Cognitive Load Theory - Literature review Example

Insert the name of your institution here Insert course name here Insert course code here Insert the name of your tutor here Insert your name here Insert date of submission here Introduction Research on knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture has attracted scholars for long. In particular, assessing the relationship between human cognitive architecture, cognitive load theory and instruction has been given priority in the recent studies (Atkinson et al., 2000; Van Merriënboer and Sweller, 2010). Beginning with cognitive load theory (CLT), an understanding on the link between knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture and instruction has to consider the fact that CLT can explain learning outcomes and this is done by giving considerations to the limitations and strengths of the human cognitive architecture. The theory forms the bond between human cognitive architecture and the process of delivering instructional design guidelines. If an assessment has to be undertaken to understand how knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture can enhance instruction then Clark et al. (2006) suggest basic assumptions of CLT that have to be considered and these include the assumption that human information processing system is made of a limited working memory ability or capacity. Secondly, there is unlimited capacity long term memory. Thirdly, there is automatic processing. Linking these assumptions to classroom situation, it is necessary to discuss how the theory or these aspects of knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture can help in the creation of a working model when it comes to instruction delivery. CLT makes it possible for explanations and predictions regarding how learning and instruction processes relate to instruction. However, what needs to be made clear is how knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture can enhance instruction. This will be the central focus of the study as the thesis will be conceptualized by assessing split-attention effect and redundancy effect. Split Attention The theory as conceptualized by Sweller (1988) was interested in instructional designs that could effectively manage the already limited processing abilities of different people’s working memory while making use of the extensive abilities of the long term memory so as to improve schema formation and promote intellectual learning and performance of cognitive skills deemed complex. Assessing this view with regard to split attention, there is a need to define cognitive load theory. According to Sweller et al. (2011) CLT is the value of mental resources needed for information processing. That is to mean high cognitive load will need students or users to have extra memory resources so as to deal with information from external sources. The capacities of working memory components test for effects when there are more than one concurrent input but on different modalities, it is the best way of testing split effect. Schneider et al. (2012) found that students responded differently when different modalities were presented to them and the conclusion made was that the different modalities could divide attention between the separate tasks and mentally integrated sources of information. It is therefore apparent from this finding that the best way of improving instruction is to ensure that learners are not given tasks that are going to split their attentions. Looked differently, the process of integration as mentioned may increase cognitive load thus decreasing performance of students. What can be concluded from the research conducted by Schneider et al. (2012) is that instruction programmes that encourage different modalities may not be the best way for academic performance of learners. It is for this reason that studies have even suggested the there is need for dual modality presentation in the instruction process (Sweller, 2012). Based on the argument above, this study presents a case study on how split-attention effect has connectedness with instruction improvement or the theory in general. Assessing how processing of information is affected by the amount of cognitive load on working memory, Moons and De Backer (2013) investigated the presentation modality effects when they compared retention of subjects that were presented with information that were constructed using two conflicting or differing modalities. In that case, the research used visual-auditory and the second case was presented with the same information using the same modality (visual-visual). What the study attempted to find was the effects of instructional option. The research speculated that if there would have been dual modality presentation then that would have decreased cognitive load thus increasing the capacity of working memory. Young et al. (2014) agree with this adding that the increase in capacity should be able to be seen in better retention of issues or materials taught in class using a given instructional method. In as much as the experiment failed to measure cognitive load, their findings were able to support the already established cognitive load theory. In one scenario Moons and De Backer (2013) found that when instructional method was designed to present information to learners in terms of dual modality, that is, auditory explanation and visual diagram students performed better. The conclusion that can be made from this experiment is that when instructional method has been designed to support dual presentation then there is a chance that this will in turn decrease cognitive load when it comes to working memory. This finding supports what Sweller et al. (1998) had earlier shown. Sweller et al. (1998) argued that instructional methods should support dual presentations as this will in turn ensure that students process both formats at the same time. Giving support to what Moons and De Backer (2013) found, this study suggests that there was improvement because both systems were able to be in use simultaneously. This is turn had ensured that limited working memory capacity could be effectively increase if information processed was presented in a way that it allowed to be divided between the two differing systems instead of the process taking place in just one system. The effect of split attention is applicable when it comes to architecture of working memory. In as much as studies tend to show that working memory parts or components can process different modalities simultaneously, the point of argument remains that knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture only improves instruction if the research by Moons and De Backer (2013) is given consideration in class. Redundancy Effect Having assessed split-attention effect, redundancy effect is necessary for the general understanding of the thesis statement. Redundancy and split-attention is argued to be closely related and in a number of occasions, studies have managed them with similar or related design principles. What this means is that if two or more information may be difficult to be conceptualized in isolation, then as assessed above, split-attention may occur. On the other hand, it these information can