Advertisement

User Modeling pp 261-272 | Cite as

Levels of Expertise and User-Adapted Formats of Instructional Presentations: A Cognitive Load Approach

  • Slava Kalyuga
  • Paul Chandler
  • John Sweller
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 383)

Abstract

This paper investigates interactions between user expertise and formats of instructional presentations. A cognitive load approach assumes that information presentation should be structured to eliminate any avoidable load on working memory. The level of learner expertise is a major factor determining intelligibility of information for a user. A diagram might not be intelligible in isolation for less experienced users and so require additional textual explanations. Physical integration (e.g., using spatial grouping or colour coding) of the text and diagram can reduce split attention and an unnecessary working memory load. The same diagram may be understandable for more experienced users. Eliminating redundancy may be the best way to reduce cognitive load in this situation. A series of experiments using instructions in elementary electrical engineering demonstrated the alterations in optimal instructional designs with the development of user expertise.

Keywords

Instructional Design Instructional Material User Expertise Mental Load Fault Finding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8:293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62:233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ericsson, K. A., and Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49:725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mayer, R., and Anderson, R. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 84:444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63:81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Paas, F., and Van Merrienboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors 35:737–743.Google Scholar
  8. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4:295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction 12:185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Slava Kalyuga
    • 1
  • Paul Chandler
    • 1
  • John Sweller
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education StudiesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations