Optimizing Instructional Design in a Tech-Based Classroom
In the age of technology-based learning, educators have a unique opportunity to design intuitive, engaging, and meaningful platforms for learning. This pioneering medium of innovative education often takes the form of mobile applications, i.e. program software on smartphones, tablets, or other mobile devices with features more advanced than a traditional personal computer. There have been widespread initiatives to integrate mobile applications (apps) and subsequent educational software into schools to engage students beyond traditional lecture-based curriculum. When it comes to the rise of new industries like educational technology, teachers may indulge educational products that lack substantial results but are marketed well. The following paper will pursue an interdisciplinary analysis of instructional design and its optimal integration in educational apps.
As this new medium of instruction floods the classroom, it is crucial that educational apps maintain an accessible and intuitive design to ensure that the primary focus of learning is on the material, rather than on app navigation (Zamri, 2015). The digital landscape that software developers can build upon is inherently broad, which introduces a vulnerability to overcrowding the platform and increasing the learner’s cognitive load. Cognitive load is the neural labor that overwhelms a learner’s working memory when undergoing higher-level processing (Weidman, 2015). Instructional designers have worked alongside neuro-education researchers to design a learner interface with minimal cognitive load (Kalyuga, 2000). Learner interface is simply the means by which the learner interacts with the educational apps (Zamri, 2015). In the same way that a student enters a classroom that is either cluttered or organized, the learner enters the educational app, and so the learning process is influenced by the architecture of that digital space (Zamri, 2015).
The consolidation of information and minimization of visual clutter reduces the user’s cognitive load and ultimately helps improve the user’s focus (Najjar, 1998). In line with the coherence principle, the only information conveyed should be essential to advancing the learner in the curriculum (Mayer, Heiser, 2001). The information itself should be accessible, regardless of increasing difficulty levels of the testing features (Zamri, 2015). Digital spaces should be designed with intuitive directional flow and clear expectations for how the learner should navigate the platform (Georgiev, 2009). Learning performance is often better when the learner is presented with a structured outline of the material, that is subsequently reiterated as headings for each topic’s section (Mautone, Mayer, 2001). This component allows the learner to map out their path for learning. The application of this design principle is illustrated in a Georgiev’s 2009 literature review, as follows. The user is presented with a navigation bar at the top of the screen with a main menu that links to additional pages and submenus. The navigation buttons are large enough to use with a stylus or touch screen. Furthermore, when the user interacts with the program, the user is provided with a choice of several options rather than entering extensive text responses.
In culminating fashion, Issa et al. integrated these principles into a medical school lecture on Shock. Two groups of medical students were created in this comparative study, where one group received a traditional lecture and the other utilized Mayer’s evidence based principles (mentioned previously) in the powerpoint presentation. The main points of distinction between the slides was the consolidation of information, the use of diagram graphics in place of text, and the use of color and larger font. Upon several temporal increments of retention tests, students that were taught using Mayer’s principles had significantly greater long-term retention (Issa, 2013). However, it should be noted that the learners in this experiment were of the select few in medical school that may be more or less receptive to the way information is displayed due to their proficiency in navigating academic environments. Extending this comparative study to a wider range of learners would be essential prior to widespread application. In any classroom, the learner comes to the table with unique proficiencies and experiences, so educational apps should be equipped to provide intuitive programs for a range of learners (Kalyuga, 2000; Najjar, 1998).
--
In a 2017 Educator Quality of Work Life Survey, more than 75% of teachers reported that they do not have enough staff to successfully complete the work needed to be done (American Federation of Teachers, 2017). Educational technology has the potential to serve as a supplemental resource-- an ubiquitous teacher. The inherent quality of educational apps foster the integration of research-based practices in the classroom. Perhaps in direct opposition to the apparent limitations of the classroom, educational apps have the capacity to curate a learner’s transition toward more autonomous learning (Zamri, 2015).
When the user is able to control components of the program by simply clicking ‘Continue’ when they are ready to move on to new content, the user has been granted a sense of ownership over their learning experience (Mayer, Chandler, 2001). Such ownership may instill a sense of self-motivation that makes ripples in their future academic success. Furthermore, educational apps allow learners to operate at their own pace and receive near-instantaneous feedback as they progress. After learning in a digital classroom, playing an educational game, and completing a quiz over the span of the curriculum, the learner can immediately identify strong suits and points of improvement (Weidman, 2015). With the help of the teacher, the learner can then begin addressing specific weak points rather than attempting to study entire topics. This may also encourage the learner to deliberately work at the edge of competency, i.e. practicing problems that are just above their level of proficiency to strengthen long-term retention after grappling with the material (Weidman, 2015).
Several studies show that employing the spacing effect yields enhanced long-term retention amongst students (Sobel, 2011; Vlach, 2014; Weidman, 2015). However, this concept of providing a break interval between learning sessions, rather than conducting mass learning of broad topics, requires incredibly coordinated teachers with the time and energy to implement this research-based practice (Weidman, 2015). Allowing students to alternate between subjects and lessons on educational apps may prove more successful and less demanding on the teacher (Vlach, 2014).
The educational technology market is a $1.36 billion industry that only continues to grow (The Atlantic, 2015). Fueled by popular culture and sensational headlines, schools and educational professionals are eager to integrate this wave of innovation into their classrooms-- a sentiment naively-equipped to evaluate the quality of educational apps. With every research-based recommendation to innovate the learning experience, researchers should also provide evaluative parameters that teachers can employ as well. Evaluating meaningful learning is a complex task, even in a research study capacity; however, teachers should have the tools to discern between an educational app and a recreational app.
The heuristic nature of the guidelines for designing educational apps often confounds the evaluation process (Woo, 2007). Indicators of learning performance often differ between cognitive theories-- each with a distinct definition of what learning is. Constructivist theory suggests that the learner must have an evolving response to their experiences to indicate that meaningful learning has occurred (Alonso, 2008). The key to fostering meaningful learning is to prompt learners with authentic tasks that reflect how learning would occur in realistic contexts (Woo, 2007). Prior to educational apps, simulating realistic environments was extremely limited due to time, resources, and overall feasibility. The use of educational technology allows students to operate within digital classrooms that offer realistic simulations. In return, the learner would respond by debating ideas, building upon new ideas, and offering alternative perspectives to demonstrate that meaningful learning has occurred (Woo, 2007).
The foundation of instructional design is fairly intuitive. However, the educational technology industry and its neuro-educational research counterpart are in a position to begin testing a wider range of complex scenarios that better reflect the contemporary landscape for learning. These ideas to optimize tech-based platforms of learning can ultimately serve as a measure of an educational app’s capacity to cultivate meaningful learning.
References:
Alonso, Fernando, et al. “Learning Objects, Learning Objectives and Learning Design.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 45, no. 4, 2008, pp. 389–400.
Chandler, Mayer, R.E., “When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 2001.
Chen, Angela. “The Ever-Growing Ed-Tech Market.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 6 Nov. 2015.
Issa, Nabil., “Teaching for understanding using multimedia design principles.” Medical Education, vol. 47: 388-396, 2013
Georgiev, T., Georgiev, E. User Interface Design for Mobile Learning Application. E-learning. 2009.
Heiser, Mayer, R.E., “Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding” Journal of Educational Psychology, 2001.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. Incorporating Learner Experience Into the Design of Multimedia Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychol, Vol. 92, No. 1,126-13. 2000.
Mautone, P., Mayer, R.E., “Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 2014.
Mayer, Richard E., “Research Based Principles for Designing Multimedia Instruction.” University of California, Santa Barbara, 2014.
Najjar, L.J., “Principles of Educational Multimedia User Interface Design.” Principles of Educational Multimedia User Interface Design Human Factors. 1998.
Sobel, H.S., “Spacing Effects in Real-World Classroom Vocabulary Learning.” Applied Cognitive Psychology, Appl. Cognit. Psychol. Vol. 25: 763–76. 2011.
Vlach, H.A. “The Spacing Effect in Children’s Generalization of Knowledge: Allowing Children Time to Forget Promotes Their Ability to Learn.” University of Wisconsin, Madison. Vol. 8, No. 3, 2014
Weidman, J., Baker, K. The Cognitive Science of Learning: Concepts and Strategies for the Learner. International Anesthesia Research Society, Vol. 121(6). 2015.
Woo, Y. “Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: A social constructivist interpretation.” Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology. 2007.
Zamri, K.Y. “10 User Interface Elements for Mobile Learning Application Development.” Department of Computer Science Brunel University London. 2015)
“2017 Educator Quality of Work Life Survey.” American Federation of Teachers, 2017