Toward a Synthesis between Cognitive Load Theory and Self Directed Learning

1. Toward a Synthesis between Cognitive Load Theory and Self Directed Learning Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer & Dominique A. Sluijsmans Presentation at the 2nd Cognitive Load Theory Conference, University of Wollongong, 29 February – 2 March 2008, Wollongong Australia

2. Contents • CLT and SDL • SDL and the nature of learning tasks • Enabling SDL: decreasing CL • Reinforcing SDL: increasing germane load • Discussion

3. CLT and SDL • Problem • Use of rich learning tasks in education causes high cognitive load, which may hamper learning • CLT & 4C/ID solutions • Decreasing extraneous load through fading guidance strategies (e.g., completion strategy) • If necessary: Decreasing intrinsic load by gradually increasing number of interacting elements through simple-to-complex sequencing

4. Drawbacks • Sequence of learning tasks is identical for whole target group • No adaptation possible to level of expertise of learners (e.g., Kalyuga, 2006) • No opportunity to teach self-directed learning, because there is nothing to direct • Yet central to lifelong learning (Field, 2006)

5. SDL and the nature of learning tasks • Whole tasks should now refer to • Performing (P) the task • Self-assessing (A) quality of performance, and • Selecting (S) next tasks to work on • Dynamic planning of individual trajectory

6. (Self) assessment of rich learning tasks • On—sometimes many—different aspects • On different standards • Criteria • Values • Attitudes

7. Selection of learning tasks

8. Are the cognitive-load principles and associated instructional methods developed to promote learning to perform the task also useful to promote the development of self-assessment and task-selection skills?

9. Enabling SDL: decreasing CL • Decrease intrinsic load through simple-to-complex ordering of self-assessment sub tasks • Decrease extraneous load through fading guidance strategies for self-assessment sub tasks • Decrease intrinsic load through simple-to-complex ordering of task-selection sub tasks • Decrease extraneous load through fading guidance strategies for task-selection sub tasks

10. Decreasing intrinsic load for self-assessment • Emphasis manipulation, e.g.: • let learners first focus on criteria (accurary, then speed), then on criteria and values, and, finally, on criteria, values as well as attitudes • Amount of standards that must be taken into account, and thus the amount of interacting elements, gradually increases

11. Decreasing extraneous load for self-assessment • Fading guidance, e.g. • From ‘being assessed’ to ‘assessing yourself” • First study worked-out examples of well conducted assessments, then complete partially given assessment, then do self-assessments • Alternative: from ‘being assessed’ to ‘assessing peers’ to ‘assessing yourself’ • From giving relevants standards and scoring rubrics, to giving only relevant standards, to giving nothing at all (Fastré, study is on its way)

12. Decreasing intrinsic load for task selection • Emphasis manipulation, e.g. • First focus on support/guidance provided in tasks from which the selection has to be made, then focus on support/guidance as well as difficulty, and, finally, focus on support/guidance, difficulty as well as other task features • Amount of task characteristics that must be taken into account, and thus the amount of interacting elements, gradually increases

13. Decreasing extraneous load for task selection • Fading guidance, e.g. “shared control” (Corbalan et al., 2006) • System selects an increasingly larger subset of suitable tasks, from which the learner then makes a final selection • If subset = 1: system control • If subset = whole set: full learner control • Thus, from ‘having the tasks selected for you’ to ‘selecting your own tasks’

14. Shared control ICorbalan, Kester & van Merrienboer, in press a • Learning tasks in dietetics domain • Positive results on task involvement (Paas et al., 2005)

15. Shared control IICorbalan, Kester & van Merrienboer, in press b • Learning tasks in genetics domain • Positive effects on transfer test performance and task involvement, if subset contains tasks that differ on surface features from previous tasks

16. Reinforcing SDL: increasing germane load • Positive effects of decreasing load • Avoiding cognitive overload • Freeing up cognitive resources for learning • Germane-load inducing methods • Variability • Self-explanation and reflection prompts • Are such methods also applicable to assessment and task-selection aspects of learning tasks?

17. Increasing germane load for self-assessment • 360-degrees feedback • Variability • Self-explain discrepancies between self-assessment and assessments of others • Self-explanation prompts • Stimulate learners to find causes for suboptimal aspects of their performance • Assessment → diagnosis

18. Increasing germane load for task selection • Variability • Have learners select tasks based on variable set of ‘own’ characteristics (performance on previous tasks, misconceptions, effort invested in previous tasks, interests) as well as task characteristics (e.g., topic, difficulty, support provided) • Self-explanation prompts • Reflect on task selections made and make principles explicit (e.g., in coaching meetings, Kicken et al., submitted)

19. Discussion • Use of CLT for research on SDL? • New conceptualization of ‘whole tasks’ • Perform, assess, and select next task(s) • Known principles from CLT seem applicable to “self-assessing” and “selecting new task(s)” • Future CLT research • Use richer assessments (multiple standards for multiple aspects) • Follow development over time, because task-selection decisions are made on a continuous basis