One question I have: You stated, “When presenting information onscreen, text and visuals are not as effective as seeing visuals and hearing narration.” This is quite a blanket assertion- do you really think it applies comprehensively? For example, what about complicated graphs, where portions of the graph need to be identified? I would think that labels work better than verbal narration in those (and other) cases. In any case, some examples of the research you cited would be helpful.

Much of what your article touches on is how we prepare a user for interaction and then once engaged, how do we deliver content that is meaningful and effective. The reminds me a great deal of Gagne’s 9 Events of Instruction

1. Gain attention (Stimuli activates receptors)

2. Inform learners of objectives (Creates level of expectation for learning)

3. Stimulate recall of prior learning (Retrieval and activation of short-term memory)

4. Present the content (Selective perception of content)

5. Provide “learning guidance” (Semantic encoding for storage long-term memory)

6. Elicit performance (practice)

7. Provide feedback (Reinforcement and assessment of correct performance)

8. Assess performance (Retrieval and reinforcement of content as final evaluation)

9. Enhance retention and transfer to the job (Retrieval and generalization of learned skill to new situation)

While hopefully your average UI doesn’t require the learning curve that these steps assumes, I find it interesting that some of the more fundamental steps are present in most all human interactions.

1. Gain attention (Stimuli activates receptors)
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning (Retrieval and activation of short-term memory)
6. Elicit performance (practice)
7. Provide feedback (Reinforcement and assessment of correct performance)

David:
Indeed it is a blanket assertion. But it’s not universal dogma, simply a general guideline. Or let’s call it a “starting point.” Each online situation merits careful consideration as to the best use of multimedia. Starting with these rules of thumb, we then determine if the rule stands or if another treatment is called for. For your example of a complicated chart, visuals-plus-narration may not be the best way to convey the information to the chart’s respective audience. Narration that covers all the material in the chart might be too lengthy to be practical. It depends on the purpose of the chart for your given users. Your solution of regional labels is a superior solution if a user wants to go in-depth. If there are a dozen different target audiences, there are at least a dozen different ways for a user to explore (and interpret) the information in the chart.

You asked about examples of the research: Richard E. Mayer’s research on short onscreen lessons on how lighting forms or how bicycle pumps function. As well as in his academic research, you can also find these studies in his 2001 book “Multimedia Learning.” Also, there are rubber-hits-the-road applied examples in the 2005 “E-learning and the science of instruction,” co-authored with Ruth Clark. These are digestible (as in: non-professorial language), and move along quickly.

John:
There are a LOT of parallels between instructional design and interaction design! And your observation reminds ME that many of the ID theorists can contribute to how “we deliver content that is meaningful and effective.” For example, the influence of a person’s immediate context on his or her interactions might benefit from a look at Huitt’s work; an interaction sequence that is progressively more complex can be informed by Reigeluth’s work. Merrill and Knowles address the just-in-time responsibilities that rest with the designer for effective onscreen interactions. Even the more systematic structure of Dick and Carey’s model lends itself to a healthy iterative design methodology. Stuff like that.

Instructional design also has striking parallels with graphic design, architecture, industrial design, and most other forms of design. Form follows function, and if the function merits design, the core methodology is arguably the same. Like interaction design, Gagne starts with getting attention, then orienting the participant in some way, initiating/prompting an interaction, then returning a result. Airport terminals, promotional print collateral, coffee makers, onscreen ecosystems, classroom pedagogy, etc. All are designed for their respective audiences and users.

It’s my opinion that the fundamentals of design are generally the same, only the lexicon between disciplines is different.

As for Merrill, one of my favorite quotes of all time is “information is not instruction.” Perfect.

Again – Thanks!

Anyway, I think you’re asking two questions. One deals with primacy and recency specifically in an onscreen environment. The other is related to that, but further addresses primacy and recency in online learning.

Below is the URL to an exciting study (with lots of references for later scouting expeditions!) that at least reviews other related studies and paints them into an onscreen landscape. Perhaps the ideas you’re looking for are inside. It touches on position effects in memory, on attitudes, and on choice and preference. All of these are arguably elements of learning and pedagogy.

In terms of designing the user experience and crafting the IA, it has a good number of ideas that can instantly be implemented. There’s some stuff on marketing and if you’re into eye tracking, there’s plenty of fodder for your next experiment.

http://sagratcor.org/esbos/apunts/economia/business.htm