Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Cognitive Load (Key Words (Measured Variance, in alignment with…

- - - - Short term memory and its limitations, serve to control the speed at which change occurs in the long term memory (Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005)
        
        Aiding the accumulation of usable rather than random knowledge
        in long-term memory means that information need not be freely discovered by learners but rather be conveyed in a manner that reduces unnecessary working memory load." (Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005) P. 155
  - - - Refuted some multimedia theory - or at least showed the effects were reduced or reversed as the level of knowledge increased (Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005)
  - - - Learning can happen through instruction or problem solving (Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005)
      - Should appropriate instruction be unavailable, all humans will resort to problem solving - if the learning need is strong enough (Sweller 2003 in Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005)
  - - - Chandler and Sweller 1991 - Six experiments:
        
        Integrating necessary information - helpful
        
        Integrating extraneous information - not helpful
        
        Removal of mental integration lessened instructional time and improved performance
        
        Showed dramatic decrease in efficiency when students are presented with redundant yet relative information (DO ti once and do it well)
        5 and 6 - Replicated prior results using a disparate subject to the first four experiments
  - - - Clarified that schema organize information held in long term memory and assist in lessening the load on working memory, and the schema develop appropriate complexity for the given task.
      - Clarified that automation of schema (often through practice) can lessen the working memory load
    - - Germane
        
        Directly related to the construction of schema
        
        Often synonomous with generative learning, or metacognition
      - Intrinsic
        
        Element interactivity increases cognitive load. Facts in isolation, have low cognitive load, where as interactions or processes produce higher cognitive load, especially when a schema for processing has not been established
        
        Element interactivity is variant based upon prior knowledge
      - Extraneous
        
        Problem searching behavior
        
        Information integration
  - - - Working memory requires attention to be paid to the infor-mation being processed, and anything that disrupts attention will interfere
        with learning. (Mellanby and Theobald)
- - - - Research suggests that providing novice learners with full control over which learning tasks to work on, imposes too high an extraneous load, even though it seems to enhance learners’ motivation or involvement (see e.g., Corbalan, Kester, & Van Mer-riënboer, 2008; Scheiter & Gerjets, 2007). in Ayres and Gog 2009
        
        Shared control - in Mm environments is suggested as a solution (Ayres and Gog 200)
      - Text Via Hypermedia - For the low prior knowledge learners, the results showed that the hierarchical structure supported better free recall performance and reduced feelings of disorientation. In contrast, the high prior knowledge learners performed better and followed more coherent reading sequences in the network structure. (Amadieu, Tricot, Marine 2009)
        
        Disorientation thereby adds to cogni-tive load, that is, it requires extra working memory resources
        
        A hierarchical structure is mainly made up of organiza-tional links that organize the information, whereas a network structure is made up of relational links that stress relevant infor-mation, for example definition, generalization, similar information, etc., (Amadieu, Tricot, Marine 2009)
  - - - Expertise reversal - initially better to have both text and charts or images integrated to avoid load of mental integration , but as knowledge increases, redundance creates a revers of the positive effect eliminating gain and potentially lessening learning. Kalyuga 1998 in Van Merriboer and Swell 2005
      - Illustrations aided learning in following the textual instructions but were less helpful in remembering whole procedures. (Ayres and Gog 2009)
    - - among novices, dual mode, auditory/visual pre-sentations were superior to visual only presentations, demonstrating the modality effect. With more experience, the auditory component became redundant and was best eliminated. (Kalyuga et all 2000 in Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005)
    - - CLT is no longer limited to straightforward instructional presentations or linear media but has found several appli-cations in the design of multimedia systems (for an overview, see Mayer and Moreno, 2002, 2003).
    - - In their review of the literature, Tversky, Morrison, and Betrancourt (2002) showed that although dynamic visualizations seem an intuitively superior instructional format for representing change over time than static graphics, the superiority of dynamic over static visual-izations could not always be demonstrated empirically. (in Ayres and Gog 2009)
      - The procedural-motor condition is consistent with a potential explanation based on neuroscience research recently provided by Van Gog, Paas, Marcus, Ayres, and Sweller (in press). They argued that the mirror-neuron system, which is activated when we per-form a movement ourselves, but also when we observe someone performing a movement, might explain why dynamic visualiza-tions are often effective for tasks containing human movement,
        but not for content demonstrating other kinds of movement. (Ayres and Gog 2009)
    - - Results indicated that high prior knowledge learners benefited from the use of semantic scaffolds, but low prior knowledge learners did not. In addition, learners with low prior knowledge performed better with an op-tional presentation, whereas high prior knowledge performed bet-ter with an obligatory presentation, which allowed the removal of the scaffolds.
  - - - Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005 suggest presneting the most important (conceptually) items first, then progressing to the whole - contradicting Gestalt theory
      - Part Task (breaking the whole task into component parts) vs whole task with increasing complexity, no established difference (Van Merriboer and Sweller)
        
        At some pint, should the whole task not have a simple enough structure for a novice to process it must be broken into part tasks
      - Pollock et al. (2002) in Van Merriboer and Sweller 2005, suggested guidelines, but seem to break content along familiar lines only
      - Overall accepted research suggest using established schema to organize chunks regardless of how they are created