Advertisement

How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies

  • Justin Sentz
  • Jill Stefaniak
  • John Baaki
  • Angela Eckhoff
Development Article

Abstract

This study examined how practicing instructional designers manage cognitive load in a standardized scenario as they select and implement instructional strategies, message design, content sequencing, delivery medium, and technology within various domains with learners at different levels of expertise. The study employed a quasi-experimental, mixed methods design to gain insight into how practicing instructional designers perceive their awareness of strategies to manage cognitive load and implement those strategies within a standardized design scenario. The results of the study indicated that both novice and expert practitioners frequently used several strategies to manage extraneous load (worked examples, completion tasks, and dual modality) as prescribed by theory, as well as the simple-to-complex presentation strategy to manage intrinsic load. While participants frequently acknowledged differences in the levels of learner expertise within the instructional scenario, few employed strategies prescribed to address the expertise reversal effect as outlined by theory. Based on the results of this study, we present a framework to assist designers with managing for cognitive load in their everyday design practices.

Keywords

Cognitive load Instructional designers Designer awareness 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). Interactions between the isolated-interactive elements effect and levels of learner expertise: Experimental evidence from an accountancy class. Instructional Science, 38(3), 277–287.Google Scholar
  3. Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). The impact of complexity on the expertise reversal effect: Experimental evidence from testing accounting students. Educational Psychology, 36(10), 1868–1885.Google Scholar
  4. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, T. W., Hsu, J. M., & Yu, P. T. (2011). A comparison of single- and dual-screen environment in programming language: Cognitive loads and learning effects. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 188–200.Google Scholar
  6. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105–134.Google Scholar
  11. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.Google Scholar
  12. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., … Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49Google Scholar
  14. Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2014). The influence of cognitive domain content levels and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
  15. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 287–297.Google Scholar
  16. Jonassen, D. H. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.Google Scholar
  18. Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavrulaki, E. (2006). Learning to solve problems on the web: Aggregate planning in a business management course. Distance Education, 20(1), 49–63.Google Scholar
  19. Kalyuga, S. (2006). Rapid cognitive assessment of learners’ knowledge structures. Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539.Google Scholar
  21. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126–136.Google Scholar
  22. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 83–93.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58.Google Scholar
  25. Kirschner, P., Carr, C., & van Merriënboer, J. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.Google Scholar
  26. Kyun, S., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2013). The effect of worked examples when learning to write essays in English literature. The Journal of Experimental Education, 81(3), 385–408.Google Scholar
  27. Leung, C. F. (2000). Assessment for learning: Using SOLO taxonomy to measure design performance of design and technology students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(1), 149–161.Google Scholar
  28. Lim, J., Reiser, R. A., & Olina, Z. (2009). The effects of part-task and whole-task instructional approaches on acquisition and transfer of a complex cognitive skill. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 61–77.Google Scholar
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in expository text and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  31. Moreno, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135–141.Google Scholar
  32. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334.Google Scholar
  33. Mulder, Y. G., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2014). Using heuristic worked examples to promote inquiry-based learning. Learning and Instruction, 29(1), 56–64.Google Scholar
  34. Nievelstein, F., Van Gog, T., Van Dijck, G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2013). The worked example and expertise reversal effect in less structured tasks: Learning to reason about legal cases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(2), 118–125.Google Scholar
  35. Oksa, A., Kalyuga, S., & Chandler, P. (2010). Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text. Instructional Science, 38(3), 217–236.Google Scholar
  36. Owens, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology, 28(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.Google Scholar
  39. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.Google Scholar
  40. Pieters, J. M., & Bergman, R. (1995). The empirical basis of designing instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 118–129.Google Scholar
  41. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61–86.Google Scholar
  42. Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 92–103.Google Scholar
  43. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293–315.Google Scholar
  44. Rourke, A., & Sweller, J. (2009). The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: Learning to recognize designers’ styles. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 185–199.Google Scholar
  45. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.Google Scholar
  46. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46(4), 426–445.Google Scholar
  47. Sentz, J. A., & Watson, G. S. (2017, November). From theory to practice: Are instructional designers using strategies to manage cognitive load? Paper presented at Association for Educational Communications & Technology International Convention, Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  48. Si, J., Kim, D., & Na, C. (2014). Adaptive instruction to learner expertise with bimodal process-oriented worked-out examples. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 259–271.Google Scholar
  49. Stark, R., Kopp, V., & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: Two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 22–33.Google Scholar
  50. Sugar, W. A., & Luterbach, K. J. (2016). Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 285–312.Google Scholar
  51. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.Google Scholar
  52. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.Google Scholar
  53. Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means-ends analysis and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(5), 463–474.Google Scholar
  54. Sweller, J., Mawer, R., & Howe, W. (1982). The consequences of history-cued and means-end strategies in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 95(3), 455–484.Google Scholar
  55. Sweller, J., Mawer, R., & Ward, M. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(4), 639–661.Google Scholar
  56. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424–436.Google Scholar
  57. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 265–285.Google Scholar
  58. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44(1), 85–93.Google Scholar
  59. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.Google Scholar
  60. Weston, C., & Cranton, P. A. (1986). Selecting instructional strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(3), 259–288.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.Google Scholar
  62. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw Hill/Open University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Winer, L. R., & Vázquez-Abad, J. (1995). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67.Google Scholar
  64. Wright, G., & Ayton, P. (1987). Eliciting and modeling expert knowledge. Decision Support Systems, 3(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
  65. Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Old Dominion University, College of EducationNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations