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.
(e.g. Chapter 24)

Presentation using multimedia learning may be more effective for learners who are at a higher
knowledge level than novice learners. According to the expertise reversal principle, the issue is
with integrating what is in working memory for instructional information with knowledge
structures already stored in long-term memory (pg. 408). Therefore, instructional designers may
need to restructure their instruction and procedures to the different levels or learning styles of the
learners (pg. 408). Also, instruction can fluctuate when the content area needs elaborated and
skills need to be refined, which can be anywhere from novice to expert in any given content area.
In turn the presented content specific information may be non-redundant for the novice, but
become redundant for the experienced learner, which causes extraneous cognitive overload (pg.
408). When selecting a multimedia learning tool, the research has shown that high-information
instruction is more beneficial for novices compared to experienced learners (pg.410). Which
corresponds to the expertise reversal effect, where expert learners are given a low guidance
format they tend to not perform, as well (pg. 410). The instruction is directly related to prior
knowledge and learning experience. Learners with a limited practice or less prior knowledge
will need a more explicit instructional guidance multimedia tool or presentation (pg. 413).
Common core instruction would work if the foundation of the curriculum began in the founding
grade level (third grade) and worked its way through the grades as the founding learners
advanced to the next grade level. Students were missing critical chunks of instruction that were
directly proportional to the prior knowledge pedestal. The storage containers in long-term
memory banks are and were the most critical characteristic of competent performance in any
content area at any grade level (pg. 415).

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.
(e.g. Chapter 25)

With the limited capacity of the working memory, multimedia and instructional design may have
advantages and disadvantages when comparing them to how students learn from text or pictures
alone (pg. 422). Since the working memory system has been credited as the primary motivation
for teachers and instructional designers for selecting and using multimedia in the classroom, the
small work space is limited (pg. 422). Multimedia tools include processing from multiple
resources, codes, and modalities which may be restrictive due to the limited capacity of working
memory. When information presented to learners increases the direct effect on the student is that
they process and learn less, than if the presentation included redundancy or extraneous material.
Working memory capacity is related to the selection of multimedia tools when providing
instruction for individual differences. Seductive details are relevant text or images that may be
interesting to the learner, but may have no direct connection to the must-learn content
information (pg. 425). Seductive imagery can be distracting and disruptive to the learners
ability to appropriately attend to relevant concepts that would allow them to achieve the learning
objective (pg. 425). Segmentation versus long scrolling websites are factors when using a
multimedia tool to present content driven information. Segmentation is found to be more
beneficial to learners with lower working memory capacities than higher, and vice versa with
higher working memory capacities and scrolling websites (pg. 428). Segmentation and chunking
the information will provide a minimal cognitive overload for all individual learner styles.

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

Learning styles refers to the way students learn. Each student may prefer a specific mode of
instruction, therefore when assessing a learners learning style questions may relate to
presentation modes they prefer. For example, students prefer words and pictures versus just
words/lecture style presentation and exploration versus lecture. Once learning styles are
established students with one learning style achieve the best educational outcome when they
receive instruction within that instructional method (pg. 105). Learning styles arent one size fits
all. Therefore, instruction that does not appeal to all learning styles may contested when the
achievement level is not continuously rising. Teachers must plan effectively with the central
objective of creating a presentation that is adequate for all learning styles. Evidence for learning
style intervention would consist of finding a students given learning can be enhanced by the
instruction being planned and presented in alignment with the student's learning style (pg. 108).
There are several factors that may contribute to selecting the proper instructional method to
accommodate multiple learning styles, they include: differences in educational background,
differences in reading level, different levels of comprehension, and prior knowledge (pg. 108).
The learning style hypothesis states that learning will be ineffective if the learner receives
instruction that does not take account of the learners learning style (pg. 108). In conclusion,
individualizing instruction to the learners style allows for greater achievement and an increased
learning outcome than by not (pg. 108).

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.

Individual differences among learners are related to the level of cognitive load that a particular
learner experiences (pg. 65). Learner characteristics differ according to individual preference.
For example, preferences may be when the presentation format is different than other teachers
and the classroom environment, all of which have been studied as aptitude-treatment interactions
(pg. 65). Different formats of presentation and environmental structures results in differential
learning outcomes (pg. 65). When individual differences appear the level of cognitive load may
change, so differences in information gathering, information processing, and regulation of
processing all have an effect on cognitive load (pg. 66).
The focus on prior knowledge and spatial abilities will result in the capacity of working memory
(pg. 67). When discussing Cognitive Load Theory, which states the magnitude of mental load
in learning depends on the schemas that have been previously acquired by the learner (pg. 67).
Experts in a content area do not necessarily have a larger working memory capacity, they
actually have a lower working memory capacity, but a larger knowledge structures stored in their
long-term memory (pg. 67). All in all instruction based on necessary content information will be
more successful for all students, and eliminating unnecessary material for a particular learner
would be advantageous to both the instruction and the learner (pg. 68).

McCarthy, J. (2014, August 13). How Learning Profiles Can Strengthen Your Teaching.
Retrieved March 03, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/learning-profiles-john-mccarthy

Even as a teacher different learning modalities make learning easier than others. Therefore, if we
learn in a variety of ways than so so our students and the instructional methods that we plan for
and multimedia tools that we select may not be the best way that our students learn. Providing
options and different learning experience would be the most beneficial for students with specific
learning styles to have success when learning. Multi intelligence and learning style assessments
may provide the in-depth understanding of how each student learns, comprehends new content,
and manipulates multimedia tools (pg. 1). As the results are gathered and analyzed, teachers or
instructors may begin to differentiate and search for multimedia that supports multiple individual
differences (pg. 1). Cognitive overload and working memory capacities are not within a specific
range; therefore learning profiles of the students within your classroom should be beneficial for
their success and to your depth of planning and multimedia toolbox. Planning can be very
stressful when the students whom which you instruct and the tools you choose to use are not
strategically planned using a three-dimensional lesson (pg. 1). A three-dimensional lesson is
built to teach content to students three different ways (pg. 1). By planning lessons in this format
the teacher is giving the students options to learn which makes students comfortable with their
way or ways of learning new content.