be understood in isolation then there is a chance that a redundancy effect may take place. Before presenting a case study on the relationship between redundancy effect and human cognitive architecture, there has been interesting findings on single format media studies (Leppink et al., 2013). Assessing results on improved test scores, learner performance, reduced rates of error, reduced completion durations, faster content processing times and decreased levels of cognitive load; there has been consensus that the type of instruction used determines general performance of learners (Young et al., 2014). Fusing more active classroom involvement in the process of content delivery is one way of assessing the effectiveness of instruction method on the one hand and assessment of redundancy effect on the other. Moons and De Backer (2013) took a step of making students to come up with self-explanations while examining class presented worked examples to write queries. The experiment noted that learners who attempted to establish a rationale or reason for their presented solution in worked examples were seen to have learned compared with those who did not. While the research termed this as ‘self-explanation effect’ it shows the relationship between redundancy effect and the type of instruction method to be used. Based on these case studies, the relationship between redundancy effects and the increase on germane cognitive load within worked-example instruction is seen in an experiment conducted by Young et al. (2014). The experiment asked learners to examine a set of examples solved or worked examples and then elaborate on either the association between actions and condition or the conditions for actions to be taken. In the same experiment, there was another group of learners who were subjected to a passive method and asked to study a set of worked examples but these examples had explicit elaborations of the materials that corresponded to the two active conditions. The experiment was set to investigate self-explanation effect according to which active group were expected to perform better than the passive group. In as much as there were no clear predictions made regarding effects of the amount of information presented to learners put in the passive condition, the experiment seemed to favour the assumption that too much information would hurt learning by bringing too high of a cognitive load thus citing prior redundancy effects to support the experiment. The general assumption in this case was that the respondents had the needed information to guarantee a negative effect concerning learning when redundant information is asked to elaborate on. What can be deduced from the experiment is that respondents in the active condition were able to take longer time to study the presented materials (manual) but were in term of transfer of tasks were faster compared to those in passive condition. It was noted that the procedural performance depended on the elaboration of the information. A point to note from the experiment was that there was no elaboration effect (passive versus active groups) on the process of learning. Interpreting this experiment, the additional load placed on by the decision to provide more information or elaborate did not generate a redundancy effect. The conclusion that can be made from the experiment is that contrary to the expectation of studies such as Moons and De Backer (2013), learners may not be cognitively overwhelmed. On the other hand, the results of this study is at odds with previous researches that indicated that cognitive activity in the form of elaboration from students can help from worked examples and that instructional explanations that present more rather than less information usually hurt learning. The conclusion that can be generated from the experiment is that instructional methods must be designed to conform to a given standard. The instruction method that will improve the performance of students will be that which presents less rather than more information. That is, when more complex knowledge is presented to students, then instructional delivery strategies that have been designed to use two pieces of instructional materials should be discouraged. Conclusion This study has found that there are several ways in which knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture can enhance instruction. Using examples from cognitive load theory and a realistic classroom scenario, there is an indication that instructional method must be designed in a particular way to ensure that students benefit from the process of teaching and learning. The examples given have further shown that for enhancement of instruction will only be through asking designers to increase the germane cognitive load. The study has found that this can be done reducing the unnecessary cognitive load through appropriate message design practices and instructional practices. Literatures that have been reviewed helped the study to understand other ways in which knowledge of the strengths and limitations of human cognitive architecture can enhance instruction. For instance, it has been noted that there is impact of lowered extraneous cognitive load when it comes to performance of a psychomotor undertakings or tasks. This means that instruction must seek to increase performance by the integrated materials treatment increase in germane cognitive load capacity. Instructional designers now need to make a reduction on designs that can be found to be creating redundancy and split-attention. On the other hand, enhancement on instruction will mean creation of different graphics and this must be done by using integrated approach as suggested by earlier studies such as Moons and De Backer (2013). Doing this will mean reducing the unnecessary cognitive load for learners thus content delivery becoming efficient. Contrariwise, when it comes to information that is complex for learners, the study has presented what teachers or instruction method should incorporate so as to guarantee effectiveness. The instruction should be designed such that it manages the unnecessary cognitive load as this will help the learner to develop necessary schemata based on the complexity of the issue presented. References Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods, 45(4), 1058-1072. Moons, J., & De Backer, C. (2013). The design and pilot evaluation of an interactive learning environment for introductory programming influenced by cognitive load theory and constructivism. Computers & Education, 60(1), 368-384. Schneider, D., Lam, R., Bayliss, A. P., & Dux, P. E. (2012). Cognitive load disrupts implicit theory-of-mind processing. Psychological science, 0956797612439070. Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive Load Theory. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 601-605). Springer US. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296. Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44, 85-93. Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214. Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kaluga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer. Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Medical teacher, 36(5), 371-384. Read More