Ranting & Raving on Instructional Design, Education & Technical Training

Infocus 'What Not To Present' Contest

It’s not clear whether the presentation experts at InFocus Labs have opened a Pandora’s Box with this event, but their “What Not To Present“ contest apparently overwhelmed even their most staid judges in terms of popular response and the degree to which things can sink and still be considered acceptable. The response from the field was both daunting and gratifying:

“Our ‘What Not to Present’ contest was epic! Many thanks to all of you kind folks that submitted entries and spread the word about it. Many amazingly horrendous slides were sent in from all around the world. We laughed. We cried. We cringed.”

Naturally once the floodgates were opened the selection of a winner was not at all an easy task.

“We randomly chose our top 3 winners, but then quickly realized that we had to do more. So we are giving away ANOTHER projector to the slide we thought was the most horrendous. We passed the ugliness around the InFocus offices and to many of our partners pandering for votes – and we have a winner!”

Prizes generously include InFocus projectors and accessories.

Suspense mounting? Here’s the First Place winner from the random selection round:

See yourself in that slide? Me too. Kind of makes me cringe. Hopefully we all have slides like that locked securely in our pasts.

But that’s not the point of the “What Not to Present” competition. The good folks at InFocus must surely be sick and tired of their excellent products being associated with – one might even say equated to – the kind of visual flotsam that populated this contest. And they’d like it to stop. So, in an ongoing effort to assist in cultivating our design and presentation senses they are going to offer ongoing therapy to the readers of their blog wherein experts Garr Reynolds and Ellen Finkelstein will offer free advice on how to make presentations attract our attentions for all the right reasons. So, stay tuned. In the meantime, and capturing a feeling right at home on these pages, Ellen Finkelstein offers a few tips on how to avoid being submitted as a contestant in next year’s “What Not to Present” contest: Have Compassion on Your Audience!

Now, ready for this year’s Grand Prize Winner of the worldwide InFocus “What Not to Present” competition? Here you go.

Further Reading

PowerPoint Overload – Two Pounds of Sausage in a One Pound Bag

“The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within”

“PowerPoint Does Rocket Science–and Better Techniques for Technical Reports”

If you are the kind of designer who cannot tell the difference between Times and Helvetica, you’re in luck. A recent study by a team from Princeton and Indiana Universities shows that educational presentations that are hard for students to read may lead to improved memory performance. In the technical jargon of cognitive psychology the reason for this counter-intuitive result is due to the heightened “disfluency” caused by poor typography that leads to deeper processing (or encoding) in the brain.

Many classroom instructors and and instructional designers assume that clearer, easier to read, media reduce the “friction” of learning and act to promote and accelerate the transmission of new ideas and skills. Not so, say Connor Diemand-Yauman, Daniel Oppenhiemer and Erikka Vaughan who penned the study soon to be published in the journal Cognition. In some cases, they assert, making material harder to learn actually improves long-term memory. What’s worse, they have the control group data to prove it.

“Many educators believe that their ability to teach effectively relies on instinct and experience. However, research has shown that instinct can be deceiving and lead to educational strategies that are detrimental to learners.” – Diemand-Yauman, et al.

Two studies were undertaken to test the hypothesis that “desirable difficulties” can lead to enhanced learning. In the first, twenty-eight participants ranging in age from 18 to 40 were asked to learn fictional taxonomic data similar to that found in biology classes. The disfluent media presented the material in 12-point Comic Sans rendered in 60% grayscale or 12-point Bodoni MT also in 60% grayscale. The fluent media used 16-point Arial rendered in plain black. (It should be noted that the author knows more than one professional designer who considers Arial to be at least as disfluent as Comic Sans, grayscale notwithstanding.)

Participants were given 90 seconds to memorize their fictional taxonomic data. For example:

The norgletti

• Two feet tall
• Eats flower petals and pollen
• Has brown eyes

Each data set like the above was composed of three species of aliens, each with seven features, for a total of 21 items to be learned. After 90 seconds of study the participants were distracted for 15 minutes with another task after which their recall was tested (“What is the diet of the norgletti?”).

The results? Fluent learners successfully recalled 72.8% of their data. Disfluent learners scored higher: 86.5%! What’s more, differences between the two disfluent fonts were not found (probably because ugly is ugly).

“Similarly, many education researchers and practitioners believe that reducing extraneous cognitive load is always beneficial for the learner. In other words, if a student has a relatively easy time learning a new lesson or concept, both the student and instructor are likely to label the session as successful even if the student is unable to retrieve the information at a later time.” – Diemand-Yauman, et al.

Not wishing to hastily generalize their preliminary results to classroom conditions, Diemand-Yauman, Oppenhiemer and Vaughan arranged a study with 222 Ohio high school students (ages 15-18). In the high school study teacher-prepared instructional content (Powerpoint and worksheets) were reformatted (but not edited) using disfluent fonts or left unchanged. Different sections of the classes were randomly assigned to a disfluent or control group. Teachers were told that the study focused on the effects of different fonts in presentations to counteract the Pygmalion Effect. After the classes were presented in normal fashion exams were given along with a survey to assess whether disfluency affects motivation.

The results? Once again the disfluent group scored higher (m=0.164, sd=1.03; m=-0.295, sd=1.03; using Z-scores) and there was no difference between ugly fonts. Further, the survey revealed no motivational differences between fluent and disfluent presentations.

The authors warn that interpretation of the results and their subsequent application in the classroom be cautiously undertaken. First, the novelty and distinctiveness of the disfluent fonts might be a factor enhancing their “desirable difficulty.” Another issue is that the point at which a typeface changes from “desirably difficult” to “illegible” is not known.

The authors concede that there is a point at which “disfluent” pushed to its extreme becomes “impossible,” hindering learning altogether.

At present it seems as though the tonic effects of disfluency probably follow a U-shaped curve and that the exact parameters that affect the shape have to be teased out through further experiment.

Another question is whether this disfluent effect will be seen with other media as well. The authors of this study only considered typographic media, but one has to wonder if it is possible to obtain similar results with audio and video.

References.

Diemand-Yauman, C., et al. Fortune favors the Bold (and the Italicized): Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition (2010), doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012

McDaniel, M. A., Hines, R., & Guynn, M. (2000). When text difficulty benefits less-skilled readers. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 544–561.

McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler-Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 237–241.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

Despite the fact that we are quick to assert that we live in The Information Age and are swimming in all kinds of media, data and sensory stimuli, it’s sobering to take a step back and reflect on the fact that information is not always where the focus of attention is. Marshall McLuhan was fond of saying that “We don’t know who discovered water, but we know it wasn’t the fish.” Information today is a little like that water and as teachers and instructional designers we have to pay attention to the differences between the medium and message if we want to be effective in what we do.

Right in keeping with this problem, the folks at MAYA Design have produced a really useful and (dare I say) informative animated short on the problem of distinguishing information from its presentational form. That is, in Gestalt terms, how to see the ground separate from the figure.

As an example of the problem of teasing information from its encapsulating medium, do you know what information is? Can you cite an example? What would you say if you were told that you can’t actually see or hear information? Would you be comfortable with the idea that neither the words on a page nor the numbers on a spreadsheet are information? In the words of MAYA Design, “Information has no form. It’s not made of atoms.“

So, what is information? In MAYA’s view:

“Information is what allows us to confidently make a selection from a set of given or implied alternatives.”

And what is our job then relative to information design? Our job is to give it form. We write it down, verbalize it, draw it and act it out. All with the intent of communicating it. Take a few minutes and look here or below and get reacquainted with the differences between medium and message.

I think it was from Marshall McLuhan that I first heard:

“We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.”

Now, for the first time, neurological evidence is demonstrating that this is literally true. Data published in the June 23rd issue of Current Biology shows that when we use a tool, even for a short time, it actually modifies the brain’s body schema. That is, the brain enhances the area of its map of our body associated with the tool. As reported in Science Daily:

“‘Since the origin of the concept of body schema, the idea of its functional plasticity has always been taken for granted, even if no direct evidence has been provided until now,’ said Alessandro Farnè of INSERM and the Université Claude Bernard Lyon. ‘Our series of experiments provides the first, definitive demonstration that this century-old intuition is true.’”

A report by the British Psychological Society describes the experiment:

“After several minutes using the grasping tool, the participants subsequent reaching movements with their hand were slower to start and stop, making them longer-lasting overall, compared with before the tool use – as if their own arm was now perceived as longer. Moreover, when the participants were subsequently blindfolded and asked to point to where they’d just been touched by the researchers, on the tip of the middle finger and on the elbow, the places the participants pointed to were further apart, compared with before tool use, again suggesting that they now perceived their arm to be longer.”

Interestingly the feedback loop from man-to-tool and back again is observed. From Science Daily:

“After using a mechanical grabber that extended their reach, people behaved as though their arm really was longer, they found. What’s more, study participants perceived touches delivered on the elbow and middle fingertip of their arm as if they were farther apart after their use of the grabbing tool.

People still went on using their arm successfully following after tool use, but they managed tasks differently. That is, they grasped or pointed to object correctly, but they did not move their hand as quickly and overall took longer to complete the tasks.”

The authors of the study go on to say:

“We believe this ability of our body representation to functionally adapt to incorporate tools is the fundamental basis of skillful tool use. Once the tool is incorporated in the body schema, it can be maneuvered and controlled as if it were a body part itself.”

Further information on this study can be found here:

Cardinali, L., Frassinetti, F., Brozzoli, C., Urquizar, C., Roy, A., & Farnè, A. (2009). Tool-use induces morphological updating of the body schema. Current Biology, 19 (12) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.009

The notion of Teacher as Disc Jockey goes back at least to the time Apple’s iTunes introduced the concept of Rip, Mix, Burn to the world. Since then trainers, educators and instructional designers have been inundated by reports on social media, Web 2.0 and collaborative learning while fending off rising demands to crank out more educational media in less time, with less money. Now the prevalence of open source media and courseware has exceeded a critcal mass with thousands of open source courses being distributed by organizations like Open Courseware Consortium and ccLearn.

With that in mind educational technologist Scott Leslie of Victoria, BC, has gven an excellent talk on the current state of web-based open source tools and techniques available to teachers who need to rip, mix and burn a new course or presentation. Using the metaphor of the DJ, Leslie’s basic work flow follows these steps:

Search – finding the PLE diagrams

Sample – grabbing ones that weren’t already easily saveable

Sequence – tumblr? how to get in a mediaRSS feed

Record – my own PLE diagram

Perform – cooliris and wii controller?

Share – blog it

The reader should be cautioned: If you are not familiar with Web 2.0 concepts in teaching, this talk will be the proverbial ‘drink from a fire hose‘. Leslie presents dozens of sites and tools that designer and educators can use in the preparation and dissemination of a whole course or simple talk. Having considerable experience with these methods, Leslie suggests that we pick and choose among the sites and services for those that match our objectives and personal style.

“You may find the metaphor of ‘educator as DJ’ doesn’t work for you – fine. Maybe it’s ‘educator as mashup artist’. Maybe it’s ‘educator as painter.’ maybe it’s ‘educator as architect’. But…

I URGE you to seek out the metaphor YOU ALREADY BRING to your teaching practice, because inevitably you do. Becoming conscious of it is important not only because of how it lets you expand on it, but because the act of teaching IS the supreme metaphorical act; just as metaphor allows us new understanding by using a familiar vehicle that conveys attributes to a specific tenor, so do you as teachers seek to help your learners move from their existing understanding to somewhere new.”

Leslie’s talk is presented here in both slide and video formats. Notes and references are also included.

In case you’re wondering, people are spending more time in front of more screens as sources of information and entertainment. Research conducted at Ball State University used a novel combination of technologies to monitor and measure the media Americans are using and for what purposes.

The data followed 476 participants and resulted in 952  observed days of recorded media usage. The study takes an unbiased look at what technologies Americans are using and does not delve into effects of particular media. The Video Consumer Mapping Study, as it is called, noted some surprising findings:

• TV users were exposed to, on average, 72 minutes per day of TV ads and promos—dispelling a commonly held belief that modern consumers are channel-hopping or otherwise avoiding most of the advertising in the programming they view.
• Despite the proliferation of computers, video-capable mobile phones, and similar devices, TV in the home still commands the greatest amount of viewing, even among those ages 18-24; thus, in the eyes of the researchers, appearing to dispute a common belief that Internet video and mobile phone video exposure among that group (and the next one up, ages 25-34) were sizeable in 2008.
• Rather than young people and retirees, consumers in the 45-54 age group average the most daily screen time, just over 9½ hours. The average for all other age groups is strikingly similar at roughly 8½ hours—although the composition and duration of devices used by the groups during the day varied.
• Even in major metropolitan areas where commute times can be long and drive-time radio remains popular, computing has replaced radio as the No. 2 media activity. Radio is now No. 3 and print media fourth.

• Contrary to some recent popular media coverage suggesting that more Americans are rediscovering “free TV” via the Internet, computer video tends to be quite small with an average time of just two minutes (a little more than 0.5 percent) a day.
• Early DVR owners spent much more time with DVR playback than newer DVR owners. At the same time, DVR playback was even more likely than live TV to be the sole medium.
• “Environmental” exposure outside the home, while still relatively small at just 2.8 percent of total video consumption today, could nearly double during the next few years.

A tables of results for “Average Daily Minutes of Media Consumption: Means Including Zero” can be found here.

Researcher Stephen Mahar of the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and his colleagues have tested the effect of routine garden-variety animations on the learning of new concepts. Often used by presenters and designers in classrooms and training sessions, these stock slide show animations commonly found in programs like PowerPoint might have a negative effect on student learning.

The team used two versions of a presentation prepared in Microsoft PowerPoint, one with animation, the other without. Students were shown one version of the presentation and tested for comprehension and recall. Apparently, recall of static graphics was much better resulting in higher test scores among the group using non-animated presentation. There are some questions concerning what precisely was being animated (that is, why was animation employed?) and what was the nature of the animation? Further, Mahar et al. go on to suggest that the animation acted as a distraction rather than an enhancement given the nature of the material being presented (factual and “incremental”). Mahar and et. conclude that although the animations were received well by the audience, the benefit to learning is not only missing, it is counter-productive.

The researchers caution that the study evaluated teaching new concepts and it is possible that training more akin to a procedure, method or technique might prove a better match for animated graphics. A follow-up study is planned.

A report of this study is published in the International Journal of Innovation and Learning (“The dark side of custom animation” in Int. J. Innovation and Learning, 2009, 6, 581-592 ). See also: “Less is More When Developing PowerPoint Animations.”

I am a big fan of Media Literacy, not only because it helps as a consumer of media but also because it aids in the production of efficient communications. If you know the sensory bias of medium you can better match it to an application.

Not surprisingly educators and trainers have become more aware of the varieties of media experiences in which their students routinely participate and learn through in their daily lives. The degree to which average people in North America acquire information through non-literate media can be shockingly high, leading many to conclude that the benchmark of phonetic literacy as the leading indicator of what it means to be literate may have to be augmented for the post-literate age we live in.

The Media Awareness Network is a good resource for parents and educators looking to manage and promote media literacy. One of their working definitions of media literacy is:

Media literacy is the ability to sift through and analyze the messages that inform, entertain and sell to us every day. It’s the ability to bring critical thinking skills to bear on all media— from music videos and Web environments to product placement in films and virtual displays on NHL hockey boards. It’s about asking pertinent questions about what’s there, and noticing what’s not there. And it’s the instinct to question what lies behind media productions— the motives, the money, the values and the ownership— and to be aware of how these factors influence content.

Media education encourages a probing approach to the world of media: Who is this message intended for? Who wants to reach this audience, and why? From whose perspective is this story told? Whose voices are heard, and whose are absent? What strategies does this message use to get my attention and make me feel included?

In our world of multi-tasking, commercialism, globalization and interactivity, media education isn’t about having the right answers—it’s about asking the right questions. The result is lifelong empowerment of the learner and citizen.

The Ontario Public School Board has a note on their web site about what they see as the emerging issues surrounding the new media and the future of the classroom. In it they mention:

“Today’s students are leaders in the use of technology and we know they want their learning experiences in school to reflect this,” said Colleen Schenk, president of OPSBA. “Students want to take the technology they use in their daily lives and integrate it with how they learn. They want their learning clearly connected to the world beyond the school.”

They go on to say:

Many students feel, however, that when they come into school they have to “power down” to fit into an environment that offers fewer options for learning than are available in the life they live outside of the school. This can erode students’ perceptions of the relevance of education as they experience it in many schools today. At the same time, students need the guidance and leadership of their teachers in judging the authenticity and worth of the information so readily available to them.

What seems clear is that instructional designers and trainers need to do several things to further the use of media in continuing education:

1. Educate learners about the biases and limitations of  media.
2. Show participants how to use new media for learning.
3. Develop the skills to master and employ new media in training programs so that participants want to take part in the training and get value from it.
   

PowerPoint slides and printed Student Guides alone are no longer sufficient. We should not be asking our students to “power down” to come to class. We need recognize that for the most part people today are learning all the time and we must work to make it easier and more efficient when they come to us for the formal experience. Far too often the opposite is the case.