One of the central arguments made by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) for the use of guided instruction is the need to minimize extraneous cognitive load while learning new information. This frees up more working memory for use in converting ideas and thoughts in working memory to long-term memory. The addition of knowledge to long-term memory is how Krischner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) define learning. Therefore, if technology has the power to reduce extraneous cognitive, and increase the amount of working memory used to convert information to long-term memory, then educational psychology will need to investigate how to best utilize technology to allocate cognitive load most efficiently.
One aspect of reducing cognitive load using technology is using various media types within virtual learning environments. For example, it is possible to effectively design animations with voice-overs of normally unobservable phenomenon (i.e. bonding of atoms), and give the user the ability to stop and start the animation on demand. This gives the user some ability to control the amount of cognitive load experienced during learning. Additionally, technology will be able to more effectively individualize the type and amount of guidance (or scaffolding, if we take the problem-based learning view) required by each student. This necessitates that educational psychology investigates the methods by which this guidance should be given including considerations such as: the timing of the guidance (i.e. after a certain number of incorrectly answered problems), and the method of delivery of the guidance (ex. text, video, diagram, etc.).
I like the way you traced implications of Kirshner, Sweller, and Clark’s (2006) arguments to technology (even though they failed to do so). Have you read Mayer (2005)? It relates to the ideas of voiceover and simulation you bring up.
My issue with the lack of attention to technology in Kirshner et al.’s (2006) argument is that technology leaves questioning their definition of learning. Given quick access information via the internet, is change in long-term memory the best way to define learning? Isn’t there an argument that we don’t need as much in our long term memories any more? I think Kuhn’s (2007) argument for redefining learning goals also may extend to a need to redefine learning in a way that makes Kirschner et al.’s (2006) argument moot.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hi Matt, you brought up the idea of using virtual learning technology to reduce cognitive load by enabling the learner to hone in on fine-grained aspects of a phenomenon, like a more sophisticated version of “zooming in” or “replaying” a on video. I had a similar train of thought about simulated environments with regards to the ability to draw the learner’s attention to implicit cognitive processes when engaged in a simulated environment, which may allow learners to “redo” or “replay” specific tasks or “pause” at critical periods to engage in metacognitive processes that may not be activated in real-time settings that demand immediate responses. It’s interesting to see how you connected these affordances to your own research area.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)