiding in their ability to “make sense of the presented material” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 184). According to the personalization principle, “expressing information in conversational style can be a way to prime appropriate cognitive processing in the learner,” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 184). Research suggests learners have the desire to work harder when lessons contain “social cues (such as conversational style)” as it “activates a sense of social presence in the learner” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 184). I am happy to provide you with significant data showing the application of the personalization principle resulted in substantially better performance on transfer tests, yielding effect sizes from .71 (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 187) to 1.55 (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 186).
In addition to the implementation of a conversational tone, research also suggests less experienced learners benefit from the use of polite instruction from on screen agents. The politeness theory postulates the use of friendlier instruction allows unsure learners to “save face,” “have some freedom of action” and “to work cooperatively with the agent” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 190). According to Clark and Mayer, “Students who had less experience in working with computers were more sensitive to the politeness tone of the on-screen agent’s feedback statements, so they were more offended by direct statements (such as ‘Click the Enter key’) and more impressed with polite statements (such as ‘Do you want to click the Enter key?’) (2008, p. 190). “There is evidence that student learning is not only influenced by what on-screen agents say but also how they say it” (Clark & Mayer, 2008, p. 190) with experiments yielding medium to large effect sizes.
In addition to the great benefits of the personalization principle, there are limitations which I have made every effort to avoid in the proposed instruction. The use of conversational speech is limited throughout the material to maintain an attitude of learning and to avoid becoming a distraction. In an effort to make the author visible, I have included some background about the instructor but have limited it to relevant information which supports the learning goal and promotes engagement. In compliance with the coherence principle, the on-screen agents have an distinct instructional role, human gestures, and natural voices which allow the learner to better identify with them as they demonstrate the desired behavior through modeling.
In summary, there is significant evidence showing that these minor modifications can drastically improve the effectiveness of the instruction. While I appreciate this is a major shift away from our traditional approach, the suggested changes require minimal investment but have the potential to greatly impact the learners. Merriam Webster defines innovation as “the introduction of something new” (“innovation,” 2014). As instructors and designers, we should not allow our traditional, conservative desires blind us from the research. Nor should we allow the expectation of what is proper impede what has been proven successful for today’s learners. I am happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further, as well as provide the cited materials for your perusal.
Regards,
Melissa St. Laurent
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: Wiley.
innovation. (2014). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
melissastlaurent 