Module #8-Annoted Bibliography

#1: Kalyuga, S. (2014) The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.

Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 576-597). New
York: Cambridge.

This chapter is a discussion of the expertise reversal principle. It is compared to the

redundancy principle in that more expert learners already have the knowledge given, and
that can lead to cognitive overload by the more knowledgeable learners due to them trying
to process all of the information given. However, the two shouldnt be confused. The
expertise reversal principle states learners with less prior knowledge need more examples
and more worked examples. In contrast, the expert learner in an area of study needs less
material to solve problems and understand concepts.

It is mentioned in the text that due to the amount of different levels of prior knowledge in the
classroom, it is suggested that to best tailor instruction to meet the needs of individual levels
of learning, a scaffolding approach should take place. This should begin with more
information and worked examples for novice learners and lead to a reduction in support for
the more expert learners. This reduction of information and worked examples is considered
best for the optimal amount of cognitive load in multimedia learning.

#2: Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles:
Concepts and Evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 10119.

This article discusses learning styles as the many different ways, or modalities, by which
learners learn. There are multiple areas, or categories of learning styles that individuals
could fall under. The most common however would be audio and visual. The way these
learning styles are found are through surveys and questionnaires. Questions are asked
about the interests and preferences of learners as related to how they learn. Learning
styles are dynamic and can change throughout the course of ones educational path.

The research has not found credible evidence that supports using learning styles as a basis
for designing instruction. It is more important to look at prior knowledge and aptitude. It is
more important to look at the type of instruction when deciding which learning style to use.
The example was used of literature and geometry. Because of the nature of the two
subjects, it is more beneficial to use verbal learning with literature and visual with geometry.
Finally, the article suggests that as educators we should keep in mind that all students are
capable of learning. Its up to the educator to offer the means by which all of the students
can have the opportunity to be successful.

#3: Plass, J.L. & Kalyuga, S., & Leutner, D. (2010). Individual differences and cognitive
load theory. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brnken (Eds.), Cognitive Load
Theory (pp. 65-87). New York: Cambridge.

This chapter discusses how differences in individual relate to the

level of cognitive load that individual will experience. The article
looks at differences in information gathering (learning style, learning
preference, and personality type), information processing
(intelligence and prior knowledge), and regulation of processing
(motivation and metacognition). The individual differences
highlighted in the chapter are cognitive load, self-regulation, and
adaptive learning environment.

Cognitive load is affected by the students spatial abilities. The

higher the spatial ability, the higher the cognitive load there should
be for the learner to have success. Students who are better at self-
regulation are better at using their working memory. Thus making it
easier to learn. The amount of prior knowledge will affect the way
learners learn. Novices in an area need more detailed instructions
along with more diagrams with text explanations. Experts will be
overloaded cognitively with this type of instruction.

#4: Wiley, J., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. J. (2014). The individual differences in
working memory capacity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 598-619). New York: Cambridge.

This chapter discusses how the capacity of working memory differs for individual learners
and what can happen as a result of these differences. Working memory has to be used in
an effective manner in order for learning to occur. It is important based on the capacity of
working memory as to how the learner can control their attention while participating in
difficult tasks.

These differences in learning can be addressed through multimedia learning. Presentation

of materials can include multiple formats that will in turn address multiple types of learners.
However, this process of multiple formats has been questioned due to the fact that it may
cause extraneous cognitive load because of the limited amount of space available in
working memory.

When instructional materials are being designed, the working memory capacity of the
learners should be taken into account. Learners with low working memory capacity need
more guidance in honing in on the instructional goal in order to connect with the learning.
On the contrary, learners with high working memory capacity do not need that extra
focusing. It could even hinder their learning.

#5 (additional): Leslie, K. C., Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2011). Redundancy and expertise
reversal effects when using educational technology to learn primary school
science. Educational Technology Research and Development,60(1), 1-13.

This article outlines an explanation of the redundancy effect as well at the expertise
reversal effect. It also analyzes the results of two different experiments with similar
outcomes. Two experiments were done in a science class. One group of students had
very little knowledge of magnetism and light which were the concepts being presented.
The other group had a vast amount of prior knowledge related to the subject. They
were given auditory as well as visual presentation in the learning. It was found that the
students that were novices benefited from the two modes of learning. They needed the
extra auditory explanation to go along with the visual representations. On the other
hand, the students with expertise knowledge of the subject had the reverse effect. The
extra information was redundant to them and cause cognitive overload.

It was also discussed as to which point the extraneous instruction should be phased
out. There is not enough evidence to make a valid statement on this point. It was left
with the statement that it should be left to the instructor to decide based on their
knowledge of the material and the learners.