Download Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design

Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional
Design
Brian Chipperfield
Submitted to:
Dr. R. Schwier
EdComm 802.6
1
Cognitive Load Theory
Picture this. A grade nine math student has just been asked to
open her textbook to page 54 and refer to section 1.3 subsection 1.3b
and study the first example. This is what she sees.
Figure 1. The Linear Equation problem
Example One
2x – 6 = 14 - 3x
Steps
1. Isolate the variable
a. Add 3x to both sides
+ 3x
Solve for x
2x – 6 = 14 - 3x
2x + 3x – 6 = 14 - 3x
5x – 6 = 14
b. Add 6 to both sides
5x – 6 + 6 = 14 + 6
5x = 20
2. Group
a. Divide both sides by 5
3. Simplify
5x 20
=
5
5
x=4
4. Check your solution
Substitute 4 in the original equation
2(4) – 6 = 14 - 3(4)
Simplify
8 – 6 = 14 – 12
Answer
2=2
The instructor then copies the example on the board and verbally
describes the steps. As he is writing, the student tries to follow along
2
with what he is doing at the board, with the example in the book and
with what the teacher is saying. However, she is distracted by two
things; the whispering of the two students behind her and the squeaky
desk she is sitting in. She is trying not to move because she feels it is
distracting to others. The teacher finishes the explanation and assigns
ten questions due at the end of the session, which is thirty minutes
away.
These are the things that may be going through our math
student’s conscious mind at this moment.
a. Because the page is all text it takes more time finding the
first problem.
b. Her eyes have to refer back to the example on the previous
page.
c. She is feeling worried because of the time limit on the
assignment. She wants to go out with her friends tonight and
does not want to have to do homework or stay late after
school.
d. She wishes that the two students in front of her would stop
whispering and silently swears at the squeaky desk. She is sure
her classmates are looking at her.
3
Regrettably, our student is suffering from cognitive load and if she and
her teacher do not take steps to deal with it then she may not ever
understand Algebra.
Computer Assisted Instruction has found a niche in modern day
Education. The media savvy teacher has learned to augment his
instructional bag of tricks by using computers to bring concreteness,
more interest and reality to the instructional setting. Success of CAI
depends upon the role the instructor has given the computer in
assisting learners to grasp new skills and concepts. Success also
depends on the role the instructor plays in the process. The instructor
in this sense can fall into several categories:
a. The teacher or parent who sits down one on one with the
learner and shares the interaction.
b. The teacher who guides the whole class through a computer
mediated lesson, monitoring each user, helping them to
troubleshoot through difficult concepts.
c. The distance ed instructor who sets up the interface for
online learners to use.
d. The software developer who designs the interaction.
Good instructional design takes into account the role the onscreen presentation plays and the role the instructor plays in the
experience for the learner. Good instructional design will help to avoid
4
what our math student is experiencing as she tries to grapple with
solving linear equations. Good instructional design therefore has to
provide accessible skill attainment.
It is imperative that designers of computer based instructional
materials keep learning theory in mind when one is setting up an
interface to be used. Cognitive load theory is one area of learning
theory research that has definite applicability to subjects that focus
on problem solving skills such as Math, Physics, Chemistry and
Computer Science.
Cognitive Learning Theory would describes the learning process
as follows:
1. Our grade 9 math student takes the information (the written
text, the auditory description from the teacher, the example
from the boards) into her sensory memory.
2. Her working memory (short-term memory) processes this
information using two independent systems, the visual-spatial
sketchpad and the phonological loop, both controlled by a
central executive component. (Baddeley,1992).
Our math student doesn’t realize it but her working memory has a
capacity limit of about seven units of information. (Miller, 1956). This
limit is reduced if the bits of incoming information are dependant on
each other and therefore must be retained in memory for the time it
5
takes for understanding to occur. Our math student’s 3-step linear
equation problem requires her to hold all information in her working
memory until “she gets it”. This is because all the information is
interrelated or as Baddeley puts it, has high interactivity. The limit of
working memory can be extended if recoding or chunking were to occur.
Chunking requires that she takes her prior knowledge of the solution
steps, such as the four steps, isolating, grouping, simplifying and
checking, and organize the incoming information into this schema.
This schema can then be processed in the working memory as one unit,
freeing up space for the other information such as the two steps
required to isolate the variable.
Figure 2. A Schema for solving linear equations
Isolate the variable
Group
Simplify
Check your solution
Figure 2 is an outline of the basic components of a schema we can
call the basic linear equation solution schema. At the root of cognitive
learning theory is schema formation. At one time our math student did
not have this schema, this cognitive tool, stored in her long-term
memory where she keeps all her other cognitive tools such as the one
that enables her to operate her cellphone to access her email, the
6
weather channel, the phone numbers of 150 friends and family. In fact
this schema is made up of four sub schemas that she once had to learn
and commit to long-term memory as single schema and then organize
them into a more useful schema, the schema represented in figure 2.
Learning requires that we build upon previous experiences (learned
schema). As we experience new information it is up to our working
memory to weave these new experiences into similar and related
experiences we have had stored in long-term memory. This is what
schema formation does for us. It is up to our working memory to form
these schemas, commit them to long-term memory, retrieve them as
single units to be used to process other information that has yet to be
formed into schema.
In summary, our math student has room for seven units of
information in her working memory. The linear equation problem is
made up of highly interactive units of information so therefore she has
room for maybe two or three units. The four-step process (isolating,
Figure 3. Steps required to isolate the variable
1. Isolate the variable
a. Add 3x to both sides
3x
2x – 6 = 14 - 3x
2x + 3x – 6 = 14 - 3x +
5x – 6 = 14
b. Add 6 to both sides
5x – 6 + 6 = 14 + 6
5x = 20
7
grouping etc) can be processed as one since from prior learning she has
a schema ready for this job. The other two units (figure 3) can be
processed easily and she can also use some of her working memory to
build upon her present schema to include the two steps it takes to
isolate the variable. (Figure 4)
Figure 4. A more advanced schema for solving a linear equation
Isolate the variable
- add or subtract the smaller variable term from both sides
- add or subtract the smaller constant term form both sides
Group
Simplify
Check your solution
“The primary role of an instructor is to transform the novice into
an expert within a given subject area” (Cooper, 1990). The difference
between a novice and an expert lies in the expert’s ability to categorize
problems using schemas stored in long-term memory. The only two
distinguishing features of expertise are:
1. The expansive schemas (information networks) that experts
hold, and
2. The high level of automation (ability to perform tasks without
concentrating) that experts exhibit.
8
Earlier it was noted that what makes good instructional design is
a design that makes learning accessible. Accessibility then could be
equated with ease of schema formation.
Cognitive load theory serves to describe those variables that
hinder schema development. Cognitive load theory is based on the
following tenets of cognitive learning.
a. That short-term memory (working memory) is limited in
capacity to about seven informational units.
b. Long term memory is unlimited in capacity and is where all
information and knowledge is stored.
c. Knowledge is stored in long-term memory as schemas or
schemata.
d. Schemas, no matter how large or how complex, are treated as
a single entity in working memory.
e. Schemas can become automated.
Cognitive load can be of three distinct types, intrinsic cognitive
load, extraneous cognitive load, and germane cognitive load. Kirschner
(2002) Using our math student as an example we can picture her
conscious memory mental effort in the following way:
a. Intrinsic load is the load on memory required by the thinking
task at hand. It serves to quantify how much of the working
memory is used by the interactivity of the units of information
9
being processed. The intrinsic load for our math student would
be substantial. In the process of solving the linear equation all
steps towards the solution are highly dependant upon each
other.
b. Learning, changing a novice to an expert and the formation of
new schema adds to the load on working memory. Working
memory must process this new information into advanced and
more complex schema. Our math student moves closer to
expert status as she integrates the two-step isolation process
into the already complex solution schema. The load this
process places on working memory is called germane cognitive
load.
c. The teacher in his presentation, the textbook in its format
and the external distractions, the internal emotional concerns
all represent extraneous cognitive load. These variables take
up valuable working memory resources away from the learning
task. Extraneous cognitive load does not contribute to learning.
Taken together the three load variables must stay within the
limits of mental effort, the total cognitive load on working memory.
This relationship is represented in figure 5.
10
Figure 5
Iintrinsic + Ggermane + Eextraneous = Ttotal cognitive load
For any given problem, task or learning behavior, I cannot be
changed. However G + E can vary and are inversely proportional to
each other. The more extraneous load the less room for germane load.
Hence it is the instructional designers job to limit the amount of
extraneous load and to build into their presentations activities that
foster germane load or schema formation. Research has focused on
what factors or variables can be modified to facilitate the increase in
germane load and the decrease in extraneous load.
11
Research into Reducing Cognitive Load: Instructional Design
Strategies
Instructional design and the The Goal Free Effect
Traditional methods of solving algebraic problems rely on meansend analysis. Sweller(1985). For example:
Figure 6
If a = b – 4, b = c + 3, and c = 5 then solve for a
The novice learner must work backwards from the goal state (the
value of a) to the initial problem state a = b – 4. In doing this he must
keep all the highly interactive units of information in his conscious
working memory producing high intrinsic load. The same problem
written as goal-free would read as follows:
Figure 7
If a = b – 4, b = c + 3, and c = 5 find what you can.
The novice learner in this instance only has to work from c=5 to b
= c + 3 to find the value of c. The problem poses less intrinsic load on
his working memory thus freeing up more mental effort for germane
load to work on schema formation and transfer to long-term memory.
12
Instructional Design and the Use of Worked Out Examples
Much research has been done on the use of worked out examples
to reduce cognitive load especially in the areas of Math, Physics and
computer Science. Essentially it takes the familiar method of teaching
a new concept, figure 8,
Figure 8
Teach the rules and principles,
Demonstrate with examples,
Have students practice by solving many goal specific problems (Cooper
1997).
….. and applying a new twist. Research has shown that if you simply
coordinate the worked out example with a similar, isomorphic problem
to solve then less cognitive load is required. Figure 9.
Figure 9. Worked examples worksheet (Cooper, 1997)
1. Solve for b
a(b+c) = d
Divide by a b + c = d/a
Subtract c b = d/a - c
2. Solve for b
h(b + m) = r
3. Solve for b
bd + e = k
Subtract e bd = k-e
Divide by d b = (k-e)/d
4. Solve for b
bw + q = l
13
Using the structurally similar example on the left as a model to
solve the problem on the right requires that the learner only have to
attend to each step at once. Repeated practice of this type would
eventually led to schema formation and subsequent transfer to longterm memory. Knowing what the outcome will look like means he can
attend to the process involved in isolating the required variable. Less
intrinsic load is required.
Consider the area of mechanics. The relationship between
velocity, distance and time can be expressed by the formula v=d/t
where velocity is equal to distance divided by time. Physics students
must use this formula to solve velocity, distance, and time problems. If
time is the unknown to be solved for then students must have the
schema to rearrange the formula for the purpose specified in the
problem. Rearranging the formula requires that the student multiply
both sides by t and divide both sides by v revealing the formula for
time, t=d/v. This process goes beyond the schema needed to solve
standard linear equations of one variable. Cooper uses this as an
example where studying worked examples works best to facilitate
schema formation.
The validity of this method of teaching has been under scrutiny.
One of the questions being asked is why does this method facilitate
schema formation better than the more traditional problem solving
14
method. Chi et al, as sited in Trafton (1993), claim that studying
examples works because students explain the examples to themselves.
“Successful learners explain examples to themselves more fully than
for less successful learners”(Trafton, 1993,pp6). And further,
“successful learners attempt to explain to themselves how each line in
a problem… is derived from the previous line.” Traftons research found
that participants in his study who were given a set of worked out
examples interleaved with problems to solve performed faster and
more efficiently than participants who were given a set of examples to
study first and then a set of problems to solve after. Van lehr et al, as
sited in Trafton(1993), further argues that studying worked out
examples is not enough. Students perform far more skillfully if they
self-explain while studying worked examples. Chi et al (1989) as sited in
Renkl (2002 ) coined this the self-explanation effect. Renkl’s research
revealed that successful learners, in studying an example, assigned
meaning to operators in the example problem, identified sub goals of
operators in the example problem and anticipated the next step in the
example problem.
