Cognitive Psychology Seminar: Reconsidering Cognitive Load

If the fun from yesterday with the graphic communications majors at Clemson University wasn’t enough, today, I get to discuss cognitive load theory and web based instruction with graduate students and faculty in the Psychology department here at the university. I’m a little nervous about this talk, because I haven’t presented this before. This is a line of significant research for my colleague and friend Dr. Jongpil Cheon at Texas Tech University. So, I am piggy-backing on his great work.

If any of the students and faculty drop by to take a look or download the slides, feel free to leave a comment below.  I’d love to have your feedback on our research.

Below is an abstract of the presentation and the slides for Slideshare.net to go with the talk.

Abstract
This study proposes a new instrument to measure cognitive load types related to user interface and demonstrates theoretical assumptions about different load types. In reconsidering established cognitive load theory, the inadequacies of the theory are criticized in terms of the adaption of learning efficiency score and distinction of cognitive load types. Since measurement of mental effort does not cover all types of cognitive load, a new way of isolating different loads is required. Previous studies have focused on designing interface to reduce extraneous cognitive load. However, interface may have the potential to enhance germane cognitive load because learners may construct their knowledge schemata with interface layouts.

It’s more than convenience. Online instruction needs help.

The Internet has taken us beyond our wildest dreams. At the beginning of the Information Age there were the select individuals called “Webmasters” that had the skills to publish to the Web. Over the past decade, everyone has had tools at their disposable to create a presence with ease. I admit I was caught up in the rage to try online instruction. My first experience was in 2003 and my intent was to provide a convenient way to provide instruction to a small group of learners. My first mistake was letting the medium be the determining factor rather than focusing on the design of the content (Rovai, 2002). I did not incorporate well into the instruction some of the design and learning elements that play an important role for creating an effective learning experience.  So, if you’re creating online instruction, I recommend, you better be doing these 4 things.

1. Content

Using current lesson content and activities are likely not suited for the Web. Most importantly, an elearning experience does not include a Web page solely full of text. Content provided in the course of a lesson needs planning to include different forms of multimedia to boost learner motivation and immerse the learner in real-world applications. As a learner, I am more interested when the instruction gains my attention and thrusts me into experiences I have not encountered. Cathy Moore, a business elearning developer, illustrates the concept of less text and more learning based on research. The addition of illustrations and multimedia can assist learners in greater understanding and the ability to make application. Tom Kuhlmann’s demo, shows three different techniques to gain learner attention and to guide the learning process.

2. Navigation

Just as we use a map to find our way to a specific location, the navigation element for online instruction is important. A learner must be able to navigate through the different sections of the site with little effort.  I have visited Websites and taken online or hybrid courses where links are rampant. It becomes a maze when everything is linked to each other.  Unorganized navigation or excessive linking creates confusion and extraneous cognitive load for the learner. A navigable Web site is required for consistency throughout the instruction and a security measure to always find your way home.

3. Feedback

No matter if I’m in the role of a student or employee, I am anxious for feedback either to validate my performance, encouragement to improve, or a means to steer my thoughts in a different direction. If designing for online instruction, there needs to be a method for feedback whether in the form of an instructor or facilitator response, ability to compare tasks to a desired result or simply a grade.

4. Discussion/Collaboration

These two elements I have combined because discussion is normally a component of online instruction while collaboration is not. Discussion is the easiest to monitor learner participation and is directed by a facilitator’s choice of topics. The objective is for learners to share thoughts and increase the knowledge relating to Bloom’s Taxonomy. Collaboration is more challenging to plan in an online course, but I think collaboration moves a learner quicker to the highest order thinking skills.

These elements are important to consider when designing online instruction. Sure there are many others to consider, so post an element that is important to you and explain why.

References

Ally, Mohamed. (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In Theories and practice of online learning (chap. 1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch1.html

Rovai, A. (April, 2002). Building sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 3, 1. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/79/153

Guest blogger: Amanda Bevis manages the Madison County Adult Education program in Jackson, TN.  Her prior work has gained her experience in healthcare, computer programming, and in the university setting all utilizing her computer experience. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and is currently pursuing a Master’s degree in Instructional Design and Technology.

Image from Dan Meyer at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddmeyer/2666448493/sizes/m/

My top three for mixing text, images, audio, and video in learning

I am a visual learner. I would rather look at a chart than read a text. I would rather watch a video than read about its content. However, this is my own learning preference and it is not a general rule for learning. It is nice to entertain the idea of tailoring instruction to all the different styles of learners but, in reality, this is not practical.  What is practical is designing instruction that uses a mix of text, audio, video and images, also called multimedia. This has been proven to accommodate the different learning styles of the learners and help them learn better.

If I were to choose three things to consider when developing multimedia instruction they will be as follows:

1.Cognitive load

Sweller has written extensively about learning and cognitive load.  He argues that our brains can process a limited amount of information at one particular time. Not only that, when images and audio are mixed with text, special consideration has to be given on how the combination is done.  Repeating the same information through more than one medium makes it redundant.  An example would be presenting the text and the audio version of the same text simultaneously. Here, the learner is asked to attend to two sources of information that are repetitive and not complimentary to one another.  The result would be an unnecessary load imposed on the brain which might affect the learning g process. On the other hand, presenting the information through more than one medium might lead to split-attention.  An example would be a text and a diagram, each of which cannot be understood in isolation, nevertheless, they are presented in isolation from one another.  In this case, the learner is required to look at two sources of information in order to understand.  This might exceed the capability of the brain to process the information well in that one instance and might affect the learning process. (Sweller, 2007).  On his Rapid eLearning Blog, Tom Kuhlman’s presents a well thought of demo on how the effectiveness of instruction can be manipulated by how the different media are combined.

2.Purpose

It is easy for novice instructional designers to get carried away with their creativity, and the temptations of technology do not make it easier. However, one ought to remember why the media is being used. Check Ducey ‘s slide show on the different functions of graphics in instruction. Examples of the functions that Ducey lists are decorative, organizational, reducing cognitive load, increasing motivation, etc.  All of these functions become important when they are conducive to learning.  However, if they increase the “noise” and cause unnecessary cognitive load then it is better not to incorporate them.

3.Quality

Last but not least is the quality of the medium used, be it text, images, audio or video. For example, an audio that fulfills the first two conditions discussed above might not be effective if the quality of recording is bad. In his blog, Narration in eLearning, Schone describes some of the issues faced in producing narration.    The same applies to a poorly produced video or image or a poorly structured text.  Multimedia of low quality is a reflection of the effort invested in the development of the instructional material.  The learner‘s perception of the effort invested in the development might affect his perception of the credibility of the material. In turn, this might affect the learning process.   Also, low quality will most likely cause the brain to exert more effort to understand the instructional message.  Understandably, it is not always easy to produce multimedia of good quality. Here, one might rethink how best to invest in the resources, accept simplicity, or in worst case scenarios, not use multimedia if quality cannot be improved.

These are my top three rules for using text, images, audio, or video in learning. What are yours?  Input your suggestions and rules in the comments below.

Guest Blogger: Suha Tamim is a doctoral student in Instructional Design and Technology. She also holds a Masters degree in Public Health, Concentration Health Behavior and Health Education. She is interested in learning design, constructivism, and learning styles. Few years prior to becoming a doctoral student, Suha worked as an instructor at the university level, teaching students how to design health education materials and how to use them in the field.  She was also involved in training school teachers and health workers on the design of health education materials.

Reference
Sweller, J. (2007). Human cognition architecture.  In J.M. Spector, D. Merrill, J.v. Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds).  Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 369-381).  Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Image courtesy of J Fry at http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1013