The extent to which any instruction is effective depends heavily on whether it takes the characteristics of human cognition into account (Sweller, 2008). This is the main premise behind Cognitive Load Theory.
Cognitive load theory suggests that there are three major types of load that are imposed upon a learners mind when they are trying to learn something. These different loads are the Extraneous, the Germane, and the Intrinsic. Sweller (2008) indicates that intrinsic load is the amount of difficulty imposed on the learning process that is inherent in the information to be learned. Intrinsic is the one load that cannot be affected by ISD principles, but at the same time must be taken into account when designing instruction. Extraneous load is the extra load placed on the learning process by disorganized, clunky, and poor instructional design as well as outside factors. The goal of instructional design would be to reduce this type of load. Germane load is where the learning is really able to occur. With higher amounts of germane load the mind is able to organize and process information while at the same time accessing and storing data in long term memory. This is positively affected by quality instructional design.
One major weakness of cognitive load theory is its lack of a specific form of measure (Jong, 2010). There have been many attempts at measuring the different levels of cognitive load, but most are relative and seek answers from the subjects. Until there is some third party scientific way to measure levels of cognitive load the theory will struggle for full acceptance.
Additionally, Schnotz & Kürschner (2007) indicate that Cognitive load theory is too general in that it does not specify the types of affect that some of the secondary loads have upon one another, and in turn the major forms of cognitive load.
Cognitive load theory does have much to offer in the way of strengths, and is widely accepted and integrated into instructional design theory. Two of the major effects that I would integrate into my own design toolbox would be the “split-attention effect” and the “modality effect”. These two are just a small sampling of the many effects proposed by cognitive load theory, but are highly relevant to the development of distance learning.
Split-attention effect refers to the load that is placed on learners by trying to reconcile two items in isolation and how the load is reduced when those same two items are combined (Sweller, 2008). For example, a PowerPoint presentation can be combined with an audio lecture into a Captivate presentation. This combines the two different items into one and reduces extraneous load.
The modality effect takes the split-attention effect simply to another level. Modality recognizes that each receptive method could be viewed as an individual channel. Instead of integrating two different types of items, say visual and auditory, this takes into account that a learner may need to view two items on the same channel. One example would be if a student needed to look at a diagram and a text. If the visual channel can only handle one at a time then the text could be converted to audio. From there the audio and the diagram are combined as in the split-attention effect.
References
Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4
Sweller, J. (2008). Human Cognitive Architecture. In Driscoll, M. P., Merrill, M. D., Merrienboer, J. V., & Spector, J. M. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Educational-Communications-Technology-ebook/dp/B000SJZO90/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1
I think one of the most difficult things in researching how we learn is trying to measure things, especially when you're looking at mental functions. I'm not sure what the solution is; the only way we can really find out how effective something is is to test it using multiple control groups. Something like that is tough, and still may not result in the theory receiving widespread acceptance.
ReplyDeleteI end up being pretty pragmatic; cognitive load theory explains what I see in the classroom, so I tend to look at it favorably. I am especially a big believer in the modality effect, since it mirrors how I work best. There are weaknesses to cognitive load theory, but there are weaknesses inherent in any theory of cognitive development.
Cognitive load is interesting to study because it examines, to an extent, how the mind functions -- especially as it pertains to learning. To add to what you mentioned about the modality, the modality principle asserts that learners can develop a deeper understanding of the content during a multimedia lesson when visuals are explained using audio narration rather than text (Clark & Mayer, 2008). The few exceptions to the modality principle include (1) when a learner is already familiar with the content, (2) when a learner is not a native speaker of the audio language, and (3) when text exclusively appears on the screen (Clark & Mayer, 2008).
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, converting the text to audio can be beneficial since this avoids the potential cognitive overload caused by a visual combination of graphics and the words that explain them. An audio narration that replaces the text would be significantly more effective. Please note that I used the word “replaces.” When both text and audio narration accompany graphics, this also has the potential to overload the learner because the learner is trying to process both the text and the graphics through the visual channel.
Reference
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
@Warren - Some of what I had read indicated that there has been some level of success with physiological measures, but that even those have failed to gain any level of widespread acceptance. I think that sometimes people just don't want an answer.
ReplyDelete@ Michael - I can't tell if you are agreeing with me about converting the text to audio and then combining that audio with the diagram or if you are saying that "replacing" text with audio narration is different. I think we are suggesting the same thing, maybe just phrasing it differently?