Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Soal Perkir Mobil Dan Motor
Soal Perkir Mobil Dan Motor
No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no
expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No
liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information
contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
COGNITIVE LOAD FACTORS IN
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN FOR
ADVANCED LEARNERS
SLAVA KALYUGA
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape,
mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the
Publisher.
For permission to use material from this book please contact us:
Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175
Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard
to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the
Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or
any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be
sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A
COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF
PUBLISHERS.
Preface vii
Chapter 1 Basic Architecture of Human Cognition 1
Chapter 2 Cognitive Studies of Expert-Novice Differences
and Design of Instruction 21
Chapter 3 Cognitive Load Perspective in Instructional Design 35
Chapter 4 Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design
for Advanced Learners 69
Summary Toward a Cognitively Efficient Instructional
Technology for Advanced Learners 91
Index 99
PREFACE
MEMORY ORGANIZATION
The major characteristics of human memory are its strength or durability,
capacity (number of items of information stored in memory), and speed of access.
According to these characteristics, memory is divided into long-term memory and
short-term memory. Long-term memory (LTM) is characterized by high strength
and includes well-learned knowledge, for example, the name of the first US
President, 5 x 5 = 25, or the spelling of the word potatoes. It is presumed to have
unlimited capacity, although the access to the stored information could be slow.
Both the strength of memory and the speed of access increase with practice. More
2 Slava Kalyuga
fully elaborated and more deeply processed material results in better long-term
memory.
Short-term memory (STM), on the other hand, includes information that has
been just encoded from sensory registers or retrieved from long- term memory,
for example, what have you been thinking about just before this? what are you
thinking about when dialing the phone number 8344 2124?. The durability of
STM is a matter of seconds (Peterson & Peterson, 1959), and information in STM
could be accessed very rapidly. The number of items of information that can be
maintained in an active state simultaneously in STM is about seven units for most
people (Miller, 1956). For example, it is very difficult for us to recall more than
approximately seven serially presented random numbers (e.g., an unfamiliar
phone number) a few seconds after we hear or see them, unless the numbers have
been intentionally rehearsed. When asked to copy strings of digits from one page
to another, we usually do this by grouping the digits by easily manageable units of
three or four at a time.
The most generally specified basic human cognitive architecture includes
these two substructures (STM and LTM). Examples are the standard model
(Newell & Simon, 1972) and modal model (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968; Waugh &
Norman, 1965). In more specific models, these substructures might be regarded
either as a single memory store with different modes of activation for long-term
and short-term components, or as separate memory stores. These distinctions are
not essential when considering the basic level of cognitive architecture. However,
in order to explain human cognition, this general model needs to be supplemented
by some attention control mechanism (central processor or central executive)
which determines what information from sensory stores or LTM is brought into
STM. The information that is actually attended to is limited to a small number of
chunks in STM (Simon, 1979; Ericsson & Simon, 1993a, 1993b).
Various cognitive architectures and elaborations of the general model extend
the described memory structure. For example, the concept of working memory
(WM) was introduced to account for processing of units of information that are
interconnected, rather than random, and should be processed concurrently because
of the nature of things they reflect or due to established associations in long-term
memory. Working memory is considered as "a system for the temporary holding
and manipulation of information during the performance of a range of cognitive
tasks" (Baddeley, 1986, p. 34), a “desktop of the brain … that keeps track of what
we are doing or where we are moment to moment, that holds information long
enough to make a decision, to dial a telephone number, or to repeat a strange
foreign word that we have just heard” (Logie, 1999, p.174). Some simple
examples of working memory operation could be provided by the following tasks:
Basic Architecture of Human Cognition 3
close your eyes and pick up a pen in front of you; count the number of windows in
your house or apartment; mentally rearrange the furniture in your room, or
mentally complete a mathematical operation (for more examples, see Logie,
1999).
After incoming stimuli from an external source are registered in sensory
memory, perceived or matched to recognizable patterns by using prior knowledge
(if any) in LTM and context, and are paid attention to, they are transferred into
WM. If a unit of information is not recognized due to the lack of appropriate LTM
patterns, it still could be attended to and processed in WM, with appropriate
cognitive resources allocated for the task. Attended units of information in WM
are assigned meaning and used for constructing integrated mental representations
of a situation or task (Figure 1). This information, however, may fade very
quickly if attention is diverted or if the capacity of WM is overloaded.
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) first proposed that WM performed both
processing and storage functions. They suggested three structural components of
working memory: a central executive and two separate auditory and visual stores
for handling verbal information and visual images. These two stores serve as
maintenance systems controlled by the central executive and are called
respectively an articulatory or phonological loop (‘inner voice’) and a visuospatial
sketchpad (‘inner eye’). The limited capacity of the central executive is used for
processing incoming information, with the remainder used for the storage of
intermediate and final products of that processing. Storage and processing
capabilities of WM trade off against each other. When memory load increases
above some threshold, our performance could be inhibited. To get a feeling of
WM limitations, try to mentally add two large numbers (for example, 83 468 437
and 93 849 040). For a concurrent task, you may try also to attend simultaneously
to a comedy show on your TV. It would be very difficult to do because each of
these activities alone may take all of your WM resources.
There are three major functional aspects of working memory operation:
temporary storage, manipulation of information, and executive control.
Temporary storage of information was the focus of classic models of STM and
was studied using standard word or digit STM span tasks. These were simple
tasks involving recalling a list of digits or unrelated words and not requiring much
prior knowledge. Active manipulation of information has been the focus of
models of WM and has been studied using WM span tests that require concurrent
processing of several tasks. These are relatively more complex tasks involving
meaningful cognitive operations such as reading sentences or performing
numerical transformations, and then recalling the final words of those sentences or
results of the math operations. Performance of complex cognitive tasks requires
4 Slava Kalyuga
Working Memory
Constructing mental
representations of a
situation or task
Long-Term
Memory
Knowledge base
Sensory Memory:
Incoming information
KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATIONS
Our knowledge base in LTM profoundly influences cognitive processes in
most situations. Therefore, forms of knowledge representations are critical for
understanding human cognition. Several major ways of representing the meaning
of information in memory have been suggested: propositional representations
(semantic networks), procedural representations (production systems), and
schemas. Analogical representations or mental models (Rumelhart & Norman,
1983) can be generally considered as schemas. The concept of a proposition
denotes the primitive unit of meaning, or a smallest unit of knowledge about
which it is possible to make the judgment, true or false. Networks of such
8 Slava Kalyuga
auditory perceptual images. For example, our schema for a human face includes
slots for eyes, a nose, a mouth, ears, etc. These components are arranged in a
certain configuration that is not a rigid one. However, some general requirements
should be met: the nose and eyes should be located above the mouth; eyes should
be located above the nose on different sides of it, etc. This general schema allows
us to recognize instances of human faces in limitless situations, including some
peculiar forms of visual arts.
A student’s schema for solving linear algebraic equations of the type ax = b
may include three slots: 1) a number b on the right hand side of the equation; 2) a
number a on the left hand side of the equation; and 3) the division operation:
divide the content of the first slot on the content of the second slot. For less
experienced students, the schema may include the operation of dividing both sides
of the equation on the same number a. In this case, the schema would contain
slots for both parts of the equation, the dividing number a, and the division
operation.
For an example of higher-level schematic knowledge representations,
consider the technical domain that includes knowledge about various technical
objects (e.g., tools, devices, machines, technological procedures). This variety of
knowledge in any technical area could be represented with different levels of
specification: from descriptions of general features to specific details. A
schematic framework for representing knowledge about a technical object may
include three main interconnected components that could be referred to as
functional, operational, and structural descriptions. Any technical object could be
characterized by some functions or purpose it was designed for (what is this
object for?), processes utilized in the object’s operation (how does it operate?),
and the object’s internal structure including links between its components (what
does it consist of?). To explain an object’s operation means to explain why a
given set of linked parts performs specific functions utilizing certain processes
during operation. A learner should establish connections between functional,
operational, and structural components of the object’s description in order to
understand how it works (Kalyuga, 1984; 1990).
Gruber and Russell (1996) suggested similar classes of an artifact description:
structure (the physical and/or logical composition of an artifact in terms of the
composition of parts and connection topologies), behavior (something an artifact
might do in terms of observable states or changes), function (effect or goal to
achieve by artifact behavior), requirements (prescriptions concerning the
structure, behavior, and/or function that the artifact must satisfy), and objectives
(specifications of desired properties of the artifact other than pure functions, such
10 Slava Kalyuga
alternative
combinations of
processes realizing
a set of functions
alternative technical
solutions realizing a
combination of
processes
In the early 1980s, experiments with puzzle problems demonstrated that, even
after extensive problem solving by means-ends analysis, participants still did not
induce a simple solution rule. Rule induction occurred only after some additional
information had been provided (Mawer & Sweller, 1982; Sweller & Levine, 1982;
Sweller, Mawer, & Howe, 1982). Empirical evidence was obtained that extensive
practice in conventional problem solving was not an effective way of acquiring
schemas that are required to successfully solve corresponding problems (Owen &
Sweller, 1985; Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Sweller & Levine, 1982; Sweller,
Mawer, & Ward, 1983). These studies suggested that a means-ends strategy could
inhibit schema acquisition.
A means-ends strategy focuses attention on specific features of the problem
situation required to reach the goal and on reducing difference between current
and goal problem states by selecting proper operators. Maintaining subgoals and
considering alternative solution pathways are cognitively demanding mental
activities that might result in working memory overload. Additionally, these
activities are unrelated to learning solution schemas that are critical for successful
future problem solving. They reduce resources devoted to learning other
important aspects of problem structure. For example, studies of two-step problems
demonstrated that cognitive load might be very high at the subgoal stages
resulting in more errors than on the final goal stage (Ayres & Sweller, 1990).
Sweller & Levine (1982) demonstrated rapid learning of maze problem-
solving schemas when the specific goal state was unknown, and it was not
possible to reduce differences between the goal and given problem states. Sweller,
Mawer, and Ward (1983) found that using a means-ends strategy can actually
impair learning, and that less directed exploration of the problems facilitated
acquisition of useful problem schemas. They used simple physical and geometry
problems without a specific goal stated (goal-free problems such as Calculate the
value of as many variables as you can) and observed enhanced development of
problem-solving skills. Owen and Sweller (1985) found that problem solvers
using a means-ends strategy made significantly more errors than those using other
methods, supposedly due to the working memory load associated with means-
ends analysis.
In a theoretical investigation of the cognitive (working memory) load
phenomena, Sweller (1988) constructed and analyzed a computational model of
cognitive processes based on a theory of production systems (Newell & Simon,
1972). The model operates by matching elements on the condition side of each
production to elements in a working memory (for example, the knowns,
unknowns, goal, possible equations or theorems). If the condition side of a
production is matched by some of the elements in working memory, the
16 Slava Kalyuga
production can fire, and its action alters the content of working memory allowing
other productions to fire. The cognitive load in such a model could be measured
considering the number of statements in working memory, the number of
productions, the number of cycles to solution, and the total number of conditions
matched. Application of this model to novice cognitive behavior in various
instructional procedures provided evidence of the heavy cognitive load associated
with a means-ends strategy compared with a forward-working goal-free strategy.
It also explained why the use of goal-free problems or worked examples was more
effective means of acquiring schemas than conventional problem solving
(Sweller, 1988; Ayres & Sweller, 1990).
Since the late 1970s, the research focus in problem solving shifted to studying
knowledge-rich task domains (algebra, geometry, physics, thermodynamics,
computer programming, chess, bridge, etc.) that required an essential knowledge
base as a prerequisite. Problem solving in such domains has additional
complexities. Representation of a problem requires a great deal of domain
knowledge, and operators that are usually used are domain-specific operators. The
central questions of research in such domains are how is knowledge used to build
up a problem representation and how does it influence the actual problem-solving
process (Reimann & Chi, 1989).
In semantically rich domains, problem solving involves searching one's
knowledge of the domain in order to find the operators for solving the problem.
Research on the use of knowledge in problem solving suggests that people use
two types of domain-specific knowledge to solve problems: declarative
conceptual knowledge (knowledge of the principles of the domain) and procedural
knowledge (knowledge how to perform cognitive activities). Procedural
knowledge may be described as a set of production rules that define actions for
achieving goals (Anderson, 1983). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in
problem solving can be considered as organized into problem schemas. They form
the general framework of knowledge that corresponds to classes of problems.
Problem solving in complex domains thus can be viewed as finding an
appropriate problem schema in long-term memory and filling in this schema with
the specific parameters of the problem (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser 1981; Chi &
Glaser, 1985). The problem schema determines what conceptual knowledge is
used to build a representation of the problem statement, and what procedures are
used to solve the problem. Much research in knowledge-rich domains is
concerned with the differences between expert and novice problem solving. It has
become evident that experts' behavior is mostly determined by their knowledge
base. Therefore, the learning processes in which the experts acquired this
knowledge are critical in explaining their performance. The focus of attention in
Basic Architecture of Human Cognition 17
them more automatic and free cognitive capacity for other more creative elements.
This is especially important for transfer of training (Cooper & Sweller, 1987;
Howell & Cooke, 1989). Automated lower level routine procedures enable
learners to concentrate on finding new ways of applying their knowledge in
unfamiliar situations.
The process of learning could be considered as the acquisition of new
schemas that eliminate the need to apply weak problem-solving methods (e.g.,
means-ends analysis) to solve future similar problems. The result is a shift from a
novice strategy of working backward from the goal using means-ends analysis
and subgoaling, to a more expert knowledge-based strategy of working forward
from the initial state to the goal. Availability of a sufficient set of relevant
domain-specific schematic knowledge structures that could be used in performing
tasks is an important feature of a competent human performance. With experience
in a domain, knowledge is organized into larger interconnected aggregate
structures that explain the skilled performance of experts (Chi, Glaser, & Farr,
1988; Lord & Maher, 1991).
Under a schema-based approach, learning can take different forms. Schema
evolution is a central mechanism in the development of expertise. New
information could be encoded in terms of existing schemas without involving any
new schemas. Schemas evolve as they are applied and utilized as learner
experience in the domain increases. Another form of learning is restructuring or
creation of new schemas. In order to explain how schemas can be built up through
experience, Rumelhart and Norman (1981) proposed a mechanism of learning by
analogy. Initially, a new schema could be created by modeling it on an existing
schema followed by a process of refinement (tuning). When a learner encounters a
new situation in a familiar domain, she or he tries to interpret it using existing
schemas. If none of them suits the situation, the best existing schema can serve as
a model from which to start the tuning process. The characteristics of this model
that do not contradict the new situation are carried over into the new schema.
Planning and self-regulatory (metacognitive) skills allow experts to control
their performance, assess their work, and predict its results. These self-regulatory
skills are an important condition of expert ability to use the available knowledge
base (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989; Larkin, McDermott, Simon,
& Simon, 1980). Chi et al. (1989) proposed that students learn and understand
examples of problem solutions via the self-explanations they give while studying.
Students who are successful problem-solvers tend to study example exercises by
explaining and providing justifications for each action and relating these actions
to the principles and concepts of the domain. These students read the example
with understanding and self-monitoring. Students who are less successful
Basic Architecture of Human Cognition 19
experts and novices use when there is no schema for a given type of problems. In
a novel situation, experts use various types of general heuristics together with
domain-specific knowledge (Perkins, Schwartz & Simmon, 1991; Rist, 1989;
Schultz & Luchheud, 1991).
Thus, expert performance depends on available problem representations,
knowledge base (facts, concepts, principles, knowledge of a system and rules how
to use this knowledge), availability of appropriate domain-specific schemas,
general procedures (strategies, heuristics, algorithms), and relations among all
these elements (Hart, 1986; Lesgold and Lajoie, 1991). According to Chi, Glaser,
and Farr (1988), the main features of competent expert performance are:
based on qualitative models (Chi, 1988; Forbus & Gentner, 1986), a learner has to
progress from simple to more sophisticated domain-specific conceptual models
(e.g., coordinated functional, causal, and structural models; qualitative and
quantitative models). This progression occurs in the context of solving
specifically designed problems with gradually increasing levels of complexity. An
example of this approach is the program for teaching troubleshooting of electric
circuits QUEST (White & Frederiksen, 1986).
Similar ideas were realized in the STEAMER project (the simulator for
training engineers to operate steam propulsion plants aboard large naval ships).
The primary goal was to teach a robust conceptual model (rather than specific
procedures) that could be used to reason about the steam plant qualitatively
(Holland, Hutchins, McCandless, Rosenstein, & Weitzman, 1987). Abstract
graphic images of the steam plant were organized in a hierarchical manner with
the major plant parameters presented first, followed by more detailed simulations
of subsystem components.
SHERLOCK is an example of a coached-practice learning environment in
which learners compare their own performance with expert performance (Gabrys,
Weiner, & Lesgold, 1993; Lesgold and Lajoie, 1991). Such reflection, however,
may place a large demand on working memory, if solution paths are long or
complicated. SHERLOCK supports reflection by a replay of the trainee's and an
expert's performance. During replay, the system provides a summary of the
information the user has obtained on previous steps. The system allows learners to
observe the expert's decision process, reasons behind it, and the overall goal
structure for the expert performance. This technique reduces the cognitive load
associated with remembering the details of trainee's own performance while
observing the expert's actions (Gabrys et al., 1993).
Another well-known example of a similar approach is the model-tracing
methodology in intelligent tutoring systems (Anderson, 1993). The tutoring
system simulates a student’s cognitive behavior in real time and maintains a
model of the student's knowledge state. It provides an example-based learning
environment in which students can induce rules from examples. The learner's
actual performance is compared to the ideal structure of solution (production rules
model), and the student is kept on the correct solution path. The tutor estimates
the availability of acquired productions based on their correct and incorrect
applications and selects appropriate problems for exercises. Many tutoring
programs based on the model-tracing methodology have been effectively used in
the fields of programming, geometry proofs, solving algebraic equations
(Anderson, Boyle, & Reiser, 1985; Anderson & Corbett, 1993; Anderson,
Cognitive Studies of Expert-Novice Differences and Design of Instruction 31
Corbett, Fincham, Hoffman, & Pelletier, 1992; Anderson, Farrell, & Sauers,
1984).
The concept of mental load was initially introduced in the 1950s and was
based on the concept of a communication channel with limited capacity.
Overloading this channel means operating above the limits of one's capacity
resulting in errors or missed signals. An underload is associated with considerable
spare capacity. Capacity theory of human information processing in relation to
attention was originally developed to explain an operator’s limited ability to
perform multiple activities simultaneously. Not specifying the nature of capacity
or resources, it provided an explanation for performance decrements that occurred
when the resource demands of the task exceeded the available supply (Kahneman,
1973; Navon, 1984).
Specifying the nature of capacity or resources requires adopting a specific
mechanism of human information processing or cognitive architecture. In the
framework of the standard basic model of cognitive architecture, the working
memory is associated with capacity limitations and cognitive resources
consumption. Studies of cognitive load phenomena during problem solving
clearly demonstrated that when cognitive load was greater than working memory
capacity, learning was difficult, and schema acquisition and rule automation were
inhibited. It was suggested that many traditional instructional materials were
ineffective because they ignored limitations of the human cognitive processing
system, especially the limited processing capacity of working memory. Cognitive
36 Slava Kalyuga
load theory (Sweller, 1988; 1989; 1993; 1994; 1999; 2003; 2004; Sweller &
Chandler, 1994; Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998; Chandler & Sweller,
1991, 1996; Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994b; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003, 2004)
determined some important cognitive principles relevant to processing
instructional information and their consequences for instructional design.
Two independent sources of cognitive load that place demands on working
memory capacity were initially proposed within the cognitive load theory.
Intrinsic cognitive load is determined by the intellectual complexity of the
instructional material to be learned. For example, operation of an intricate
electrical circuit might be much more difficult to learn than working of any
individual element of this circuit. Extraneous cognitive load is imposed solely by
the format of instruction that can take various forms (written instructions,
practical demonstrations, etc.) and require different activities of learners (solving
problems, studying worked examples, etc.).
Germane load, which is caused by cognitive activities that contribute to
learning, has been introduced into the theory at a later stage to account for the
learning-relevant demands on working memory (Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994a;
Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998). For example, cognitive load caused by
self-explanations during learning from worked examples represents an example of
germane load. Such activities would obviously increase cognitive load, but would
directly contribute to schema construction. The intrinsic, germane, and extraneous
cognitive load combined result in the total cognitive load imposed on a learner.
While intrinsic cognitive load is initially fixed for the learner, extraneous and
germane cognitive load can be manipulated by instructional design.
Cognitive load theory asserts that intrinsic load is determined by the degree of
interactivity between individual learning elements. Any instructional material
consists of elements of information that should be processed by learners. An
element can be regarded as a learning item in its simplest form for a particular
learner (Chandler & Sweller, 1996). If the elements can be processed individually,
the information is considered low in element interactivity. It places little load on
working memory because each element can be learned independently. For
example, for a person learning individual words of a second language, intrinsic
cognitive load is low because little or no interaction exists between learning
elements. The task still might be difficult because there are many new words to
learn.
When learning elements need to be processed simultaneously, the material is
high in element interactivity. Learning the syntax of a language (the appropriate
order of words in a sentence) requires all the relevant words to be held in working
memory simultaneously. Because all words interact, a sentence can only be
Cognitive Load Perspective in Instructional Design 37
understood if individual words and their relations are processed concurrently. This
cognitive processing may increase the burden on working memory (Chandler &
Sweller, 1996). The influence of element interactivity on cognitive load was
demonstrated by Maybery, Bain, and Halford (1986) and Halford, Maybery, and
Bain (1986). Using transitive interference problems (e.g., a is larger than b; b is
larger than c; which is the largest?), they provided evidence that cognitive load
was heaviest when learners attempted to integrate two premises. The integration
required considering all the elements (a, b, and c) and their relations concurrently
bringing element interactivity to its highest point.
Thus, the intrinsic cognitive load caused by instructional material depends on
the level of interaction between the elements of that material. Material including
many elements, but with a low level of interactivity results in a low cognitive
load. Difficulty in learning such material might not be due to working memory
overload, but simply to the total number of elements to be learned. On the other
hand, instructional materials that consist of heavily interacting elements might
impose a significant cognitive load even if the number of elements is relatively
small. Even simple electrical circuits with small number of components are
usually difficult to learn because the elements of the circuits are highly interactive
and must be learned as a whole and simultaneously (Sweller & Chandler, 1994).
Assume a person is learning a simple application of a wiring configuration
(the starter) for switching on/off a light by a single push on start/stop push buttons
(Figure 3). While in isolation, all five elements used in the circuit (two push
buttons, a switch, a light, and a coil) might be well known and simple. Combined
in the circuit, they become interconnected and need to be considered
simultaneously to understand the operation of the circuit. For example, to find out
the state of the light (on or off) the learner should determine whether (1) the stop-
button is in its normally closed (not pushed on) position and (2) the switch is
closed. The state of the switch depends on whether (3) the coil is energized. The
state of the coil depends on whether (4) the start-button has been pushed on to
energize the coil initially and (5) the stop-button has not been pushed on to
interrupt the flow of current through the circuit.
Thus, the state of the light depends on the states of all other components of
the circuit. The number of elements and their relationships that must be
considered simultaneously in this case is five. It must be emphasized that this
estimation is based on the assumption that the learner is familiar with the
operation of separate components of the circuit. For example, she or he
understands that energizing the coil would close the switch, or that a single push
on the stop-button would open the circuit. Otherwise, the number of elements to
consider would expand considerably (Figure 4).
38 Slava Kalyuga
Stop Start
A N
coil
switch light
Figure 3. Electrical circuit for switching on/off a light by start/stop push buttons.
Starter
Stop Start
Normally closed
push button
switch 1 Normally open
push button
Normally open
switch
The degree of element interactivity is not only determined by the nature of the
instructional material. It is also influenced by the learner expertise in a particular
instructional domain and her or his pre-acquired schemas in this area. Because
schemas have a hierarchical structure, what is an element on one level may be a
complex structure when a lower-order schema level is considered. With the
development of expertise in a domain, lower-order schemas may become the
elements of a higher-order schema. In other words, with expertise the size of a
Cognitive Load Perspective in Instructional Design 39
1. The Starter consists of a start push button, a stop push button, and a
switch activated by the coil.
2. Pressing down the start push button closes the circuit and allows the
current to flow through the coil.
3. The energized coil closes the switch, which provides an alternative closed
circuit for the coil to that provided by the start push button. The start
push button now can be released without breaking the current flow
through the coil.
4. The light is operational, as the closed switch provides a closed circuit for
it.
5. To cease operation of the light the stop push button is pressed. The
circuit in the Starter is now open, the coil is no longer energized, and the
switch returns to its normal open position.
may be critical for learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1996; Sweller & Chandler,
1994). Studies in cognitive load theory and its instructional implications have
demonstrated that designing instructional materials in a way that reduces
extraneous cognitive load can significantly improve learning. A brief review of
those studies is presented in the following section. More extended reviews could
be found in Mayer (2005) and Sweller (1999).
In cognitive load research, working memory load has been measured through
various methods, including computational models (Sweller, 1988), instructional
processing times (Sweller, Chandler, Tierney, & Cooper, 1990), and dual-task
paradigms (Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003, 2004; Chandler & Sweller, 1996).
For a comprehensive overview of cognitive load measurement methods, see Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & van Gerven (2003). The dual-task paradigms use
performance on a secondary task as an indicator of cognitive load associated with
learning on a primary task. Various simple responses can be used as secondary
tasks, for example, reaction times to some events such as a computer mouse click
(Britton, Glynn, Meyer, & Penland, 1982; Lansman & Hunt, 1982), or counting
backwards (Lindberg & Garling, 1982). For example, the secondary task used by
Chandler and Sweller (1996) consisted of recalling the previous letter seen on the
screen of a separate computer while encoding the new letter appearing after a tone
sounded. An important requirement is that a secondary task should affect the same
working memory processing system (visual and/or auditory) as the primary task;
otherwise, it may not be sensitive to changes in actual cognitive load.
Dual-task techniques for measurement of cognitive load in multimedia
learning were studied by Brünken, Plass, & Leutner (2003, 2004), Brünken,
Steinbacher, Plass, & Leutner (2002), and Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner (2003).
The secondary task represented a simple visual-monitoring task requiring learners
to react (e.g., press a key on the computer keyboard) as soon as possible to a color
change of a letter displayed in a small frame above the main task frame. Reaction
time in the secondary monitoring task was used as a measure of cognitive load
induced by the primary multimedia instruction. The studies demonstrated the
applicability of the dual-task approach to measurement of cognitive load
experienced by each individual learner.
Ratings of subjective mental effort associated with learning instructional
materials have been used in many studies recently, as they are easy to implement
and do not intrude on primary task performance. Furthermore, research indicates
that subjective measures of mental load are reliable and correlate highly with
objective measures (Moray, 1982; O'Donnell & Eggemeier, 1986). In addition to
the usual dependent measures such as processing time, test performance, and
practical task performance, subjective ratings of mental effort have been collected.
42 Slava Kalyuga
Participants are usually asked to estimate how easy or difficult instructions were
to understand by choosing a response option or a number on the scale, ranging
from extremely easy (1) to extremely difficult (7 or 9). The scales are usually
seven or nine point.
Measures of subjective load and test performance scores have also been
combined to generate instructional efficiency indicators calculated following Paas
and van Merriënboer's (1993) procedure. This approach allows estimation of the
relative efficiency of instructional conditions and the cognitive cost of instruction.
High efficiency occurs under conditions of low cognitive load and high-level test
performance, and low efficiency occurs under high cognitive load and low-level
test performance. Efficiency values can be calculated, for example, by converting
cognitive load and performance measures into z-scores (R and P) and combining
z-scores using the formula:
P−R
E=
2
requires cognitive resources that are unrelated to learning. The imposed cognitive
load may eliminate any benefit of a worked example.
A series of experiments with circle geometry problems provided evidence for
this hypothesis (Tarmizi & Sweller, 1988). Worked examples in a conventional
format (i.e., text and diagram separate) demonstrated performance no better than
solving conventional problems. The geometry worked examples required students
to split their attention between diagram and text by searching and matching
elements from the text to the appropriate entities on the diagram, and failed to
facilitate schema acquisition and rule automation. Tarmizi and Sweller (1988)
demonstrated that the search and match process involved with the geometry
worked examples could be reduced if each textual statement was physically
located near its matching entities on the diagram. Physically integrating textual
information with the related diagram improved performance of the worked-
examples group significantly.
Similar results were obtained in experiments in kinematics (Ward & Sweller,
1990). Worked examples in kinematics usually consist of a problem statement
followed by sets of equations representing the worked problem solution. The
following example (Ward & Sweller, 1990) demonstrates a traditional worked
example:
A car moving from rest reaches a speed of 20 m/s after 10 seconds. What is
the acceleration of the car?
u = 0 m/s
v = 20 m/s
t = 10 s
v = u + at
a = (v - u)/t
a = (20 - 0)/10
2
a = 2 m/ s
To understand the worked example, the learner had to mentally integrate the
related sources of information and split her or his attention between the problem
information and the worked solution. An experiment conducted under normal
classroom conditions demonstrated that studying conventional kinematics worked
examples was no more effective than solving the equivalent problems. Ward and
Sweller (1990) found that the worked example effect took place when the
conventional worked examples were reformatted so that the problem solution was
Cognitive Load Perspective in Instructional Design 47
integrated into the problem statement. For instance, the above example was
transformed into the following integrated format:
A car moving from rest (u) reaches a speed of 20 m/s (v) after 10 seconds (t):
2
[v = u + at, a = (v - u)/t = (20 - 0)/10 = 2 m/ s ]. What is the acceleration of the
car?
Learners who studied integrated worked examples processed the material quicker
and made significantly less errors on test items compared to the conventional
worked example group and the conventional problem-solving group.
Physical integration of related sources of information (statements, diagrams,
equations, etc.) decreases extraneous cognitive load by reducing search processes
involved with conventional split source instructional formats. For example, in the
case of instruction on operation of the Starter circuit for switching on/off a light
by start/stop push buttons (Figure 3), an integrated instructional format is
represented in Figure 5.
A N
traditional format was inadequate. Findings could have been different if expert
researchers, who know where to look for specific information, or reports that are
more complex, had been used.
A series of studies conducted by Mayer and his colleagues were related to the
split-attention effect (Mayer, 1997). It was found that instructions consisting of
separate text and unlabelled diagrams were less effective than diagrams that
contained labels that clearly connected text and diagram (Mayer, 1989b; Mayer &
Gallini, 1990). The labeled diagrams could be considered as a kind of physical
integration of the diagram and text, as both techniques reduce the need to search.
Research by Mayer and Anderson (1991, 1992) and Mayer and Sims (1994) on
animated instructions and the contiguity principle may be viewed as a temporal
example of the split-attention effect. The authors found that animation and related
narration were most effective when presented simultaneously rather than serially.
An integrated presentation of auditory and visual information was superior to their
successive presentation.
Thus, the split-attention effect has been tested with novice learners in a
variety of areas in both laboratory and realistic training settings, with different
types of related sources of information involved. Interestingly, physically
embedded textual narratives have been used for many years in comic books for
children, thus demonstrating their effectiveness in assisting children to
comprehend complex materials (most reading materials are cognitively
demanding for children). However, this technique was rarely used in general
instructional materials until its cognitive efficiency had been investigated and
appropriate recommendations suggested. A similar situation applies to the
redundancy effect that is considered next.
The redundancy effect. Research generated by cognitive load theory
indicates that integrated instructional formats are beneficial for learning if the
sources of mutually referring information need to be mentally integrated in order
to be understood. However, physical integration of text and diagram may not
always be appropriate. Often individual sources of information are self-contained,
i.e. provide all of the required information in isolation. For example, electrical
circuit diagrams might be intelligible without any reference to the accompanying
text. Understanding such circuits might occur without processing the textual
information. The elimination rather than integration of such redundant sources of
information could be beneficial for learning. If the redundant information is
integrated physically with essential information, learners have no choice but to
process it. This imposes an extraneous cognitive load that interferes with the
learning process.
50 Slava Kalyuga
diagrams disappeared when they were used with text. Under these conditions, the
text appeared to be redundant.
The modality effect. Current theories of working memory consider capacities
to be distributed over several partly independent subsystems, for example,
separate auditory and visual modules (Baddeley, 1986; 1992; Penney, 1989;
Schneider & Detweiler, 1987). For example, Baddeley (1986) proposed a model
that includes three subsystems: a phonological loop, a visuospatial sketchpad, and
a central executive. The phonological loop processes auditory information (verbal
or written material in an auditory form), while the visuospatial sketchpad deals
with visual information such as diagrams and pictures. Penney (1989) proposed a
model of working memory (the "separate stream hypothesis") where the
processing of auditory and visually presented verbal items was carried out
independently by auditory and visual processors in working memory, and
provided a considerable body of research in support of this hypothesis.
Paivio's (1990) dual coding theory also suggests that information can be
encoded, stored and retrieved from two fundamentally distinct systems, one suited
to verbal information, the other to images. The two systems are interconnected
and may contribute additively to memory performance. If information is coded in
both the verbal and imaginal coding systems, memory for the information will be
enhanced. Alternatively, if information is coded in only one of the two systems,
the details will not be as easily recalled.
According to cognitive load theory, the split-attention effect might occur
when learners should mentally integrate two related sources of information and
this integration overburden limited working memory capacity. When one of the
sources is presented in auditory form, there still should be mental integration of
the audio and visual information, but it may not overload working memory
capacity if working memory is enhanced by a dual-mode presentation. The dual-
mode presentation does not reduce extraneous cognitive load but rather increases
effective working memory capacity. The amount of information that can be
processed using both auditory and visual channels might exceed the processing
capacity of a single channel.
Thus, limited working memory may be effectively expanded by using more
than one sensory modality, and instructional materials with dual-mode
presentation (for example, a visual diagram accompanied by an auditory text) can
be more efficient than equivalent single modality formats. The modality effect
occurs when separate sources of non-redundant information otherwise requiring
integration are presented in alternate, auditory or visual, forms. Increasing
effective working memory by using more than one sensory modality produces a
54 Slava Kalyuga
Figure 6. Snapshot of the visual-only format of instruction for the fusion diagram. Adapted
from Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (1999). Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
animation, narration, and text. For learners who were required to coordinate and
simultaneously process written and spoken text, an excessive working memory
load could be generated.
In a series of three experiments involving a group of technical apprentices,
Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (2004) compared the effects of simultaneously
presenting the same written and auditory textual information as opposed to either
temporally separating the two modes or eliminating one of the modes. The first
two experiments demonstrated that non-concurrent presentation of auditory and
visual explanations of a diagram proved superior in terms of ratings of mental
load and test scores to a concurrent presentation of the same explanations when
instruction time was constrained and system-controlled. The third experiment
demonstrated that a concurrent presentation of auditory and visual forms of the
same lengthy technical text (without the presence of diagrams) was significantly
less efficient in comparison with an auditory-only text.
The expertise reversal effect. The distinction between the split-attention and
redundancy effects might be based on the distinction between sources of
information that are intelligible or unintelligible in isolation. If a diagram and the
concepts it represents are sufficiently self-contained and intelligible in isolation,
then any text explaining the diagram is redundant and should be omitted in order
to reduce cognitive load. Alternatively, if the concepts or functions of a diagram
are not intelligible in isolation, then the diagram will require additional textual
information. This information should be integrated into the diagram, or presented
in auditory mode, in order to reduce cognitive load.
However, intelligibility of information always depends on the level of
expertise of the learner. For example, some information might not be intelligible
in isolation for less experienced learners and so require physical integration with
additional information to reduce an unnecessary working memory load. The same
information may be intelligible in isolation for more experienced learners who
have previously acquired schemas that allow all necessary inferences to be made.
If additional instructional explanations are provided for more experienced
learners, they are redundant and processing them may unnecessarily increase
cognitive load. Eliminating redundancy may be the best way to reduce cognitive
load in this situation. The split-attention effect might be replaced by the
redundancy effect as expertise develops.
Differences in learner knowledge base should be taken into account when
analyzing the sources of cognitive load. What constitutes an element and which
elements interact in learning entirely depends on a person's acquired schemas
related to material being learned. Many interacting elements for one person may
be a single element for another person with a sophisticated schema. For example,
58 Slava Kalyuga
components of the Starter in Figure 3 (two push-buttons, and a switch) can act as
many individual elements for novices, yet all these components may be
considered together as a single element (the Starter) by an experienced electrical
technician who has acquired the schema for the starter.
If learners have sufficient knowledge to understand the circuit diagram, the
textual explanations might be redundant for these learners. They may prefer to
ignore the text but may have difficulty doing so if the text is integrated into the
diagram (Figure 5), resulting in a higher cognitive load. In this situation, the best
instructional format with the lowest unnecessary cognitive load for these learners
may be a diagram alone format (the redundancy effect). On the other hand, if the
circuit diagram is not intelligible in isolation, then additional necessary text
should be presented in an integrated rather than a conventional split-source format
(split-attention effect).
Participants in most previously reviewed studies that originally demonstrated
split-attention effect (e.g., Tarmizi & Sweller, 1988; Ward & Sweller, 1990;
Sweller et al., 1990; Chandler & Sweller, 1991; 1992) did not have the higher
order schemas for chunking interacting elements into single units. For these
learners, the level of intrinsic element interactivity appeared to be high enough to
make the total cognitive load overwhelming. In such situations, reduction of
extraneous cognitive load caused by split-attention became critical.
However, it was observed at the early stages of investigating the modality
effect that differences between subjects in their domain-specific knowledge
clearly influenced the effect. For example, Mayer and Gallini (1990) and Mayer
and Sims (1994) found that only inexperienced novice students showed a strong
contiguity (split-attention) effect and benefited from instructions that coordinated
the presentation of verbal explanations and visual depictions. There were no
improvements demonstrated for high-experience learners who were able to
compensate for uncoordinated instruction by using their long-term memory
knowledge.
Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (1997, 1998) demonstrated that the level of
learner expertise is a critical learning condition that determines whether split-
attention is a problem and relates split-attention to redundancy. Direct physical
integration of text and diagrams was investigated in those studies. Fragments of
textual explanations were directly embedded into electrical wiring diagrams
similar to that in Figure 5. In the first experiment, instructional information was
presented to learners with very limited experience in the domain. In this case, the
split-attention rather than the redundancy effect was obtained. Students had great
difficulty learning from a diagram alone. A diagram with associated text in a
conventional, split-attention format was less difficult, and a physically integrated
Cognitive Load Perspective in Instructional Design 59
format was the most effective. Evidence that the effects were caused by cognitive
load factors came from subjective rating scales. Students found the integrated
diagram and text materials easier to process but performed at a higher level on the
subsequent tests, resulting in substantially higher instructional efficiency
measures using Paas and van Merriënboer's (1993) metric.
Two subsequent experiments were designed to observe alterations in relative
performance between the conditions as learners' level of expertise increased.
These experiments tested the same learners who participated in the first
experiment over a sufficient period to allow a substantial development of
expertise. Experiment 2 used the same three conditions (however, with different,
more complex wiring diagrams) as were used in Experiment 1. After extensive
training in the domain, an interaction effect was obtained: the effectiveness of the
integrated diagram and text condition decreased while the effectiveness of the
diagram alone condition increased.
Experiment 3 provided additional training to the point where substantial
differences between an integrated diagram and text condition and a diagram alone
condition were obtained, providing evidence of the redundancy effect. With
experienced learners, the inclusion of the text interfered with learning. Students
found the diagram alone materials easier to process but performed at a higher
level on the subsequent tests, resulting in substantially higher efficiency ratings
using Paas and van Merriënboer's (1993) metric. Subjective rating scales and
efficiency data confirmed that the cognitive load profile of these two conditions
was essentially the reverse of that obtained in Experiment 1 with novice learners
(Figure 7).
4 4
2 2
Instruction-
based
guidance
Schema-
based
guidance
Novices Experts
Instruction-
based
guidance
Schema-
based
guidance
Novices Experts
problem cross-referencing
solving of schemas and
search instructions
WORKING MEMORY
Executive function
Constructing integrated
mental representations of
a current situation or task
Verbal Pictorial
information information
sub-system sub-system
Low- Low-
level level
schemas schemas
New
knowledge
LONG-TERM MEMORY
INSTRUCTIONAL PRESENTATION
Figure 10. Cognitive structures and processes for novices learning from well-guided
instruction.
WORKING MEMORY
Executive function
Constructing integrated
mental representations of
a current situation or task
Verbal Pictorial
information Problem solving information
sub-system search sub-system
Low- Low-
level level
schemas schemas
New
knowledge
LONG-TERM MEMORY
Text Pictures
INSTRUCTIONAL PRESENTATION
Figure 11. Cognitive structures and processes for novices learning from non-guided
instruction.
66 Slava Kalyuga
WORKING MEMORY
Executive function
Constructing integrated
mental representations of
a current situation or task
Verbal Pictorial
information information
sub-system sub-system
Low- Low-
level level
schemas High- schemas
level
schemas New
knowledge
LONG-TERM MEMORY
Text Pictures
INSTRUCTIONAL PRESENTATION
Figure 12. Cognitive structures and processes for experts learning from non-guided
instruction.
WORKING MEMORY
Executive function
Constructing integrated
mental representations of
a current situation or task
Verbal Pictorial
information information
sub-system sub-system
Low- Low-
level level
schemas High- schemas
level
schemas New
knowledge
LONG-TERM MEMORY
INSTRUCTIONAL PRESENTATION
Figure 13. Cognitive structures and processes for experts learning from well-guided
instruction.
Chapter 4
descriptions of the elements and their relations in graphic form than low-ability
students. The presence of a diagram may help the less able students but not the
high-ability students. Winn (1987) also noted that because there are limits to the
amount of information about elements and their relationships that low-ability
students can take in, the graphics might impose additional processing load for the
low-ability students. However, he did not study effects of restructuring
instructional materials to reduce this processing load, for example, effects of
integration of textual instructions at their appropriate locations on the diagram.
Prior knowledge has also been considered as an important factor contributing
to individual differences in the effect of instruction based on text and visual
displays (Schnotz, 2002). For example, when using graphics, more knowledgeable
learners (university students) concentrated on information that was relevant to the
construction of a mental model without calling upon textual information (Schnotz,
Picard, & Hron, 1993).
A number of studies of individual differences in learning from text and
graphics demonstrated that the instructional advantages of diagrams depended on
student domain-specific knowledge and experience. Acquired schemas allow
more knowledgeable learners to avoid processing overwhelming amounts of
information and reduce load on limited working memory. For example,
experiments by Hegarty and Just (1989) demonstrated that high-mechanical-
ability learners comprehended both a text alone and a diagram alone at a higher
level than low-mechanical-ability learners. It was assumed that high-mechanical-
ability learners were able to locate the relevant information in a diagram and were
less dependent on an accompanying text. The way a text and a diagram are
processed by high- and low-mechanical-ability learners depends on required
cognitive effort.
High-mechanical-ability learners might require less effort to construct a
mental representation from either medium alone. Since switching between
processing a text and processing a diagram requires considerable additional
cognitive effort, these learners are able to reduce it by switching less often
between the two media than low-mechanical-ability learners. The high-
mechanical-ability learners inspected the diagram rarely. They were able to hold
its representation in working memory because it contained fewer chunks for them.
Available schemas for mechanical systems made it less necessary for high-
mechanical-ability students to inspect the diagram in order to construct a
representation (Hegarty, Just, & Morrison, 1988; Hegarty & Just, 1993).
Lacking proper schemas, the low-mechanical-ability learners had to look at
the diagram each time a new piece of textual information referred to the diagram.
These learners switched often between the text and diagrams. Mental integration
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 71
of text and graphics occurred in small units that were manageable within the
capacity of learners' working memory. Later these units were combined at a
higher level, with the diagram used as an external representation that helped the
learners to free up resources necessary for integration (Hegarty & Just, 1993).
Glenberg and Langstone (1992) and Kieras (1992) also noted the role of a
diagram as an external memory aid that frees up working memory resources of
low-ability students while processing a text and a diagram.
There are other forms of graphic representation of information that have been
studied extensively, such as various types of cognitive maps (two-dimensional
node-link diagrams), for example knowledge maps (Lambiotte, Skaggs, &
Dansereau, 1993), concepts maps (Novak & Gowin, 1984), or semantic maps
(Johnson, Pittleman, & Heimlich, 1986). Evidence has also been obtained that
using cognitive maps is more beneficial to students with lower prior knowledge or
verbal ability (Lambiotte & Dansereau, 1992; Rewey, Dansereau, & Peel, 1991).
Cognitive maps may interfere with learning and would not be of much help when
learners have already constructed schemas of the instructional material.
When learners process both text and pictures, they have to mentally integrate
verbal and pictorial representations in order to achieve understanding. The
previous chapter described studies that demonstrated that when text and pictures
are not synchronized in space (located separately) or time (presented after or
before each other), the integration process may increase working memory load
and inhibit learning due to cross-referencing different representations. Physically
integrating verbal and pictorial representations may eliminate this split-attention
effect (Chandler & Sweller, 1991; 1992; 1996; Mayer & Anderson 1991; 1992;
Mayer & Gallini, 1990; Sweller, Chandler, Tierney, & Cooper, 1990; Tarmizi &
Sweller, 1988; Ward & Sweller, 1990). Sections of written text could be
embedded directly in the diagram in close proximity to relevant components of
the diagram, and segments of narrated text could be presented simultaneously
with the diagram (or relevant animation frames).
When instructing learners who are more experienced in a specific domain,
there could be a situation when the source of information (textual or pictorial) that
is essential for a novice learner may be redundant for a more knowledgeable
person. In the physically integrated format, processing the redundant information
and integrating that information with the learner’s schemas could be difficult to
avoid. Attending to and integrating redundant information with existing schemas
requires a share of cognitive resources that becomes unavailable for the
construction and refinement of new schemas. Therefore, in the case of more
advanced learners, elimination of redundant verbal or pictorial information might
be the optimal format of instruction.
72 Slava Kalyuga
Research by Mayer and Gallini (1990) and Mayer, Steinhoff, Bower, and
Mars (1995) in learning from text and illustrations demonstrated that well
designed text-with-pictures instructional formats were more helpful for low-
knowledge learners than for high-knowledge learners. With increases in learners’
knowledge in a domain, beneficial effects of such presentations disappeared. For
example, these studies found that differences between subjects in their domain-
specific knowledge clearly influenced the contiguity (or split-attention) effect
when learning from text and pictures. Coordination of words and pictures
improved problem-solving transfer for low-experience learners but not for high-
experience learners. Supposedly, learners with a high level of domain-specific
knowledge were able to compensate for uncoordinated instruction by retrieving
relevant knowledge from long-term memory. Median effect size differences (the
effect size for the high-knowledge learners subtracted from the effect size for the
low-knowledge learners) were 0.60 for retention questions and 0.80 for transfer
questions (Mayer, 2001).
In experiments demonstrating the expertise reversal effect, Kalyuga et al.
(1998) found that advanced electrical trainees learned relatively new instances of
wiring diagrams in familiar domains significantly better from the circuit diagrams
alone than from diagrams with embedded detailed textual explanations.
Conservative estimates of effect sizes (using higher standard deviation values)
were 0.55 for questions about circuits operation and troubleshooting, and 0.65 for
diagram faultfinding questions. The advanced trainees also reported less mental
effort when studying the diagram-only formats. The integrated textual
explanations were clearly redundant for these learners and these explanations
could not be avoided without a substantial cognitive effort.
Dual-modality (e.g., combined auditory and visual) presentations have been
shown to be an effective alternative to direct physical integration of text and
diagrams in dealing with split-attention situations. Working memory capacity
could be effectively increased by presenting a visual diagram with spoken rather
than written explanations. According to the modality effect, novice learners can
integrate textual explanations and pictures more effectively when the text is
narrated rather than presented in an on-screen form (Mayer, 1997; Mayer &
Moreno, 1998; Mousavi, Low, & Sweller, 1995; Tindall-Ford, Chandler, &
Sweller, 1997). (Note, though, that presenting the same text simultaneously in
written and spoken form still may generate an excessive working memory load,
according to Kalyuga, Chandler, and Sweller, 2004).
For high-knowledge learners, however, narrated explanations may become
redundant and reduce learning efficiency. For example, when training
inexperienced apprentices of manufacturing companies in reading different
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 73
Figure 14. A snapshot of the multimedia instructional format for a cutting speed
nomogram. Adapted from Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (2000). Copyright © 2000 by the
American Psychological Association, Inc.
When learners became much more experienced in using these diagrams, the
advantage of auditory explanations on how to use a relatively new type of
diagrams disappeared while the efficiency of the diagram-alone presentations
increased. After additional training, when the trainees became more advanced in
74 Slava Kalyuga
Figure 15. A snapshot of the diagram-only instructional format for a cutting speed
nomogram. Adapted from Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (2000). Copyright © 2000 by the
American Psychological Association, Inc.
6
6
4 4
2 2
Figure 16. An interaction between instructional designs and levels of learner expertise in
Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (2000).
instructional guidance were compared (a) with inexperienced learners, (b) after
two consecutive training sessions designed to increase the level of learner
experience, and (c) after two further consecutive training sessions. The task
domain was writing simple programmable logic controller (PLC) programs for
relay circuits of different levels of complexity. PLCs are usually used to automate
aspects of production line processing in manufacturing. The levels of task
difficulty were controlled by varying the number of elements in the circuits.
STAGE 1 STAGE 2
Full Full
guidance guidance
format format
Performance Performance
test INTENSIVE test
TRAINING
Mental SESSIONS Mental
effort effort
rating rating
Limited Limited
guidance guidance
format format
NOVICES EXPERTS
Figure 17. Experimental sequence for studying interactions between levels of learner
expertise and levels of instructional guidance.
In this group, participants were requested to follow mentally all the steps
according to a numbered sequence.
For the worked-example procedure, examples of the same relay circuits with the
corresponding Boolean equation for each circuit were indicated to the learners
(Figure 22). An expected redundancy effect with advanced learners was obtained
in this experiment. Because the learners were sufficiently knowledgeable at the
beginning of the experiment, worked examples were of no advantage in
comparison with the problem-solving procedure. With additional training, worked
examples became redundant resulting in a negative effect compared with
problem-solving practice.
learners for whom the source of potential excessive cognitive load is eliminated
with acquisition of appropriate schemas in their knowledge base.
Figure 23. An interaction between instructional designs (worked examples vs. problem
solving) and levels of learner expertise in Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller (2001).
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 81
Figure 24. An interactive screen-based template. Adapted from Kalyuga, Chandler, and
Sweller (2001). Copyright © 2000 Taylor & Francis.
Figure 25. A problem presented to learners after an acceptable circuit had been
constructed.
highlighted that line. Clicking on any contour symbol highlighted that input
element. Clicking again on any highlighted element (a line or a symbol)
eliminated highlighting. After an acceptable circuit had been constructed, the
learners were invited to write a switching equation for this circuit (Figure 25). If a
participant was repeatedly incorrect in her or his answers, the correct equation
was provided.
When the knowledge level of trainees was raised as a consequence of
specifically designed computer-based training sessions using tasks with gradually
increasing levels of difficulty, the exploratory group demonstrated better results
than the worked examples group (Figure 26). A conservative estimate of the effect
size was 0.33 for questions requiring trainees to select the correct switching
equations for circuits with a larger number of components than that used during
instruction. Subjective measures of mental effort supported the cognitive load
interpretation of the effect.
2
2
worked examples
exploratory learning
Figure 26. An interaction between instructional designs (worked examples vs. exploratory
learning) and levels of learner expertise in Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller (2001).
It should be noted that in this study, two levels of tasks were involved: simple
tasks with few input elements and a very limited number of possible options to
explore, and complex tasks with numerous options to explore. The exploratory
learning was more beneficial than direct instruction for advanced learners only for
the complex tasks. There were no differences between the procedures for the
simple tasks. Similarly to other cognitive load effects, this effect occurred only
when structurally complex instructional materials with high element interactivity
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 83
were used. Learning from such materials involved many interacting elements of
information that had to be processed simultaneously in working memory
potentially resulting in a heavy cognitive load. For relatively simple circuits,
cognitive load was much lower and within the limits of working memory for
either instructional format.
Figure 27. A fully worked-out example used in the computer-based algebra tutor.
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 85
Figure 28. A faded worked example used in the computer-based algebra tutor.
For low-knowledge students, on the other hand, the imagining procedure had
a negative effect because these students had to process all components of
instruction as individual elements in limited working memory. Worked examples
effectively guided low-knowledge learners in constructing new schemas of
complex procedures that contained many interacting elements. More advanced
learners already had such schemas and studying the worked examples was a
redundant activity for them. Thus, as learners acquire more expertise in a domain,
studying worked examples in similar and repetitive situations could be gradually
replaced with imagining corresponding procedures. This technique could provide
additional practice for more advanced learners leading to a higher degree of
schema automation. Similar results were obtained by Ginns, Chandler, & Sweller,
(2003).
A gradual reduction of levels of instructional guidance in exploratory learning
environments can be accomplished by providing learners with less specified task
goals or subgoals as the learners’ familiarity with the domain increases. If the
learning goal in an exploratory environment is well specified, an ordered
sequential structure of learning steps could be constructed, with the level of detail
adjusted according to the levels of learner knowledge in the domain. Such
instructional procedures could be suitable for relatively less advanced learners
when lower level schemas are targeted by instruction. This procedure assumes
systematic processing of all relevant knowledge components and acquisition of
corresponding sub-schemas. To avoid working memory overload, all the relevant
sub-schemas should be acquired one-by-one in advance to be readily available for
retrieval when higher-level schematic knowledge structures are developed.
In the case of higher-level schemas and poorly specified learning goals, it
could be practically impossible to precisely structure appropriate ordered
sequences of sub-tasks due to a large number of possible options and paths to
explore. A learner (even a relatively advanced one) could be lost searching for
relevant subgoals. This search might cause a heavy working memory load and
consume cognitive resources that would become unavailable for constructing
relevant higher order schemas. Therefore, an approach based on the acquisition of
all potentially relevant sub-schemas before constructing higher order schemas (to
reduce associated cognitive load) might require an excessive amount of time and
effort to produce required learning results.
On the other hand, irregular or random processing of lower level components,
even though low in cognitive load, is also an unrealistic and unreliable approach
with a low likelihood of producing required schematic knowledge structures in a
reasonable amount of time. A more suitable exploratory approach for relatively
advanced learners could be based on traversing an appropriately constructed
Cognitive Load Principles in Instructional Design for Advanced Learners 87
Recent studies in cognition and instruction have provided a basis for the
design and development of cognitively guided instructional systems. Such
systems not only achieve desired instructional effects, but achieve them efficiently
with optimal expenditure of resources (e.g., instruction time and mental effort).
Cognitive efficiency is becoming an important feature of contemporary
instructional systems. The change in research focus from the cognitive
characteristics of tasks and learners to cognitively efficient ways of structuring
and presenting instructional information is a shift from cognitive science toward a
cognitive technology of instruction (Sweller, 1989). The studies reviewed and
described in this part of the book represent an example of this move.
Human cognitive capacity is limited: we can process only a very limited
amount of information at any one time. The basic model of human cognitive
architecture assumes a working memory with a limited capacity for maintaining
unfamiliar information in an active state and a long-term memory with virtually
unlimited storage capacity and duration. Working memory is the major human
cognitive processor involved in constructing and integrating mental
representations and in short-term maintenance of the relevant information. Long-
term memory stores our organized knowledge base in the form of schemas. A
schema contains information about some class of structures or objects and is
directly related to our cognitive performance.
Schemas are the basic units of knowledge representation that allow us to treat
elements of incoming information in terms of larger higher-level chunks, thus
reducing capacity demands on working memory. The main difference between
92 Slava Kalyuga
experts and novices is in the way their knowledge base is structured and used.
Working memory limits are of much less concern to experts who have their
knowledge in the area of expertise well organized and stored in long-term
memory. These knowledge structures significantly influence the content and
characteristics of working memory and cause systematic differences among
individuals in their working memory capacity for specific tasks.
After sufficient practice, schemas become automated, and we are able to
access our long-term knowledge base rapidly in an automatic manner. Rather than
involving lengthy attention-demanding search, automated schemas require less
working memory resources and allow information processing to occur with
minimal mental effort. Cognitive mechanisms of schema acquisition and
automation are foundations of our intellectual abilities and skilled performance.
Well learned and developed schematic knowledge structures are major aspects of
competent performance that allow efficient use of basic information processing
features of human cognitive architecture.
Studies of expert performance in a variety of domains indicate that experts
can be characterized by efficient representations of problem situations in working
memory, extensive domain-specific knowledge schemas in long-term memory,
and efficient chunking mechanism of memory retrieval. Expert problem solving in
knowledge-rich domains can be viewed as finding and adopting appropriate
schemas in long-term memory. When solving specific problems, schema-driven
experts spend more time on planning their steps, apply forward-working
approaches, and use more efficient strategies of search. Experts in structurally
complex domains possess multi-level hierarchical schemas representing classes of
objects and situations. Constructing such schemas requires significant cognitive
effort and begins with simplified representations. Experts integrate various levels
of knowledge (intuitions, practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge; local and
general knowledge) and switch between these levels while solving problems.
Novice students cannot learn expert schemas directly. The instructional
design process should be based on cognitive models of transition between
different levels of expertise. Students' understanding of instructional materials is
based on their available schemas. Resolving the conflict between a learner’s
available schemas and conceptual models presented during instruction may
require a significant mental effort and cause a negative learning effect. The
backward problem-solving search strategies used by novices may also prevent
learning due to working memory overload. Cognitive load is a major factor of
complex cognitive performance and expertise acquisition.
Many instructional materials and techniques may be ineffective because they
ignore limitations of the human cognitive processing system and impose a heavy
Summary 93
cognitive load. Cognitive load theory is based on the assumption that a person has
a limited processing capacity, and proper allocation of cognitive resources is
critical to learning. Schema acquisition and transfer from consciously controlled
to automatic cognitive processing are the major learning mechanisms that reduce
the burden on working memory. Using limited cognitive resources on activities
not directly related to schema construction and automation (e.g., integration of
information separated over distance or time, or processing redundant information)
may inhibit learning.
Learning materials with a high degree of element interactivity may impose a
heavy intrinsic cognitive load on working memory. In this case, an appropriate
instructional design that reduces extraneous cognitive load might be critical for
efficient learning. Studies generated by cognitive load theory in realistic training
settings and laboratory environments have demonstrated that learning can be
significantly facilitated by restructuring instructional designs in a way that
emphasizes procedures and activities directed towards schema acquisition and
automation and places the primary cognitive burden on long-term memory
schematic knowledge structures. For example, extraneous cognitive load for
novice learners could be reduced when goal-free problems or worked examples
are used instead of conventional problem solving, and when split-attention and
redundancy situations are eliminated.
The split-attention effect occurs when instructional material requires learners
to unnecessary split their attention between multiple sources of information.
Physical integration of the elements of information reduces extraneous cognitive
load and enhances learning. The split-attention may also be eliminated if the
information is presented in a partly audio and partly visual format because
working memory capacity is enhanced under dual-modality conditions. If
individual sources of information are self-contained, integration of the redundant
information with essential information may impose an extraneous cognitive load
that would interfere with learning. In this situation, the elimination rather than
integration of redundant sources of information is beneficial for learning. All
these effects should be of concern only when material has an intrinsically high
level of element interactivity for the learner.
Evaluation of cognitive load that might be imposed on prospective learners
has to be an important part of the instructional design process. Cognitive load
theory emphasizes that the influence of extraneous cognitive load on learning
depends on the schemas that have been previously acquired by the learner and the
level of automation of operations involved in the processing of instructional
material. Novice learners require considerable assistance to understand new
concepts. Therefore, introductory materials should include plenty of explanations
94 Slava Kalyuga
and details, and they should be presented in a way that reduces unnecessary
cognitive overload. Expertise in a domain decreases some of the limitations of
working memory by enabling the use of organized schematic knowledge
structures, stored in long-term memory, to process information more efficiently.
However, in many instructional situations, expertise may also trigger additional
cognitive load when learners are required to process redundant information. There
is strong evidence that instructional techniques that are highly efficient with less
experienced learners may lose their efficiency when used with more advanced
learners (the expertise reversal effect).
As levels of learner expertise in a domain increase, the relative changes in
efficiency of instructional formats and procedures could be caused by the
variations in working memory load involved in relating schema-based and
instruction-based sources of cognitive support when constructing integrated
mental representations of corresponding situations or tasks. A cognitive load
explanation of the expertise reversal effect is based on the need for experts to
cross-reference and integrate knowledge-based and redundant instruction-based
cognitive structures dealing with the same units of information.
An expertise reversal may be expected in situations when highly guided and
integrated instructional presentations designed to assist novice learners are used
with more advanced learners. Inappropriately used instructional formats and
procedures could be very inefficient with advanced learners and may require an
unnecessary additional expenditure of cognitive resources and instructional time.
To be efficient, instructional techniques and procedures need to change
significantly as learners acquire more expertise in a domain. Instructional
implications of these findings for advanced learners are summarized below.
Reducing extraneous and increasing germane cognitive load. In general,
extraneous cognitive overload could be avoided by reducing diversion of
cognitive resources on procedures and tasks that are not directly associated with
learning (or schema acquisition). For example, eliminating the need to devote
cognitive resources to searching and locating an appropriate fragment in a
diagram and text or attending to unnecessary details could improve the learning
efficiency for both novice and advanced learners. Computer-based instructional
systems may also free up part of the learner’s cognitive load by carrying out some
necessary subtasks, for instance, an information search, engaging on-line tools,
referencing a dictionary, locating appropriate diagrams, simulating physical
dismantling of equipment, etc. (Lajoie, 1993).
There are instructional design principles and techniques that are specific for
advanced learners only. Some of these principles are reverse to those intended for
novice learners. For example, eliminating components of multimedia
Summary 95
autonomous, 17
A availability, 26, 30
ABC, 6
access, 1, 22, 25, 87, 88, 91 B
accuracy, 23
activation, 2 barrier, 11
adaptation, 87 behavior, 9, 15, 16, 30
adult, 88 beneficial effect, 72
affect, 4, 41 benefits, 43, 55, 60, 87
age, 4, 69 biochemical, 11
aid, 71 biological, 11
alternative, 15, 32, 40, 44, 72, 94 biology, 48, 49, 50, 60
alters, 15 blood, 48, 50
American Psychological Association, 73, 74 blood flow, 48, 50
application, 17, 37, 43, 61, 74, 85 body, 48, 50, 53
aptitude, 60 bottleneck, 6
arithmetic, 55 brain, 2
artificial, 8, 29, 32 buttons, 37, 38, 39, 47, 57, 88
artificial intelligence, 8, 29, 32 bypass, 24
assessment, 95
assignment, 95
associations, 2, 32 C
atoms, 11
attention, 2, 3, 15, 16, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, CAD, 50, 51
48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 71, CAM, 50, 51
72, 91, 92 capacity, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 17, 22, 28, 32, 35,
attention problems, 55 36, 40, 45, 51, 53, 55, 61, 62, 71, 72, 90, 92
audio, 39, 53, 54, 55, 74, 92 carbon, 52
automaticity, 33 carbon dioxide, 52
automation, 31, 35, 40, 46, 75, 86, 91, 92 causal relationship, 24
100 Index
diagnostic, 84 expertise, vii, 1, 6, 16, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28,
distortions, 12 29, 34, 38, 39, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63,
division, 9 64, 66, 72, 75, 76, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88,
domain, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 91, 93, 94, 95
25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 38, 58, 59, 60, 63, experts, 6, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 79, 84, 86, 29, 31, 32, 39, 61, 62, 66, 67, 88, 91, 93, 95
87, 91, 93, 94, 95 exposure, 22, 78
domain-specificity, 26 eyes, 2, 8
duplication, 55
durability, 1, 2
duration, 90 F
duties, 29
failure, 12, 23
false, 7
E fatigue, 4
FBI, 6
ears, 8 feedback, 17
education, 55 fire, 15
educational psychology, 48 flexibility, 87
elaboration, 33 flow, 37, 40, 48, 50, 52
election, 12 folding, 50
electric circuit, 30 Ford, 54, 72, 85
electric circuits, 30 foreign language, 24
electrical, 36, 37, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, functional aspects, 3
54, 58, 72 furniture, 2
electronic, iv, 8, 21 fusion, 55, 56
electronics, 22, 28
electrostatic, iv
emergence, 11 G
encapsulated, 39
gender, 69
encoding, 6, 7, 11, 41, 51
gene, 8, 45
energy, 22
general knowledge, 91
engineering, 29, 32, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55
generalization, 9
environment, 30, 75, 81, 86, 87, 88, 94
generalizations, 8, 45
equipment, 50, 52, 93
genetics, 21
evidence, vii, 14, 15, 24, 27, 37, 43, 44, 46,
goals, 16, 33, 39, 86, 87
48, 59, 60, 66, 93, 95
GPS, 14
evolution, 12, 18
graph, 10
executive function, 3
grids, 51
executive functioning, 3
grouping, 2, 6
exercise, 84
groups, 6, 11, 22, 25, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 54,
experimental condition, 54
55, 88, 95
experimental design, 75
guidance, 23, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 75, 76,
expert, iv, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28,
79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 95
29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39, 48, 88, 91
expert systems, 29
102 Index
learners, vii, 17, 18, 25, 27, 30, 33, 36, 37, 40, mapping, 32, 33
41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, Mars, 72
57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, mass, 29
72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, mathematical, 3, 27, 52
85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95 mathematics, 43
learning, vii, 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 27, meaningful tasks, 5
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, meanings, 29
41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, measurement, 22, 41
55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, measures, 5, 41, 42, 59, 60, 82
70, 71, 72, 74, 79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, mechanical, iv, 21, 70
88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 mechanics, 22, 88
learning efficiency, 72, 93 media, 70, 94
learning environment, vii, 30, 32, 74, 79, 81, medical student, 27
83, 86, 88, 89, 94, 96 memory, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15,
learning outcomes, 50, 74 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31,
learning process, 16, 31, 49, 69 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45,
learning styles, 60 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63,
learning task, 32 64, 66, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79, 83, 86, 87, 90,
likelihood, 86 91, 92, 93
limitations, 3, 6, 7, 11, 24, 31, 35, 61, 91, 93 memory capacity, 5, 6, 11, 22, 35, 36, 40, 53,
linear, 9, 11, 13, 33, 45, 87 55, 61, 72, 91, 92
links, 9, 13, 94 memory performance, 53
listening, 55 memory retrieval, 91
literature, 87 mental load, 35, 41, 54, 57, 60
location, 69, 87 mental model, 7, 11, 33, 70
long period, 26 mental processes, 31
longitudinal studies, 27, 75 mental representation, 1, 3, 70, 90, 93
long-term, 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 21, mental simulation, 25
23, 24, 26, 31, 58, 61, 64, 72, 90, 91, 92, 93 messages, 54
long-term memory, 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, metacognitive, 17, 18, 94
18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 58, 61, 64, 72, 90, metacognitive skills, 18, 94
91, 92, 93 methodology, 22, 30, 32
low-level, 42, 64 metric, 59
lungs, 48 misconceptions, 27, 32
modality, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 72, 73, 92
mode, 53, 54, 55, 57, 95
M modeling, 18
models, 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, 19, 26, 29, 30, 33,
machinery, 51
34, 41, 62, 91
machines, 9, 48, 73
modules, 45, 52, 88
magnetic, iv
molecules, 11
maintenance, 3, 90
momentum, 22
management, 94
monitoring, 41
manipulation, 2, 3
motor coordination, 52
manufacturing, 72, 76
mouse, 41
manufacturing companies, 72
104 Index
mouth, 8 35, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53,
multidimensional, 87, 88, 89 54, 55, 56, 59, 62, 78, 90, 91, 95
multimedia, 41, 55, 73, 93, 94, 95 personality, 60
music, 12 personality characteristics, 60
perspective, 11, 50, 61
phone, 2
N phonological, 3, 53
physics, 16, 21, 22, 24, 29
narratives, 49
planning, 25, 91
natural, 78
plants, 30
needs, 2, 31, 51, 83, 87
PLC, 76, 77, 78
negative consequences, 62
poor, 74
nerve, 11
potatoes, 1
network, 88
practical knowledge, 91
New York, iii, iv
predictors, 5
nitrogen, 52
pre-existing, 62
node, 71
preparation, iv
nonlinear, 87
primary school, 50
non-linear, 11
primitives, 32
normal, 40, 46
principle, 12, 26, 49
prior knowledge, 3, 6, 11, 12, 32, 60, 71
O problem space, 14
problem-based learning, 94
on-line, 93 problem-solver, 18
operator, 14 problem-solving, 1, 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22,
optimization, 63, 66 23, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 35, 40, 42, 43, 44,
oral, 55 45, 47, 54, 63, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80,
organization, 1, 11, 21, 25, 33 83, 84, 85, 87, 91, 92
overload, 15, 37, 53, 54, 56, 62, 75, 86, 87, problem-solving skills, 15
91, 93, 95 problem-solving strategies, 22, 25
oxygen, 52 procedural knowledge, 16, 29
procedural memory, 8
procedures, vii, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25,
P 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 45, 60, 61, 63, 66, 75,
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95
paper, 48, 50, 94 production, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30, 76
parameter, 43 program, 30, 51, 76
Paris, 88 programming, 16, 21, 30, 47, 48, 76, 77, 78
pathways, 15 property, iv
perception, 24, 26, 27 proposition, 7
perceptions, 27, 28 propulsion, 30
perceptual learning, 28 protocols, 43
performance, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 18, prototype, 88
21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, psychological, 11
psychologists, 22
Index 105
psychology, 8, 16, 48
S
R scaffolding, 33, 60
schema, vii, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22,
random, 2, 6, 22, 23, 86, 87 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40,
random access, 87 43, 46, 57, 61, 62, 63, 75, 86, 87, 90, 91,
random numbers, 2 92, 93, 95
range, 2, 4 schemas, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
rating scale, 58, 59 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34,
ratings, 41, 42, 57, 59, 74 38, 39, 43, 45, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
reaction time, 41 66, 70, 71, 75, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92
reading, 3, 5, 6, 22, 45, 49, 55, 72 school, 44, 50, 52, 60
reading comprehension, 5, 6 science, 16, 27, 29, 43, 90
real time, vii, 30, 95 scores, 42, 57
reasoning, 26, 27, 32, 69 search, 14, 18, 23, 24, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47,
recall, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 22, 29, 45, 52 49, 54, 61, 63, 64, 69, 86, 88, 91, 93, 94
recalling, 3, 11, 12, 22, 41, 51 searching, 16, 25, 46, 48, 86, 93
recognition, 13, 24, 31, 52, 56 second language, 36
reduction, 12, 14, 23, 43, 44, 45, 58, 86, 87, selecting, 15, 22, 33
94 self, 17, 18, 26, 27, 36, 42, 49, 50, 51, 57, 92
redundancy, 49, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, self-confidence, 42
78, 79, 92 self-monitoring, 18, 26
refining, 25 semantic, 7, 71
reflection, 30 semantic networks, 7
Reimann, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25 sensory memory, 3
rejection, 25 sensory modality, 53, 55
relationship, 27 sentence comprehension, 7
relationships, 8, 24, 28, 31, 32, 37, 70 sentences, 3, 5, 7, 25, 39
reliability, 9 sequencing, 33
remembering, 12, 30, 39 series, 7, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 57, 75, 76, 78, 83,
research, 4, 8, 13, 16, 29, 32, 41, 44, 53, 54, 84
67, 90, 94 services, iv
researchers, 48 short supply, 5
resources, 3, 4, 5, 15, 27, 28, 35, 39, 40, 45, short-term, 1, 2, 4, 22, 90
50, 54, 55, 61, 62, 71, 83, 86, 90, 91, 92, short-term memory, 1, 22
93, 94 signals, 35
restructuring, 18, 45, 70, 92 similarity, 12
retention, 33, 56, 72 simulations, 25, 30
retrieval, 6, 7, 11, 22, 61, 64, 86 skill acquisition, 28
returns, 40 skilled performance, 16, 18, 21, 91
risk, 55 skills, 5, 8, 15, 17, 18, 26, 31, 32, 33, 51, 60,
94, 95
software, 32, 50, 76, 88
solutions, 18, 23, 43, 54, 83
spare capacity, 35
106 Index
T university students, 70
task demands, 28
task difficulty, 76, 78 V
task performance, 6, 41
values, 8, 13, 42, 43, 72
teachers, 32
variable, 8
teaching, 29, 30, 47, 52
variables, 8, 15, 44
technician, 58
Index 107
variation, 29 windows, 2, 95
variety of domains, 21, 91 witnesses, 12
verbalizations, 56 word processing, 50
visual, 3, 8, 41, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, words, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 24, 36, 38, 52, 72
60, 70, 72, 73, 92, 94, 95 work, 18, 25, 27, 28, 56, 60
visual images, 3 working memory, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15,
visual stimuli, 56 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
visual stimulus, 52 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 48, 52, 53, 54,
visuospatial, 3, 53 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71,
vocabulary, 69 72, 74, 79, 83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93
writing, 76, 78, 79, 80
water, 52