Much of our effort in
course development is based on the assumption that multimedia is superior to
text-only approaches and the path to best practice is paved in video, audio,
and animation. The old saw is that a picture is worth a thousand words, that learning
is much easier and a lot more fun in multimedia. This is true - to an extent.
The fact is that text
is faster, which translates to easier, cheaper, and more efficient. Multimedia
takes time, effort, and bandwidth. Furthermore, the cost for equipment,
resources, space, software, staff, and expertise to produce it can be
outrageous. The point is, when you can kill a bird with a stone, why use a
cruise missile. Or put another way, more can be less.
So, is multimedia
better? Yes, in cases when showing something is easier than trying to explain
it in words, e.g., an exotic new plant or butterfly, a dress, a person’s
appearance, a building, a painting, a football play, a procedure for drawing
blood, instructions on how to assemble a carburetor. However, this answer has
to be weighed against cost effectiveness. If it is ineffective or takes too
much effort and costs too much for the desired outcome, then the answer is no.
Also, the choice isn’t always either-or. There are times when a simple photo or
crude diagram is just as effective as a sophisticarted video.
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий