Computer-Based Learning of Geometry from Integrated and Split-Attention Worked Examples: The Power of Self-Management

Introduction Today's online learning environment provides learners with access to information of variable quality, both academically and structurally. Learners need to be able to assess the academic quality of information, recognize poorly constructed materials, and reorganize information to support their learning. This paper explores the efficacy of teaching learners to reorganize information by manually integrating related text within a diagram to reduce search and support their understanding of mathematical concepts, thus decreasing the load on working memory and enhancing learning. The research was informed by Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, 1988; Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011), which posits that effective instructional design should take into account human cognitive architecture, specifically focusing on effective use of limited working memory resources (Ayres & Paas, 2008). CLT instructional designed materials aim to remove processing of superfluous information (extraneous cognitive load), manage the difficulty of the information to be learnt (intrinsic cognitive load), while optimizing the learners' processing capacity for what is relevant to learning (germane cognitive load) (Sweller, 2010). Traditionally, CLT research has focused on the instructor/teacher-designed learning materials that fulfill the above. Some of the best-studied instructional approaches include the worked example effect (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000; Sweller & Cooper, 1985; for an overview see Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011). This effect occurs when learning is enhanced by studying worked examples which are stepped-out solutions rather than being presented with the equivalent problem with no stepped-out solution. Another instructional principle is the splitattention effect, which was found when studying a specific type of worked example, consisting of mutually dependent but spatially separated text and diagram, and solving the equivalent problems were equally ineffective for learning (Sweller, Chandler, Tierney, & Cooper, 1990). The split-attention effect is defined as the lowering in learning performance caused by presenting mutually dependent, but spatially separated sources of information (e.g., text and diagram) in the visual modality, requiring the learner to invest working memory resources to integrate the dispersed information. This study investigated a new perspective on the split-attention effect, in which learners are taught to self-manage sources of split-attention in worked examples. The split-attention effect occurs when a learner is forced to search and mentally integrate related information that is incomprehensible in isolation due the design of the instructions (Ayres & Sweller 2005). It is the searching and mental integration undertaken by the learner that places an extraneous load on limited working memory resources and inhibits learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Aligned with the split-attention effect are the spatial and temporal contiguity effects (Mayer, 1997; Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Moreno & Mayer, 1999). Both effects focus on the importance of ensuring that related information be close in proximity in regard to space (spatial contiguity effect) or time (temporal contiguity effect). Ginns' (2006) meta-analysis on the importance of reducing learners' split-attention showed that integrated instructions led to more efficient and effective learning compared to instructions presented in a split-attention format. An example of split-source materials may include a diagram with related written text presented above, below or to the side. Under split source instructional conditions the learner is forced to mentally hold and integrate in working memory the related diagram and text in order to process and understand the instructions (see Figure 1). It is the division of cognitive resources that poses an extra load on limited working memory, which impedes learning. …

[1]  T. Gog,et al.  Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. , 2006 .

[2]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[3]  Shirley Agostinho,et al.  Adaptive diagrams: Handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[4]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[5]  A. Glenberg.  Embodiment for Education , 2008 .

[6]  Michael E. Wasserman,et al.  Power to the people: using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  F. Paas,et al.  Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach , 1994 .

[8]  R. Mayer,et al.  Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity , 1999 .

[9]  J. Sweller,et al.  The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra , 1985 .

[10]  P. Calvo,et al.  Handbook of cognitive science : an embodied approach , 2008 .

[11]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[12]  D'Arcy A. Becker,et al.  Using hypermedia to provide learner control , 1994 .

[13]  Fred Paas,et al.  Interdisciplinary Perspectives Inspiring a New Generation of Cognitive Load Research , 2009 .

[14]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load , 2001, Psychological science.

[15]  J. Sweller,et al.  Structuring Effective Worked Examples , 1990 .

[16]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[17]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Managing One's Own Cognitive Load when Evidence of Split Attention is Present , 2012 .

[18]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[19]  Paul Ginns.  Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects , 2006 .

[20]  R. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? , 1997 .

[21]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  When two sensory modes are better than one , 1997 .

[22]  Edward L. Levine,et al.  The Perplexing Role of Learner Control in E-Learning: Will Learning and Transfer Benefit or Suffer? , 2010 .

[23]  R. A. Tarmizi,et al.  Guidance during Mathematical Problem Solving. , 1988 .

[24]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[25]  S. Derry,et al.  Learning from Examples: Instructional Principles from the Worked Examples Research , 2000 .

[26]  Kevin Kien Hoa Chung,et al.  What effect do mixed sensory mode instructional formats have on both novice and experienced learners of Chinese characters , 2008 .

[27]  F. Paas.  Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. , 1992 .

[28]  John Sweller,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning , 2005 .

[29]  R. Mayer.  Systematic Thinking Fostered by Illustrations in Scientific Text , 1989 .

[30]  Shirley Agostinho,et al.  Adaptive Diagrams: A Research Agenda to Explore How Learners Can Manipulate Online Diagrams to Self-Manage Cognitive Load , 2014, Handbook of Human Centric Visualization.

[31]  J. Sweller.  Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load , 2010 .

[32]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. , 1990 .

[33]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Learning Geometry Problem Solving by Studying Worked Examples , 2015 .

[34]  Béatrice S. Hasler,et al.  Learner Control, Cognitive Load and Instructional Animation , 2007 .