1 / 18

Applying Cognitive Load Theory to Acquisition of a Dynamic Decision Making Skill

Applying Cognitive Load Theory to Acquisition of a Dynamic Decision Making Skill Christian Frederiksen, E. James Kehoe, Robert Wood, & Hakan Yasarcan The University of New South Wales Cognitive Load Theory Conference University of Wollongong 2 March 2008. Dynamic Decision Making.

vernon-stafford
Download Presentation

Applying Cognitive Load Theory to Acquisition of a Dynamic Decision Making Skill

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Applying Cognitive Load Theory to Acquisition of a Dynamic Decision Making Skill Christian Frederiksen, E. James Kehoe, Robert Wood, & Hakan Yasarcan The University of New South Wales Cognitive Load Theory Conference University of Wollongong 2 March 2008

  2. Dynamic Decision Making • Actions alter the environment and therefore our next decisions • Time lags • Circular causality • Stocks and flows • Non-linear cause & effect

  3. Conundrum in Instructional Aids • Induction of germane load for schema formation • Induction of extraneous load • E.g., split attention effect

  4. Causal Maps • Somewhat effective in prior dynamic decision making tasks (Langley & Morecroft, 2004) • Jump-start schema formation in novices via enhancing germane load?

  5. Written Rules(Isolated-Elements) • Improves novice performance on static, procedural tasks (Pollock, Chandler, & Sweller, 2002) • Induces schema formation via isolated elements being processed sequentially rather than simultaneously

  6. Design Group Phase 1 Phase 2 Games 1-3 Q Games 4-6 CM Causal Map Q Game Only WR Written Rules Q Game Only Con Game Only Q Game Only

  7. Results: Market Share

  8. Results: Profit

  9. Results: Cognitive Load • Midrange to high cognitive loads, no differences between the 3 groups • No significant correlation with performance • Tended to decline as prior experience rose (r = -.44)

  10. Conclusions • Written rules (isolated-elements) ineffective • Less concise and therefore greater search time? (Larkin & Simon, 1987) • Misalignment between sequential processing of aid and dynamic task? (Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996)

  11. Conclusions • CM had consistent beneficial effect on market share • More complex effect on profit, though still beneficial overall • Large variability

  12. Conclusions • Paradox: no difference in cognitive load yet superior performance • Subjective rating scale measures total CL, not sophisticated enough to discern relative contributions of intrinsic, extraneous, germane

  13. Conclusions • Processes by which CM may enhance germane load: • Making spatial relations explicit (Marcus et al., 1996) • Drawing participant attention to relevant features(McCrudden et al., 2007)

  14. Next Steps • Role of prior experience? Direct comparison between novices and experts. • Optimal amount of time to be exposed to the instructional aid? • Can the causal map be improved? • Precisely measure germane load?

  15. Thank You Comments & questions? Christian Frederiksen crf983@gmail.com E. James Kehoe, PhD j.kehoe@unsw.edu.au

More Related