Why Some Material is Difficult to Learn

1. Why Some Material is Difficult to Learn John Sweller and Paul Chandler, Cognition and Instruction 1994.

2. Balancing effective learning & cognitive load Intrinsic load Effective learning Extraneous load Schema Acquisition and Automation Effective learning Intrinsic load Extraneous load

3. Balancing effective learning & cognitive load Intrinsic load Effective learning Extraneous load Schema Acquisition and Automation Effective learning Intrinsic load Extraneous load

4. Example 1: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing • Schema • Automation • Low element interactivity Learner1Start State

5. Example 1: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Learner1Start State Practice …

6. Example 1: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Automated Schema Learner1End State

7. Example 1: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Automated Schema Learner1End State Element interactivity irrelevant

8. Example 2: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Schema Automation High element interactivity Learner2Start State

9. Example 2: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Learner2Intermediate State • Schema • Automation • Low element interactivity

10. Example 2: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Practice… Learner2Intermediate State • Schema • Automation • Low element interactivity

11. Example 2: Abstraction of one learner’s cognitive load processing Automated Schema Learner2End State

12. Learners’ cognitive loads have different start states Learner1Start State Learner2Start State

13. Learners’ cognitive loads have same end states Automated Schema Learner1End State Automated Schema Learner2End State

14. Large cognitive load • Means “multiple interacting elements” Difficulty = number of elements + degree of interactivity

15. Large cognitive load • Means “multiple interacting elements” Difficulty = number of elements + degree of interactivity • “…the task is difficult not because it is difficult to assimilate each element but because a huge number of elements must be assimilated.” (p. 188, Sweller & Chandler)

16. “multiple interacting elements” (??) • Elements Schema • No useful distinction • An element is a schema is an element is a schema …. • In particular, • Elements Lower order schema

17. “multiple interacting elements” (??) • Elements Schema • No useful distinction • An element is a schema is an element is a schema …. • In particular, • Elements Lower order schema • Recursive definition (!) • When does the madness end?  • Base case? • When an automated process is reached • Stack overflow? • Working memory exhausted

18. Requires learner to split their attention among and mentally integrate multiple sources of information Causes learner to associate redundant elements (text) with essential diagram and increases element interactivity Split-Attention Effect Redundancy Effect

19. Requires learner to split their attention among and mentally integrate multiple sources of information Segments of information unintelligible until physically or mentally integrated Causes learner to associate redundant elements (text) with essential diagram and increases element interactivity Segments of information that can be understood in isolation Split-Attention Effect Redundancy Effect

20. Requires learner to split their attention among and mentally integrate multiple sources of information Segments of information unintelligible until physically or mentally integrated Extraneous cognitive load matters Causes learner to associate redundant elements (text) with essential diagram and increases element interactivity Segments of information that can be understood in isolation Extraneous cognitive load matters Split-Attention Effect Redundancy Effect

21. Experiment One of Four • Compared CAD/CAM systems conventional-manual-plus-computer group with modified-manual-only • Twenty first-year trade apprentices (gender not specified) • Small test booklet and hardware & software for practical tests • Demonstrated split-attention effect using materials with high degree of interaction between individual elements • “modified-manual-only” operationalized by”…wherever the conventional manual required learners to look at the screen or keyboard, the modified-manual had illustrations integrated with the text.” (p. 196)

22. Experiment Two of Four • Now, three groups: CAD/CAM systems conventional-manual-plus-computer group, modified-manual-only group, and modified manual interacting with computer • Thirty year 7 (?) high school students • Small test booklet+ equipment and hardware & software for practical tests • On low element interactive tasks, there was no difference between groups (as hypothesized). Significant differences existed between modified-manual-only group and other two groups demonstrate redundancy effect • Caution: Data questionable

23. Experiment Three of Four • Same three groups from Experiment Two but with different presentation formats • Same (?) thirty year 7 (?) high school students • Similar small test booklet+ equipment and hardware & software for practical tests • As expected, no difference between groups performing low element interactive tasks • Word processing tasks could be learned in isolation and thus any extraneous cognitive load imposed by computer not an important factor

24. Experiment Four of Four • Same three groups from previous experiment • Thirty first-year trade apprentices • No prior experience testing an electrical appliance • Similar small test booklet+ equipment and hardware & software for practical tests • Both split-attention and redundancy effects demonstrated: • Modified-manual reduced extraneous cognitive load for high element interactive tasks • On low element interactive tasks, no difference in performance occurred (supporting redundancy effect (?how?)) • Results seemed to generalize to non-computer-based tasks