Overall the research has shown that the use of worked out
examples proves to have a greater potential for skill acquisition,
especially among novice learners, than the standard problem solving
method of learning problem solving skills. Studying worked out
15
examples allows for more working memory resources to be assigned to
schema formation particularly if they involve self-explanation to
reinforce the rules and principles inherent in the type of problem to be
solved.
Implications for instructional designers can be summed up as
follows. Visual presentation of material would include a worked example
alongside an example to be solved. The worked example would be shown
on the screen first with perhaps audio clues to foster self-explanation
of operators and anticipation clues. The problem to be solved would be
near identical to the example. Interaction with the interface could
include cues to have the user key on a self-explanation of the strategy
he/she is using.
Instructional Design and the Management of Intrinsic Cognitive
Load
Intrinsic cognitive load is under the control of the learner’s
cognitive architecture and is determined by the amount of interactivity
of information elements. Elements being “information that can be
processed as a single unit of working memory.” (Pollack, 2002)
Interactivity is discussed as how much elements depend on each other
to be understood and therefore processed. Elements that are low in
interactivity would be items that can be learned independent of each
other. Pollack and his associates refer to learning new language
16
vocabulary as an example. Conversely, elements of high interactivity
would be the elements that make up the syntax of the language the
learner is trying to master.
What if it proved to be beneficial to teach concepts isolated
from their meaning? For learning highly interactive instructional
material elements have to be incorporated into schema to limit the load
on working memory. As Pollack notes highly interactive elements have
to be processed simultaneously for schema to be produced. This
presents a paradox. “Material can be understood once a schema has
been constructed allowing all the elements to be processed in working
memory simultaneously but until that point has been reached, the
elements cannot be processed simultaneously in working memory and so
cannot be understood.” (Pollack,2002,pp.64). Remember when your high
school English teacher forced you to commit to memory Hamlet’s
famous soliloquoy, “to be or not to be”. Perhaps he was using good
instructional design. We memorized it word for word because we had
to. It was a sequential act learning to recite the passage from memory,
independent of its meaning. Once committed to memory however
understanding it took less working memory resources. Forming schema
relevant to its meaning was easier when the words and language were
committed to memory.
17
Pollack hypothesizes that “initially learning some elements of
information, even if comprehension is not possible, may ultimately
increase a students understanding of a topic.” (Pollack,2002,pp.64).
Pollack and his colleagues proposed that if highly interactive elements
were presented as isolated elements first, to initialize the formation
of prior schemas, and then interactive elements presented after
schema formation then cognitive load would be reduced and learning
would be optimized. The results of their research demonstrated that
novice learners benefited from the isolated interactive element
presentation. Students with prior knowledge of concepts showed little
benefit. Pollack further attributes this to the presence of schemas in
the expert group.
What can we generalize from this? Prior knowledge has to be
considered when designing instructional media dealing with highly
interactive information such as Algebra. Introducing the subtraction
principal of equality in solving linear equations might require our learner
to rediscover what equality means and what subtraction means in a
concrete sense such that previously learned schema may be brought to
the forefront and used in processing the concept. Perhaps an
assessment of prior knowledge has to be built into instructional design.
The use of rote learning techniques for assigning math symbol
18
associations with math vocabulary could be used as a stepping stone to
actually teaching the concepts.
Use of Multimedia in Instructional Design
Mayer and Moreno(2002) propose that multimedia learning
involves three cognitive processes
1. Selecting: where verbal information is processed as a text
base and visual information is processed as an image base.
2. Organizing: where the verbal base and the image base are
applied to the yet to be learned concept.
3. Integrating: where the learner builds connections between the
two.
Their research into the effectiveness has yielded the following
major principles of Multimedia design.
1. Multiple Representation Principle – It is better to present an
explanation in words and pictures than solely in words.
2. Contiguity Principle – words and pictures are to be presented
simultaneously rather than separate.
3. Split Attention principle – present words as auditory narration
rather than as visual on screen text.
4. Coherence Principle – use few rather than many extraneous
words and pictures.
19
5. Modality Principle – students learn more effectively from
animation and narration than from animation and text.
6. Personalization Principle – students learn more effectively
from animation and narration when the narration is
conversational rather than formal style.
7. Redundancy Principle – students learn more effectively from
animation and narration than from animation, narration and
text.
Mayer and Moreno (2002) promote the idea that instructional
designers work from a cognitive theory of learning rather than from an
information delivery viewpoint. A crucial design goal is to promote
schema construction in the learner. Their research into the effects of
the Multimedia design principles discussed above have shown that
students are able to successfully generalize problem solving sets to
post test problems. They summarize that to develop useful multimedia
learning tools designer should construct these tools on the basis of
three areas of research:
1. Dual coding theory – which states that working memory
can process visual and auditory information
simultaneously with no adverse affect on cognitive load.
2. Cognitive load theory.
20
3. Constructivist learning theory - which implies that
students should be guided to an awareness of being
responsible for their own knowledge formation.
This research and more research along this vein will only help to narrow
the gap between the useless and the useful use of computers in our
schools. The use of multimedia, based on these and other design
principles can have the effect of bringing the world into the classroom.
Quicktime video, Flash animations, interactive Director movies created
to teach simple isolated cause and effect concepts in science and in
math could be effective learning aids and a viable alternative to the
text and blackboard presentation. These multimedia tools can be used
to:
a. invoke the self-explanation effect.
b. to present elements of a concept in isolation from
each other.
c. to present worked out examples alongside
concrete images of the concept.
21
Summary
Cognitive load is real. It is the reason I had to write this essay in
long hand before I entered it into the computer. Attention to my
keyboarding took up too much of my working memory leaving little room
for creative thinking.
There is a host of reasons why we should be concerned about
making computer aided instruction accessible.
‰
Teachers are being invited to share their creativity
online.
‰
Smaller rural schools are opting for distant ed
courses.
‰
Teachers are becoming increasingly computer literate.
‰
Students are out doing their teacher when it comes to
web-friendly skills.
‰
Manufactures have come out with software that
anyone, with a modicum of training, can use to make
useful intranet or workstation based learning tools.
‰
Microsoft Word and Appleworks documents,
Powerpoint presentations, can all be presented on the
web without one bit of knowledge of HTML.
‰
Contribute, from Macromedia, touts itself as a
software anyone can use.
22
What will ensure the success of these endeavors is dependant on
how much the creators andthe teachers themselves, take the learner
and learning styles into consideration in preparing an interface. Perhaps
instructional technologists could take more of a leadership role when
the teacher becomes the subject matter specialist as well as the
designer. Cognitive load theory, split attention theory, dual processing
theory and the principles of multimedia design are not the entire
solution to the poor design problem, but they do offer simple ways in
which multimedia can achieve learning goals more effectively.
In closing, on the following page are three screens from a very
highly touted and a very expensive piece of articulation software. The
problems are obvious but I have summarized a few of them. These
examples are more the norm through the program rather than the
exception. It is obvious that learning theory was not taken into
consideration when it was put together.
The format of the software however is very good. A speechlanguage pathologist can use this to help students with articulation
problems learn sounds in all positions, in words, phrases and sentences.
It has a recording function that allows the user to hear how close
he/she is to the sound approximation. A more appropriate use of this
format would be to have the ability to choose words and pictures for
23
the target sounds that are more considerate of the learners’
vocabulary.
The problems shown here are very indicative of what is supposed
to be well designed learning software. The structure is good, the
interface is fast and appropriate but the content can be highly
irrelevant to the learner and this creates a barrier to accessibility.
24
This is a ship or a boat.
How many students in grade
1 would associate this with
a bow? It is a poor choice
of words for the goal of the
lesson. It is obvious that the
designers were not thinking
of the end user.
This is a picture of three red
flowers, many green leaves
and a bee. Cognitive load
theory would suggest that
the user would key in on the
other elements of the picture
before finding the bee. A
misuse of working memory
relative to the goal of the
lesson.
This is a tractor. Again the
user would be trying to
associate the word with the
tractor. Perhaps if he is from
a farming community he
would eventually get it but
why give him the task when
he needs his working
memory for the task at
hand, learning how to make
the hard “c” sound.
25
References
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Bannert, M. (2002) Managing cognitive load – recent trends in cognitive
load theory, Learning and Instruction , 12 139-146
Cooper, G. (1990) cognitive load theory as and aid for instructional
design, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 6(2), 108-113
Gellevij, M., Van der Meij, H., De Jong, T., Pieters, J. (2002)
Multimodal versus Unimodal Instruction in a complex learning context,
The Journal of Experimental Education, 70(3), 215-239
Kalyuga,S., Chandler,P., & Sweller,J. (1999). Levels of Expertise and
Instructional Design, Human Factors, 40(1)
Kirschner, P. (2002), Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive
load theory on the design of learning, Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10
Mayer, R., Moreno, R. A Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning:
Implications for Design Principles. Available at
www.eng.auburn.edu/csse/research/research_groups/vi3rg/ws/mayer.
rtf
Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia
learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.
Mayer, R., (2003), The promise of multimedia learning: using the same
instructional design methods across different media, Learning and
Instruction 13 125–139
26
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.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2002) Assimilating complex
information. Learning and Instruction 12 61–86
Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: instructional explanations
support learning by self-explanations, Learning and Instruction 12,
529-556
Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and
effects of example elaboration. Learning and Instruction, 12,39–60.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on
learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and
instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
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.
Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merrienboer, J. (submitted).
Multimedia learning and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and
cueing.
Trafton, J. (1993) Studying examples and solving problems:
Contributions to skill acquisition. Available at
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/93611.html
27
Valcke, M., (2002) cognitive laod; updating the theory? Learning and
Instruction 12, 1470154
Van Bruggen, J.M., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W. (2002) External
representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of
cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 12, 121-138
28
Appendix A
Using the principles of good instructional Design – More software
Assessments
This is a Cree language instruction program
developed by OBI systems of Saskatoon. The
software is useful as an audio visual aid for a
presentation to a class. It can also be used
individually at a workstation. This page
borders on being too busy and would
increase extraneous cognitive load. Using the
cree alphabet for the months is a hindrance to
schema formation and would further
contribute to load. Students do not have
much prior knowledge of the cree alphabet.
Clicking on the month brings up the month in
English, a visual and textual description of
what the cree phrase stands for and the cree
phrase as sound. Split attention theory would
suggest it is better to just have the cree
phrase coincide with the picture, the phrase
in English (flying up moon) and the English
name for the month.
This is a followup exercise to reading the
story, the Three Little Pigs. Ideally an adult
would be present with the child when
working with this software. The goal of this
exercise is to put the items in the right order.
Audio narration explains the tasks and there
is a help screen if needed. From a cognitive
load viewpoint this screen presents a very
difficult task for the user. Each of the items is
taken from quite different parts of the story.
To do this exercise the child and the adult
helper would have to have the entire story in
working memory. We could put these items
in order but in the end we would not have a
story. It would be better to sequence three or
four sequential parts. Then you would have a
complete segment that has meaning to the
child.
29
The goal here is initial sound
discrimination. Directions are
given by the dog in a strong new
Orleans accent. Users are to choose
the object that has the different
initial sound. One of the problems
here is the choice of objects.
Clown, crown and ghost would
most probably be in the vocabulary
schema of a child at this age but
coast may not. Care should be
taken to use vocabulary that is in
the realm of the age group the
software is directed at. The picture
of “coast” is not clear. This may
confuse the user as he is listening
to the cards being read. This is a
cognitive load issue as is the
background. The wheel and
scoreboard on the right are
distractors and serve no purpose. A
user might be curious about them.
Curiosity requires use of working
memory detracting form the task at
hand.
The goal with this program is
shape and colour discrimination.
The interface is very simple in
design and quite easy for the user
to use. The child has to drag the
correct colour or shape or both to
the bears mouth. The bear cues the
user by saying red or red square. It
is well sequenced and would be
very easy for a young child to use.
Narration is clear and simple.
There are no cognitive load issues
here.
30
This is a Canadian
History software
package. The screens
consist of maps such as
this alongside scrollable
text. The images are
very poor and the text in
the images is pixelated.
Scrollable text presents
a problem for working
memory. The learner
has to keep the entire
passage in mind to fully
understand its relevance
to the diagram. Split
attention theory would
suggest that there is a
high cognitive load
present here. It would be
more appropriate to
have small snippets of
text in a larger font
alongside clearer
diagrams.
This is a more
accessible example
of a history tutor.
Text is large and the
graphics are clear.
Popup quicktime
videos with
narration and
animation add
interest to the
learners experience.
31