Annotated Bibliographies for Module 6
Reading #1:
Pass, F. & Sweller, J. (2014) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 27-42). New York: Cambridge.
This chapter explains the implications that our knowledge of human cognitive architecture has on instructional design issues related to multimedia instruction. The authors break knowledge into two categories; biologically primary knowledge and biologically secondary knowledge. Primary knowledge has been acquired by humans over many years of evolution. This includes basic skills that do not need explicit instruction, such as listening. Schools, however, are more interested in secondary knowledge. These are skills that do require explicit instruction to acquire, and it is here that cognitive load theory is applicable as it determines how humans go about learning secondary knowledge. This theory is based on five principles; the information store principle, the borrowing and reorganizing principle, the randomness as genesis principle, the narrow limits of change principle, and the environmental organizing and linking principle. These principles underline a complicated process that has profound implications on instructional design. As humans learn new knowledge, load is placed on cognitive architectures. Whereas germane cognitive load is to be expected when interacting with new material and is useful to facilitating learning, extraneous cognitive load is likely to result when the instructional design is poor. Reducing extraneous loads will free up working memory and create greater potential for learning to occur. Instructional design that ignores the principles of human cognitive architecture and cognitive load is likely to be ineffective.
Reading #2:
Ayres, P & Sweller, J. (2014) The split-attention principle in multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 206-226). New York: Cambridge.
This article explains the split-attention principle and the negative impact it may have on learning. This principle says that extraneous cognitive load is likely to occur with instructional materials requiring learners to split their attention between multiple sources of information. As documented elsewhere, extraneous cognitive load will lead poor retention of information as the cognitive structures of the brain are overload. This principle has been found in many research studies across a variety of disciplines. Split-attention can occur in multiple ways. Physical separation of materials is one likely means of split-attention, where necessary pieces of information for understanding are physically separated and requires the learner to search the material to make connections. The other type of split-attention can occur when when necessary pieces of information are split over time, such as necessary text and visual material being presented on separate slides of a digital presentation. Directing attention and using hypertext links in multimedia works are strategies that can be used to prevent the split-attention effect. In general, instructional designers must be aware of the possibilities of the split-attention effect and seek to eliminate it from their works.
Reading #3
Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2014) The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 247-262). New York: Cambridge.
The redundancy principle described in this article suggests that the use of redundant material can interfere with learning. This may seem counterintuitive as teachers often think that presenting material in multiple ways can be beneficial for getting a point across. However, this principle has been demonstrated multiple times in research studies. Stated simply, redundant information increases working memory load, potentially reaching overload. This overload of working memory resources can interfere with the learning process. Redundancy predominately occurs in two ways. First, redundancy can occur when the same material is presented in two or more forms at the same time, such as text and images being used to re-describe the original information in both auditory or written form. In this way, the redundant information takes up available working memory resources and overloads the learners ability to process the information for learning. The second form of redundancy occurs when unnecessary elaboration is presented in an effort to enhance material. Obvious overlap can occur between these two forms; however, the end result of redundant material is that learning is negatively effected. Instructional designers should take this principle into consideration. Instructional designs that eliminate sources of redundancy will have a better result on learning than designs that do not consider this principle.
Reading #4:
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Sweller’s article is focused on examining factors the make material more difficult or less difficult to learn. In his research, and in accordance with the tenets of cognitive load theory, Sweller presents the concepts of schema acquisition and automation of information as the most critical processing mechanisms as it relates to learning. He defines schemas as a “cognitive construct that organizes the elements of information according to the manner with which they will be dealt.” By organizing knowledge into schemas, newly learned material can be compared to previous knowledge of a similar nature, making learning easier. By automating learned material, people can perform tasks more efficiently as the new information will not require the working memory resources to process due to prior familiarity with the concepts. Excessive cognitive load can result from instruction that does not lead to automation or schema construction, negatively impacting the learning process. Materials with high element interactivity can also lead to increased cognitive load. Materials with high element interactivity and taught with poor instructional design only compound the cognitive load problems and make learning even more difficult.
Reading #5:
Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
This research article was cited in Kalyuga and Sweller (2014) as part of an examination of the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. I selected it because I find the redundancy principle to be fascinating as it goes against common misconceptions related to teaching and learning, specifically as it relates to presenting the same material in multiple ways to help students better understand. This study corroborated previous research findings of a negative effect on learning when redundant information is included as part of an instructional sequence. In this study, college students participated in a lesson about lightning formation. All students viewed an animation and listened to a narration explaining the formation of lightning. When on-screen text that summarized or duplicated the information from the narration was added to the animation, the researchers found a diminished performance on a retention and transfer test compared to students who did not receive the redundant information. This finding makes sense as it directly correlates with the redundancy principle stated elsewhere in this bibliography and in prior research. Additional experiments that included narration or video clips with interesting but irrelevant elaboration on the topic also led to decreased performance on a retention and transfer test compared to the control group. Instructional designers must be cognizant of the real negative effects of redundant material and irrelevant elaboration on cognitive memory and learning.
Pass, F. & Sweller, J. (2014) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 27-42). New York: Cambridge.
This chapter explains the implications that our knowledge of human cognitive architecture has on instructional design issues related to multimedia instruction. The authors break knowledge into two categories; biologically primary knowledge and biologically secondary knowledge. Primary knowledge has been acquired by humans over many years of evolution. This includes basic skills that do not need explicit instruction, such as listening. Schools, however, are more interested in secondary knowledge. These are skills that do require explicit instruction to acquire, and it is here that cognitive load theory is applicable as it determines how humans go about learning secondary knowledge. This theory is based on five principles; the information store principle, the borrowing and reorganizing principle, the randomness as genesis principle, the narrow limits of change principle, and the environmental organizing and linking principle. These principles underline a complicated process that has profound implications on instructional design. As humans learn new knowledge, load is placed on cognitive architectures. Whereas germane cognitive load is to be expected when interacting with new material and is useful to facilitating learning, extraneous cognitive load is likely to result when the instructional design is poor. Reducing extraneous loads will free up working memory and create greater potential for learning to occur. Instructional design that ignores the principles of human cognitive architecture and cognitive load is likely to be ineffective.
Reading #2:
Ayres, P & Sweller, J. (2014) The split-attention principle in multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 206-226). New York: Cambridge.
This article explains the split-attention principle and the negative impact it may have on learning. This principle says that extraneous cognitive load is likely to occur with instructional materials requiring learners to split their attention between multiple sources of information. As documented elsewhere, extraneous cognitive load will lead poor retention of information as the cognitive structures of the brain are overload. This principle has been found in many research studies across a variety of disciplines. Split-attention can occur in multiple ways. Physical separation of materials is one likely means of split-attention, where necessary pieces of information for understanding are physically separated and requires the learner to search the material to make connections. The other type of split-attention can occur when when necessary pieces of information are split over time, such as necessary text and visual material being presented on separate slides of a digital presentation. Directing attention and using hypertext links in multimedia works are strategies that can be used to prevent the split-attention effect. In general, instructional designers must be aware of the possibilities of the split-attention effect and seek to eliminate it from their works.
Reading #3
Kalyuga, S. & Sweller, J. (2014) The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. (pp. 247-262). New York: Cambridge.
The redundancy principle described in this article suggests that the use of redundant material can interfere with learning. This may seem counterintuitive as teachers often think that presenting material in multiple ways can be beneficial for getting a point across. However, this principle has been demonstrated multiple times in research studies. Stated simply, redundant information increases working memory load, potentially reaching overload. This overload of working memory resources can interfere with the learning process. Redundancy predominately occurs in two ways. First, redundancy can occur when the same material is presented in two or more forms at the same time, such as text and images being used to re-describe the original information in both auditory or written form. In this way, the redundant information takes up available working memory resources and overloads the learners ability to process the information for learning. The second form of redundancy occurs when unnecessary elaboration is presented in an effort to enhance material. Obvious overlap can occur between these two forms; however, the end result of redundant material is that learning is negatively effected. Instructional designers should take this principle into consideration. Instructional designs that eliminate sources of redundancy will have a better result on learning than designs that do not consider this principle.
Reading #4:
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Sweller’s article is focused on examining factors the make material more difficult or less difficult to learn. In his research, and in accordance with the tenets of cognitive load theory, Sweller presents the concepts of schema acquisition and automation of information as the most critical processing mechanisms as it relates to learning. He defines schemas as a “cognitive construct that organizes the elements of information according to the manner with which they will be dealt.” By organizing knowledge into schemas, newly learned material can be compared to previous knowledge of a similar nature, making learning easier. By automating learned material, people can perform tasks more efficiently as the new information will not require the working memory resources to process due to prior familiarity with the concepts. Excessive cognitive load can result from instruction that does not lead to automation or schema construction, negatively impacting the learning process. Materials with high element interactivity can also lead to increased cognitive load. Materials with high element interactivity and taught with poor instructional design only compound the cognitive load problems and make learning even more difficult.
Reading #5:
Mayer, R., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
This research article was cited in Kalyuga and Sweller (2014) as part of an examination of the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. I selected it because I find the redundancy principle to be fascinating as it goes against common misconceptions related to teaching and learning, specifically as it relates to presenting the same material in multiple ways to help students better understand. This study corroborated previous research findings of a negative effect on learning when redundant information is included as part of an instructional sequence. In this study, college students participated in a lesson about lightning formation. All students viewed an animation and listened to a narration explaining the formation of lightning. When on-screen text that summarized or duplicated the information from the narration was added to the animation, the researchers found a diminished performance on a retention and transfer test compared to students who did not receive the redundant information. This finding makes sense as it directly correlates with the redundancy principle stated elsewhere in this bibliography and in prior research. Additional experiments that included narration or video clips with interesting but irrelevant elaboration on the topic also led to decreased performance on a retention and transfer test compared to the control group. Instructional designers must be cognizant of the real negative effects of redundant material and irrelevant elaboration on cognitive memory and learning.