Reading 3 (Theme Two)

First reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Downloaded on 28 March by Massey University

This is the introductory article to an issue devoted to Cognitive Load Theory and with Sweller himself one of the authors, it offers a good overview of the theory and terminology related to CLT which itself provides a framework for investigations into cognitive processes and instructional design.

Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the material being learned. Conscious cognitive processing of the element interactivity is done in the working memory.

Extraneous or ineffective cognitive load refers to problematic instructional procedures in task design that interfere with schema acquisition and automation.

Germane or effective cognitive load enhances learning: working memory resources are able to be devoted to schema acquisition and automation because effective material presentation. Increases in effort or motivation can increase cognitive resources and if relevant to schema acquisition and automation, increases germane cognitive load.

For learning to occur the sum of intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive loads needs to be less than the working memory resources available. Effective instructional design that reduces extraneous load and increases germane load improves learning; schema acquisition reduces intrinsic cognitive load and frees working memory capacity.

The original static focus of CLT aimed to develop instructional techniques to reduce extraneous cognitive load (goal specificity, split-attention, etc). Emergence of a dynamic approach considers intrinsic load as the property of the task and considers alterations in the cognitive load that occur with increasing expertise. Its main outcome has been the expertise reversal effect – previously effective instructional techniques can lose effectiveness with experts.

Some instructional consequences include: need for realistic tasks, simple-to-complex sequencing, provision of worked examples; appropriate timing of information and provision of overarching supportive information (big-picture) .

Discussion and questioning

When this paper was written (2003), little had been done to measure cognitive load. I will have to research more recent developments as it would be very valuable in terms of accommodating learner differences (cf Learner-centred psychological principles 12 – 14) in design.

The dynamic approach that recognises the problem of the expertise reversal effect presents a very practical problem to the designer. How does design accommodate the different stages learners are at in an online task – a problem exacerbated by the variance in time, pace and motivation of online learners? This problem prompts more reading.

Technology influences the learning context. Does one have to be more careful in online learning that important information does not get lost-in-delivery for the more technology-savvy students taking shortcuts while for others the technology itself becomes extraneous cognitive load? How does one accommodate both possibilities in practice?