Thursday, April 3, 2008

Reading 4 (Theme Two):


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

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) The Expertise reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 23-31.

Downloaded on 28 March 2008 by Massey University

This reading was prompted by the previous reading (1 of theme 2) . The authors outline cognitive load theory and then review the empirical literature on the interaction between instructional techniques and levels of learner experience that suggested the expertise reversal effect.

The expertise reversal problem is explained by applying the CLT principles. Many instructional design recommendations give no explicit reference to learner knowledge levels. Some recommendations apply only to learners with limited experience. Experts bring their activated schemas that give full guidance to the process of constructing mental representations of a task. Additional guidance becomes redundant and unnecessarily uses up working memory in cross referencing and integration and results in poorer performance.

The research focused on how expertise can alter relative instructional effectiveness. The article reviews the following empirical studies of interactions between levels of expertise and

  • the split-attention and redundancy effects (e.g. text and diagrams);
  • text processing (e.g. additional explanation to increase coherence);
  • the modality and redundancy effects (replication of information via both auditory and visual sources as opposed to dual-mode presentation);
  • the worked example effect (appropriacy of worked example as opposed to problem-solving);
  • the isolated or interacting elements effect (mixed instructional method followed by interacting elements);
  • the imagination effect (worked examples as opposed to imagining procedures)

Findings from the above research foci consistently confirm the expertise reversal effect. The conclusion is that design must be tailored to the level of experience of the learners.

Discussion:

1. This is a warning that recommendations to use particular designs can be counterproductive if they are not based on sound learning theory, research and knowledge of the learner’s needs. It illustrates the importance of planning in design and suggests that greater collaboration between student and teacher would increase the effectiveness of the design. This points to the importance of the instructor-student relationship which leads me to reflect on Garrison’s Community of Inquiry framework in which the social – cognitive-teaching presence facilitates the educational experience.

2. What can an instructor do in the initial phases of setting up an online class to include some form of reconnaissance of developmental experiences learners bring to the learning situation?

No comments: