Rick West

This post continues on the theme of my last posting related to the research on distance education impacts from extraneous cognitive load. To reiterate, this material is mostly from a chapter I helped to write these last few months with Drs. Hannafin, Hill and Song for the upcoming new edition of the Handbook of Distance Education.

After I looked at what research studies existed related to extraneous load in DE settings, I researched what kinds of experiments have been done in regards to other kinds of cognitive load. Germane cognitive load is an interesting theory stating that some cognitive load is actually a good thing, because it creates schemas or mental models for enabling more efficient learning in the future. For example, maybe while learning a particular set of materials, I spend some cognitive resources constructing schemas for organizing this material in my memory. This increases my total cognitive load at the moment, but we can be forgiving of this because the mental schemas I create will make learning this material so much easier in the future. The general thinking among cognitive load researchers is that we should try to decrease extraneous cognitive load while increasing germane cognitive load, because this will equal more efficient learning.

This all kind of reminds me of the “Bad Cholesterol/Good Cholesterol” idea that maybe some cholesterol is okay, even beneficial. So, you know, cognitive load isn’t ALWAYS a bad thing — it just depends on what kind of load it is!

So can germane cognitive load be improved in distance education? It’s hard to say for sure because few germane CL studies are done explicitly in DE settings. Most of this research is typically done in traditional learning environments. In these kinds of settings, I found the following to be typical of the research being conducted (to quote from the upcoming book chapter):

Researchers report benefits from providing students worked examples (problems showing an example along with the step-by-step solution process); likewise, self-explanation may help to increase schema creation (Gerjets, Scheiter & Catrambone, 2004; Paas &van Merrienboer, 1994; Paas, 1992; Reed & Bolstad, 1991; Renkl, Atkinson,& Grosse 2004; Renkl, Stark, Gruber, & Mandl, 1998; Sweller, 1988).Other methods for increasing germane load include the use of example elaboration and example comparison (Gerjets, Scheiter, & Catrambone, 2004),and fading procedures (Renkl et. al., 2003; Renkl, et. al., 2004). As a result of highly developed mental models, students may better transfer learning (Paas& van Merrienboer, 1994).

All of these findings are for non-distance education settings, but the point we make in the chapter is that these may also be effective methods related to germane CL in distance education. The biggest finding, though, is that we just don’t know because it hasn’t been thoroughly researched and tested in online environments. This opens up a plethora of research opportunities for folks who could look at questions such as:

1. How do you use self-explanation to increase germane load in DE?
2. How are schemas constructed in online learning?
3. How do you use elaboration and example comparison methods online?
4. How does fading work in DE?
5. etc., etc. … Take any of the methods developed for increasing germane CL and ask how well it works online and what adaptations are needed.
6. More importantly, I feel, is this question: How do you measure germane cognitive load in online settings so that we can have a reliable measuring stick as researchers?

What research has been done about developing germane CL in online settings usually is related to navigation methods. A good example of these kinds of studies was one conducted by Eveland and colleagues (2004). I summarized this study in the chapter:

Research on developing, instantiating and inducing mental schemas relies may also assist influence the cognitive load of to-be-learned concepts. In a study by Eveland and colleagues (2004), two groups of participants (college students and nonstudents) explored for 20 minuteshealth topic websites designed with either linear navigation or nonlinear navigation. They then post-tested participant understanding of factual information using a questionnaire and asking them to list and rate relationships among concepts they remembered (knowledge structure density). Whereas participants learned factual information best from linear websites, nonlinearsites improved knowledge structure density which they interpreted to be more transferable knowledge. The study also suggests that nonlinear websites may increase germane load (positive load) Interestingly, in a previous study by the same researchers, nonlinear websites increased extraneous (negative) load(Eveland, et al. 2001).

Overall takeaways for me on this subject were that germane CL research seems to be a very relevant line of research as we struggle with how to develop more efficient learning. However, there doesn’t seem to be much research done beyond looking at site navigation and surfing habits, and these studies are often done by communication researchers, not education researchers (not that we can’t learn a lot from these folks). It seems there are a lot of open doors here to study how to develop germane CL in online settings.

I’d be interested in hearing if anybody is involved in such a study!

References

Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody,
S. (2004). How Web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge,
and knowledge structure density. Human
Communication Research, 30(2), 208-233.

Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User
control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Communication Research, 28(1), 48.

Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal
configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional
design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R.
(2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load:
Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1), 33-58.

Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (in press). Cognitive Perspectives on

Technology-Enhanced Distance Learning Environments. To be included in the Handbook of Distance Education.

Reed, S. K. & Bolstad, C. A. (1991). Use of
examples and procedures in problem solving. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17(4): 753-766.

Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S.
(2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1), 59-82.

Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H.
(1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability
and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.

Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring
the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill
acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.

Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for
attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load
approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 84(4), 429-434.

Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G.
(1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical
problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem
solving. Cognitive Science, 12,
257-285.

technorati tags:AECT2006, AECT, BlogTracks, BlogTracks2006, distance, education, germane, cognitive, load, handbook

One of the reasons why we decided to do this BlogTracks presentation is that several of us were involved in different kinds of literature reviews around the topic of distance learning, and this BlogTracks would give us a way to discuss some of our findings. For the last several months I have been working with Drs. Michael Hannafin, Janette Hill, and Liyan Song on a chapter about the cognitive implications for distance learning environments, to be included in the upcoming edition of the Handbook of Distance Education. This was a revision of a previous chapter written by Drs. Hannafin and Hill, along with Kevin Oliver, Evan Glazer, and Priya Sharma, included in the previous Handbook’s edition. Anyway, I was very thrilled to be included in the revision of the chapter, because the original chapter, I thought, was an excellent addition to the Distance Ed literature. It filled a hole by looking specifically at cognitive and learning factors of web-based environments, and the authors did a good job of being careful and critical of what research studies they included in their analysis. In the upcoming Handbook, they were invited to expand the original cognitive and learning factors chapter into two chapters … I was involved with the cognitive factors chapter.

This was an excellent opportunity for me to get a better grip on traditional constructs of human cognition, and understand how cognition is impacted in cyberspace. One of the constructs that I was asked to research was impacts on cognitive load in technology-enhanced environments. There are, of course, different kinds of cognitive load. Extraneous load is created by the instructional method. So a dense textbook will create more cognitive load than a picture book. Anyway, in researching cognitive load in distance education, I did not find a lot of relevant research studies using distance learning environments, although there is a lot of research done with multimedia, which could be a component of distance education, but not necessarily.

Of the research I did find, it seems that there are two aspects of distance ed that can increase extraneous load in students. One is the use of hyperlinking. To quote from a portion of the upcoming chapter that I worked on:

    In a study of 39 undergraduate students in an educational computing course, Niederhauser, Reynolds, Salmen, and Skolmoski (2000) conducted tested the impact of different navigational patterns on learning using hyperlinked text. They used surveys to assess students’ reading ability, domain knowledge, and background using computers. Computer software was used to measure the time spent reading each screen and navigation patterns, and a posttest questionnaire and essay assignment were employed to measure learning. As expected, they found that reading comprehension, background knowledge, and reading time were positively related to learning. They were surprised to learn, however, that using hyperlinked material to compare and contrast concepts had a negative influence on learning. The authors concluded that the hypertext environment’s increased cognitive load negatively impacted student learning.

    Similarly, Eveland and Dunwoody (2001) divided 219 students into five groups taught via different online materials. One group browsed a website using linear navigation buttons, while another group browsed a site with links embedded throughout the material to encourage students to explore the content nonlinearly. A third group used nonlinear links with linear navigational guides; the remaining students served as a paper-based and independent task control groups. All groups were given 15 minutes to study the material, and completed a posttest asking them to rate their motivation and Web expertise and the difficulty of learning. The paper-based control group outperformed two of the three Web-based groups, suggesting that Web-based hyperlinking, in the absence of advice, increased extraneous cognitive load associated with learning.

Another finding that we saw in the literature is that limited prior knowledge of the technology used to facilitate the distance learning environment could lead to increased extrinsic load. Simply put, if you’re not used to using Blackboard, for example, taking a course administed by Blackboard will increase your cognitive load. To quote again from the upcoming chapter: 

    Clarke, Ayres, and Sweller (2005) assigned 24 Australian 9th graders into four groups based on their experience using spreadsheets and mathematics abilities. They compared technology instruction prior to domain instruction with simultaneous instruction in both and measured student ability to perform math and spreadsheet problems and obtained subjective ratings of cognitive load. These researchers reported that initial technology instruction followed by domain instruction was most effective for students with low prior spreadsheet abilities, rather than teaching both concurrently. Concurrent instruction in technology and domain content apparently simultaneously increased extraneous, while decreasing germane, cognitive load.

I recently had an article published in TechTrends (West, Wright, Gabbitas, and Graham, 2006) that reported similar findings. We were attempting to integrate blogs, aggregators, and wikis into a preservice instructional technology course at a time when these tools were pretty new and unknown (don’t you love it that it took this long to get the article published, and now those tools are pretty common?). We found that because most students had not used these tools before, the technical barriers created such an extensive extraneous load that it impaired their abilities to understand the potential value of these tools. Even though we gave workshops to teach them how to use the tools, and the tools were fairly simple (we used Blogger and Bloglines), because the students were unfamiliar with the tools, they didn’t catch on or “get” how they could really be used as learning tools. It was almost like the cognitive load created by their unfamiliarity with the tools–even though they could demonstrate adequate competency with the tools–made learning with the tools difficult. We had underestimated how this would impact the entire semester. We knew the first week or two of using the tools would be rough, but the struggles continued all semester long.

This has big impacts, of course, in studying learning in distance education. If we find that there is no improvement in learning from using a new technology-enhanced environment, then maybe there is still some extra extraneous load hanging around from their unfamiliarity with the tools that is distorting the learning outcomes.

How do we get around that? I don’t know. And while we can argue that people are growing more and more comfortable with distance education technologies, there are always new and exciting technologies being created, so the problem will continue.

References

Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 15-24.

Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Communication Research, 28(1), 48.

Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (in press). Cognitive Perspectives on
Technology-Enhanced Distance Learning Environments. To be included in the Handbook of Distance Education.

Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(3), 237-255.

West, R. E., Wright, G. W., Gabbitas, B., & Graham, C. R. (in press). Reflections from the
            Introduction of Blogs and RSS Feeds Into a Preservice Instructional Technology Course.
            TechTrends. 50(4): 54-60.

technorati tags:handbook, distance, education, technology, BlogTracks, AECT200, AECT

Blogged with Flock