Author(s) : John Sweller
1. Topic
This article is about the limited capacity of the working memory and how to optimize its use. After describing the information structure, it develops the human cognitive architecture. Working memory, long-term memory, schemas and automation are the elements of the human cognitive architecture relevant to visually based instructional design. This leads to the instructional effects of the cognitive load theory. At last the paper explores the interaction of information and cognitive structures and how to optimize visually based instructional design through concepts like the split-attention effect, the modality effect, the redundancy effect, the element interactivity effect and the imagination effect.
2. Reference
1. Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London:Cambridge University Press.
2. Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55 – 81.
3. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68-82.
4. De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Originalwork published 1946).
5. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-348.
6. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63.
7. 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.
8. Peterson, L. & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.
9. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgement and reasoning in the child. New York: Harcourt.
10. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
11. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
2. Chase, W. G. & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55 – 81.
3. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68-82.
4. De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Originalwork published 1946).
5. Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-348.
6. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49-63.
7. 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.
8. Peterson, L. & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193-198.
9. Piaget, J. (1928). Judgement and reasoning in the child. New York: Harcourt.
10. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
11. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
3. Literature review
The author uses numerous references to the work of other academic writers and their findings covering a long period as well as his own past work. He also often refers to the same authors. He refers to: Sweller (1994) , Miller(1956), Peterson and Peterson (1959), De Groot’s (1965), Piaget (1928), Bartlett (1932), Chase and Simon (1973), Larkin, McDermott, Simon and Simon (1980), Schneider and Shiffrin (1977), Marcus, Cooper and Sweller (1996), Cooper, Tindall-Ford, Chandler and Sweller (2001). The literature and the reference are not extensive due to the length limitation of the paper.
4. Hypothesis
Understanding can be improved if we take into account the human cognitive architecture and the interaction of information in instructional design.
5. Conceptual Model
Information structure
We can find material to be learned that has a high or a low cognitive load. The level of interaction between the elements induces the level of cognitive load. Understanding is the ability to process all elements that interact.
Human cognitive architecture
• Working memory
Working memory or also called short-term memory is limited in its capacity as well as in its duration. So it cannot process new high element interactivity material. It can be divided into “a visuo-spatial sketchpad for dealing with 2 dimensional diagrams or 3 dimensional information, a phonological loop for dealing with verbal information and a central executive as a coordinating processor.”
• Long-term memory
Long-term memory is not just used for storage and recall of information. In fact it is of capital use regarding the processing of high cognitive material. Understanding depends on schemas held in the long-term memory.
• Schemas
Due to the presence of schemas, elements of information can be categorized according to the manner in which they will be used. This allows the working memory to process high element interactivity material because it is treated as one single element, the schema.
• Automation
Automation allows the use of less memory load to process information that has been well learned. Working memory can use the schemas which have incorporated the high interactivity elements through extensive learning in order to solve problems.
Working memory or also called short-term memory is limited in its capacity as well as in its duration. So it cannot process new high element interactivity material. It can be divided into “a visuo-spatial sketchpad for dealing with 2 dimensional diagrams or 3 dimensional information, a phonological loop for dealing with verbal information and a central executive as a coordinating processor.”
• Long-term memory
Long-term memory is not just used for storage and recall of information. In fact it is of capital use regarding the processing of high cognitive material. Understanding depends on schemas held in the long-term memory.
• Schemas
Due to the presence of schemas, elements of information can be categorized according to the manner in which they will be used. This allows the working memory to process high element interactivity material because it is treated as one single element, the schema.
• Automation
Automation allows the use of less memory load to process information that has been well learned. Working memory can use the schemas which have incorporated the high interactivity elements through extensive learning in order to solve problems.
Some Instructional Effects
• Split attention effect
This effect appears when it is better to physically integrate diagrams and statement rather than dissociate them. In fact this eliminates the search for referents.
• The modality effect
The modality effect occurs when there is an increase in learning when presented one source in visual mode and the other in auditory mode rather than both in visual mode. In fact visual and auditory processors of working memory do not run fully separate. There are some synergies. So there is an increase in the total available working memory capacity.
• The redundancy effect
The redundancy effect is found when adding redundant information. Rather than having a neutral or positive effect it has a negative effect regarding learning. In fact working memory resources will be required in order to determine that the information was redundant and so the working memory was unnecessarily used.
• The element interactivity effect
The cognitive load effects that are presented above can only be obtained using high interactivity elements. In fact processing low interactivity elements does not affect the understanding because the working memory capacity may not be exceeded.
• The imagination effect
When the schemas are acquired they can be used to imagine the procedures learned. This facilitates further learning trough automation for the learners with sufficient knowledge to process the high element interactivity material in working memory. For the others, the novice, studying is more efficient than imagining.
This effect appears when it is better to physically integrate diagrams and statement rather than dissociate them. In fact this eliminates the search for referents.
• The modality effect
The modality effect occurs when there is an increase in learning when presented one source in visual mode and the other in auditory mode rather than both in visual mode. In fact visual and auditory processors of working memory do not run fully separate. There are some synergies. So there is an increase in the total available working memory capacity.
• The redundancy effect
The redundancy effect is found when adding redundant information. Rather than having a neutral or positive effect it has a negative effect regarding learning. In fact working memory resources will be required in order to determine that the information was redundant and so the working memory was unnecessarily used.
• The element interactivity effect
The cognitive load effects that are presented above can only be obtained using high interactivity elements. In fact processing low interactivity elements does not affect the understanding because the working memory capacity may not be exceeded.
• The imagination effect
When the schemas are acquired they can be used to imagine the procedures learned. This facilitates further learning trough automation for the learners with sufficient knowledge to process the high element interactivity material in working memory. For the others, the novice, studying is more efficient than imagining.
6. Experiment
This article is based on secondary research. There is no experiment presented.
7. Results
We can improve the understanding of the instructional designs by taking into account the information structure and the human cognitive architecture. The designs can be improved by taking advantage of the split-attention effect, modality effect and the imagination effect, avoiding the redundancy effect while taking into account the element interactivity effect.
8. Conclusion
The effects presented in this article can be useful for instructional design. But there are many other manners of doing instructional design which must also be taken into account.
9. Limits
This article limits itself to the author’s selected research. It does not provide a full view of instructional design, neither of cognitive architecture or information structure.
10. Future ways of research
Research of these effects when consulting a web page where cognitive load is not necessarily high but cognitive attention is low. What is actually remembered after consulting different types of information structure on web pages? What are the effects on the willingness to read the whole page?
11. Critic
This article is just a patchwork of research on information structure and cognitive architecture. This article does not investigate any new path or interpretation.