Flexible Coherence: Re-Thinking e-Learning Design Principles for Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Students

Year 2013, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 30 - 49, 01.03.2013

Bradley E. Wiggins

Abstract

This article presents the results from a post-test only experiment conducted in 2011 with undergraduate and graduate students (N=67) from individualist and collectivist cultures. Demographic information was collected through questions appearing at the end of a post-test administered to subjects after completing the e-learning module. Each person was randomly assigned to one of three e-learning modules which all shared identical instructional content: time travel. However, the modules differed in design. Specifically, while the control module was designed according to the coherence principle, one experimental module was designed with non-essential background music and the other was designed with non-essential background images. The coherence principle of multimedia instruction stipulates that the addition of extraneous audio, images, or text impairs learning. Nevertheless, one normative standard of multimedia design does not apply to a group of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Among the findings from this study, a flexible coherence principle is proposed and it suggests that the multimedia designer must consider one’s own cultural and linguistic composition as well as that of the intended audience. A concluding discussion suggests that cultural variation may be related to cognitive variation.

Keywords

E-learning, Linguistic relativism, Cognitive Load Theory, Coherence principle, Collectivist - Individualist, Multimedia design

References

• Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
• Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4 (11), 417–423. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
• Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
• Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American, 2, 63-65.
• Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning Research, 58(1), 63-79.
• Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Greenwood.
• Chomsky, N. & Peck, J. (Ed.) (1987). The Chomsky reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2010). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
• Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. A. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning style: Teaching and counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Garner, R., Gillingham, M.G., & White, C.S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41-57.
• Harp, S., & Mayer, R. (1997). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
• Hoffman, C., Lau, I., & Johnson, D. R. (1986). The linguistic relativity of person cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1097–1105.
• Hofstede, G. J. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across cultures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychological perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389.
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
• Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49-63.
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of dual- processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
• 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(1), 187-198.
• Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
• Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven ± two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
• Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford. England: Oxford University Press.
• Pederson, E. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1012-1044). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Robinson, D. H. (2002). Spatial text adjuncts and learning: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 1-3.
• Sanchez, C. A. & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355.
• Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
• Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
• Tohidian, I. (2009). Examining linguistic relativity hypothesis as oneof the main views on the relationship between language and thought. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 65- 74.
• Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• von Humboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues. [On the diversity of human linguistic structure.] Berlin.
• Wiggins, B. E. (2011). The absence of language and culture in e-learning design principles. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp. 474-479). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Wittrock, M.C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.
• Correspondence: Bradley E. Wiggins, Assistant Professor of Communication, College of Languages
• and Communication, University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, Arkansas, United States