This post continues on the theme of my last posting related to the research on distance education impacts from extraneous cognitive load. To reiterate, this material is mostly from a chapter I helped to write these last few months with Drs. Hannafin, Hill and Song for the upcoming new edition of the Handbook of Distance Education.
After I looked at what research studies existed related to extraneous load in DE settings, I researched what kinds of experiments have been done in regards to other kinds of cognitive load. Germane cognitive load is an interesting theory stating that some cognitive load is actually a good thing, because it creates schemas or mental models for enabling more efficient learning in the future. For example, maybe while learning a particular set of materials, I spend some cognitive resources constructing schemas for organizing this material in my memory. This increases my total cognitive load at the moment, but we can be forgiving of this because the mental schemas I create will make learning this material so much easier in the future. The general thinking among cognitive load researchers is that we should try to decrease extraneous cognitive load while increasing germane cognitive load, because this will equal more efficient learning.
This all kind of reminds me of the “Bad Cholesterol/Good Cholesterol” idea that maybe some cholesterol is okay, even beneficial. So, you know, cognitive load isn’t ALWAYS a bad thing — it just depends on what kind of load it is!
So can germane cognitive load be improved in distance education? It’s hard to say for sure because few germane CL studies are done explicitly in DE settings. Most of this research is typically done in traditional learning environments. In these kinds of settings, I found the following to be typical of the research being conducted (to quote from the upcoming book chapter):
Researchers report benefits from providing students worked examples (problems showing an example along with the step-by-step solution process); likewise, self-explanation may help to increase schema creation (Gerjets, Scheiter & Catrambone, 2004; Paas &van Merrienboer, 1994; Paas, 1992; Reed & Bolstad, 1991; Renkl, Atkinson,& Grosse 2004; Renkl, Stark, Gruber, & Mandl, 1998; Sweller, 1988).Other methods for increasing germane load include the use of example elaboration and example comparison (Gerjets, Scheiter, & Catrambone, 2004),and fading procedures (Renkl et. al., 2003; Renkl, et. al., 2004). As a result of highly developed mental models, students may better transfer learning (Paas& van Merrienboer, 1994).
All of these findings are for non-distance education settings, but the point we make in the chapter is that these may also be effective methods related to germane CL in distance education. The biggest finding, though, is that we just don’t know because it hasn’t been thoroughly researched and tested in online environments. This opens up a plethora of research opportunities for folks who could look at questions such as:
- How do you use self-explanation to increase germane load in DE?
- How are schemas constructed in online learning?
- How do you use elaboration and example comparison methods online?
- How does fading work in DE?
- etc., etc. … Take any of the methods developed for increasing germane CL and ask how well it works online and what adaptations are needed.
- More importantly, I feel, is this question: How do you measure germane cognitive load in online settings so that we can have a reliable measuring stick as researchers?
What research has been done about developing germane CL in online settings usually is related to navigation methods. A good example of these kinds of studies was one conducted by Eveland and colleagues (2004). I summarized this study in the chapter:
Research on developing, instantiating and inducing mental schemas relies may also assist influence the cognitive load of to-be-learned concepts. In a study by Eveland and colleagues (2004), two groups of participants (college students and nonstudents) explored for 20 minuteshealth topic websites designed with either linear navigation or nonlinear navigation. They then post-tested participant understanding of factual information using a questionnaire and asking them to list and rate relationships among concepts they remembered (knowledge structure density). Whereas participants learned factual information best from linear websites, nonlinearsites improved knowledge structure density which they interpreted to be more transferable knowledge. The study also suggests that nonlinear websites may increase germane load (positive load) Interestingly, in a previous study by the same researchers, nonlinear websites increased extraneous (negative) load(Eveland, et al. 2001).
Overall takeaways for me on this subject were that germane CL research seems to be a very relevant line of research as we struggle with how to develop more efficient learning. However, there doesn’t seem to be much research done beyond looking at site navigation and surfing habits, and these studies are often done by communication researchers, not education researchers (not that we can’t learn a lot from these folks). It seems there are a lot of open doors here to study how to develop germane CL in online settings.
I’d be interested in hearing if anybody is involved in such a study!
References
Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody,
S. (2004). How Web site organization influences free recall, factual knowledge,
and knowledge structure density. Human
Communication Research, 30(2), 208-233.
Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User
control and structural isomorphism or disorientation and cognitive load? Communication Research, 28(1), 48.
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal
configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional
design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R.
(2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load:
Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1), 33-58.
Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (in press). Cognitive Perspectives on
Technology-Enhanced Distance Learning Environments. To be included in the Handbook of Distance Education.
Reed, S. K. & Bolstad, C. A. (1991). Use of
examples and procedures in problem solving. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17(4): 753-766.
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S.
(2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1), 59-82.
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H.
(1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability
and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring
the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill
acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.
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.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G.
(1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical
problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem
solving. Cognitive Science, 12,
257-285.
technorati tags:AECT2006, AECT, BlogTracks, BlogTracks2006, distance, education, germane, cognitive, load, handbook