Editing Personalization Principle (section)

=== Design Implications ===
As mentioned in the overview, for generative processing to be effectively increased through the integration of personalized messages in multimedia learning content, the messages must be relevant to the actual content being communicated and attention must be made by the designers to minimize extraneous content, to make room for essential and generative processing of the learning material as extraneous and essential processing are additive. A good example of designers intent on aiding generative processing via personalization is present in  Sal Khan’s Introduction to Economics video lecture (Khan Academy, 2012).  At the timestamp 5:26, Khan endocrines the audience into the shoes of a micro/macro economic theorist; one that is trying to decide on how to go about the calculation of the decisions of people and the whole of society. Through the usage of personalized phrases such as, “And so, you can start to visualize things mathematically, with charts and graphs and think about what would actually happen with markets” (fig 1)  and “So then you have a proper grain of salt so that you are always focused on the true intuition.” Khan is going a  step further than simply using personalized pronouns (ex. “you” and “we”), as he is incorporating the audience into the thought process of the macro/micro theorist and in the process promoting  active thinking of the learner.
[[File:Screenshot 2022-12-15 171955.png|thumb|170x170px|'''Figure 1''']]



An increase in generative processing can be hindered when personalization is used just for personalization sake. This is found to be very prominent in The Learning Companies edutainment game Reader Rabbit Math Ages 6-9. Although the pedagogical agent Penelope the Parrot addresses the player personally, even going far enough to make eye contact with the player, the game suffers from only about 1/3rd  of these personalized interactions being used to communicate the learning content. Instead the majority of these messages are used to communicate how each mechanism works in the math minigames, and to state that a solution is correct or incorrect. Hardly does Penelope give any indication on why a solution is correct and incorrect. Nor does she provide much feedback on how to improve a player's answers (i.e. pointing out gaps in the players' knowledge and offering different strategies to help players better understand the material). This can be seen in the Monkey Pizza Party minigame where the objective is to add different bug toppings on a pizza according to a fractions given to the player each round. incorrectly distributing the toppings on the pizza (9:46), leads Penelope to inform the player that the solution is incorrect and to look at the order (equation) again. [[File:Hqdefault.jpg|thumb|170x170px|'''Figure 2''']]
Another ill-structured use of personalization for generative processing in this game  can be found in the mining Number line minigame (6:42). Although the learning outcome of this minigame is to gain the knowledge and skills to count up to 2 number places with the assistance of a number line, the personalized messages from Penelope are only used for accessibility (auditory reciting's of the prompt on screen).  There is no usage of personalized messages in this minigame to help  increase understanding of the learning content. This seems like a missed opportunity on the designers' part. [[File:Sddefault.jpg|thumb|170x170px|'''Figure 3''']]