The Failure of Technology-Centered Approaches To Multimedia Design
Within the same morning, I had scanned The Total Economic Impact™ Of Mixed Reality Using Microsoft HoloLens 2, A Forrester Total Economic Impact Study Commission by Microsoft, headlined by the Senior Mixed Reality Specialist at Microsoft. I found the numbers inside dismal and took screen captures of the most egregious numbers so that I would not forget what jumped out as the most ludicrous (60% increase in efficiency in learning as an verbal report given in interviews by interviewees selected by Microsoft).
I also had been invited to a group that will "build a community of practice around applications of learning experience design in XR modalities." But I had watched this community do a series in 2021 where they picked individual pieces of research and tried to derive principles for design in XR. I gave them feedback for the first 3 days. They kept hand-picking research and trying to establish large principles.
Err, we don't do that.
Plus, when I pointed out that some pieces of research-- while fine as independent pieces of research, could not be applied broadly because of problems like cognitive load, comparative design, sample size, novelty effect etc. they would give me the hand wave response of "Oh yes, we saw that" but they never retracted or stepped back from the total theme and they had the ability to.
So....
I don't see much hope there.
Therefore, I was in a pit of despair. Everyone around me is in some sort of technology-haze thinking it will solve all of their problems. Come to think of it, much of the field of instructional design for the past 18 months has been soaking in a technology tools fantasy. And yet, not a word about learning gains. Funny, that.
I was reaching to my bookshelf to do some background research for a different project. I grabbed the Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia and found myself flipping back to Chapter 1 and dwelling on page 8.
Herein, my faith was restored. I haven't actually read in 10 years. The first time I read this, I was all pro-tech back then, not the wizened observer that I am now. I can tell I didn't take well to this the first time I read it because my notes were so light. I usually scribbled all over the place when something struck me as good.
But the words I read now felt exactly like falling in love with someone a second time.
So with the greatest of respect, I present, word-for-word, Chapter 1, Pages 7 - 9 by Richard E. Mayer, 2005:
Two Approaches to Multimedia Learning: Technology Centered Versus Learner Centered
Multimedia represents a potentially powerful learning technology--- that is, a system for enhancing human learning. A practical goal of research on multimedia is to devise design principles for multimedia presentations. In addressing this goal, it is useful to distinguish between two approaches to multimedia design-- a technology-centered approach and a learner-centered approach.
Technology-Centered Approach
The most straightforward approach to multimedia design is technology centered. Technology-centered approaches begin with the functional capability of multimedia and ask, "How can we use these capabilities in designing multimedia presentations?" The focus is generally on cutting-edge advances in multimedia technology so technology-centered designers might focus on how to incorporate multimedia into emerging communications technologies such as wireless access to the World Wide Web or the construction of interactive multimedia representations of virtual reality. The kinds of research issues often involve media research (i.e. determining which technology is most effective in presenting information). For example, a media research issue is whether students learn as well from an online lectures-- in which the student can see the lecturer in a window on the computer screen - as they can from a live lecture-- in which the student is actually sitting in a classroom.
What's wrong with technology-centered approaches? A review of educational technologies of the twentieth century shows that the technology-centered approach generally fails to lead to lasting improvements in education (Cuban, 1986). For example, when the motion picture was invented in the early 20th century hopes where high that this visual technology would improve education. In 1922, the famous inventor Thomas Edison predicted that "the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks" (cited in Cuban, 1986), p. 9). Like current claims for the power of visual media, Edison proclaimed that "it is possible to teach every brand of human knowledge with the motion picture" (cited in Cuban, 1986, p. 11). In spite of the grand predictions, a review of educational technology reveals that "most teachers used films infrequently in their classrooms" (Cuban, 1986, p. 17). For our vantage point beyond the close of the 20th century it is clear that the predicted educational revolution which movies would replace books has failed to materialize.
Consider another disappointing example that may remind you of current claims for the educational potential of the World Wide Web. In 1932, Benjamin Darrow, founder of the Ohio School of the Air, proclaimed that radio could "bring the world to the classroom, to make universally available the services of the finest teachers, the inspiration of the greatest leaders..." (cited in Cuban, 1986, p. 19). His colleague, William Levenson, the director of the Ohio School of the Air predicted in 1945 that a "radio receiver will be as common in the classroom as the blackboard" and "radio instruction will be integrated into school life" (cited in Cuban, 1986, p. 19). As we rush to wire our schools and homes for access to the education content of the Internet, it is humbling to recognize what happened to a similarly motivated movement for radio: "Radio has not been accepted as a full-fledged member of the educational community"(Cuban, 1986, p. 24).
Third, consider the sad history of educational television - a technology that combined the visual power of the motion picture with the worldwide coverage of radio. But the 1950s, educational television was touted as a way to create a "continental classroom" that would provide access to a "richer education at less cost"(Cuban, 1986, p. 33). Yet, a review shows that teachers used television infrequently, if at all (Cuban, 1986).
Finally, consider the most widely acclaimed technological accomplishment of the 20th century - computers. The technology that supports computers is different from film, radio, and television, but the grand promises to revolutionize education are the same. Like current claims for the mind-enhancing power power of computer technology, during the 1960s computer tutoring machines were predicted to eventually replace teachers. The first large-scale implementation occurred under the banner of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in which computers presented short frames, solicited a response from the learner, and provided feedback to the learner. In spite of a large financial investment to support CAI, sound evaluations shows that the two largest computer-based systems in the 1970s - PLATO and TICCIT- failed to produce better learning than traditional teacher-lead instruction (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1996).
What can we learn from the humbling history of the 20th century's great educational technologies? Although different technologies underlie film, radio, television, and computer-assisted instruction, they all produced the same cycle. First, they began with grand promises about how the technology would revolutionize education. Second, there was an initial rush to implement the cutting-edge technology in schools. Third, from the perspective of a few decades later it became clear that the hopes and expectations were largely unmet.
What went wrong with these technologies that seemed poised to tap the potential of the visual and of worldwide learning? I attribute the disappointing results to the technology-centered approach taken by the promoters. Instead of adapting technology to fit the needs of human learners, humans were forced to adapt to the demands of cutting-edge technologies. The driving force behind the implementations was the power of the technology rather than an interest in promoting human cognition. The focus was on giving people access to the latest technology rather than helping people to learn through the aid of technology.
Are we about to replicate the cycle of high expectations, large-scale implementation, and disappointing results in the realm of multimedia technology? In my opinion, the answer to that question depends on whether or not we continue to take a technology-centered approach. When we ask "What can we do with multimedia?" and when our goal is to "provide access to technology," we are taking a technology-centered approach with a 100-year history of failure.
The chapter goes on with Learner Centered Approaches. If you are intrigued, buy the book. It's well worth the money.
BTW, the Cuban source often cited is this one:
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. Teachers College Press.
I found it in Google books online, especially the relevant early pages 9-26.