Learning Design: Cognitive load theory (CLT)

Cognitive load theory is designed to increase learner performance and decrease learner mental effort. “E=P-ML: Efficiency= Performance– Mental Load” (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2005). If mental load ever exceeds learner performance than the resulting learning efficiency is negative.

How it all works: Working memory (WM) actively forms knowledge structures called schemas that are then stored in long term memory (LTM). However, WM has very little storage capacity, and is easily overloaded. WM can only process “7 +/- 2” schemas of memory at a given time. The complexity of the schemas a person is able to process in WM varies with that person’s expertise and experience level. The more knowledge and skills stored in LTM, the greater the WM capacity of complex schemas.



Processes of learning: Attention, Activation of prior knowledge, Elaboration and rehearsal, and Encoding and retrieval (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2005)

Learning can be deeper when participants have multiple sensory opportunities to encode information into LTM schemas. Incorporate text and visuals in the most cognitively efficient manner possible. In addition, efficient use of both visual and auditory modalities extends WM capacity. Evidence is found that dual encoding with either two visual or two auditory components overdrives WM capacity, but one auditory and one visual component maximizes the capacity of each processor in WM.

Applying cognitive load theory to PowerPoint: Using PowerPoint simply as a “convenience for the speaker can be punishing to both content and audience” (Tufte, 2003). Slide presentation software like PowerPoint often stacks so much textual information in such little time frames as to hinder the cognitive processing capabilities of the audience.

Lesson: Be cognizant of your audience, choose media that help extend the WM capacity of your learners with the hope that they are able to retrieve, maintain, and incorporate knowledge into their LTM schemas.

References:
Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F, & Sweller, J. (2005, December) “Efficiency in eLearning: evidence based guidelines to manage cognitive load”. Pfeiffer.

Tufte, E. (2003, September). PowerPoint Is Evil. Power Corrupts. PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely. Wired.

Learning development: Mobile and social technology

Yes, the mobile device is projected to be the world’s primary connection tool to the internet in 2020. As a member of the learning and development field and Generation Y, I can't help but realize that the future of my field lies with these handheld devices. Let's all start jumping on the mobile learning train. While we are at it, let's keep creating ways that social technology, the premiere media of today, can be used as a learning tool.

eLearning Design: self directed or social?

Two types of e-learning, self directed and collaborative, are the means of both workforce training and education, with self directed e-learning often applying more to workforce solutions and collaborative e-learning often applying more to higher education. Using only self directed learning for eLearning workforce solutions is outdated, and we need to rethink our approach due to current emerging skill sets, the fundamental differences between training and learning, and learner preferences. Learners actually prefer social learning to self directed learning, and current important skill sets are often “learnt by practice, including learning from peers and colleagues and through tailored feedback” (Sloman, 2009).

Workforce solutions in conjunction with Web 2.0 technologies will take us “towards using the Web as a platform for sharing and collaboration among peers, both within and between organizations”. These Web 2.0 technologies include wikis, asynchronous and synchronous discussion forums, social networking sites, and blogs. However, with all the hype of Web 2.0, some critics argue that we are putting too much emphasis on technology and losing our focus on learning itself. “The application of technology to learning is far more complex and multifaceted than the current debate would lead us to believe” (Sloman, 2009).

So, with e-learning modules now consuming up to 1/3 of all workforce training in the U.S, we need to alter our approach to accommodate emerging skill sets and learner preferences along with organizational goals. We need to evaluate our e-learning modules based on organizational value, learner satisfaction, and time and cost efficiency. Lastly, including the following Web 2.0 tools will help strike a good balance of learning and training: content repositories, webinars, discussion threads, expert opinions, virtual world based activities, online pre-assessments, and online performance support.

Reference:
Sloman, M. (2009). Learning and technology – what have we learnt? Impact: Journal of Applied Research in Workplace E-learning, 1(1), 12-26.

Learning Theory: Constructivism

A case for the use of constructivism in distance learning:

Aligning constructivist and adult learning theories within online technologies can help gauge how they are used successfully for learning at a distance. Constructivists view knowledge as constructed by learners through social interaction with others, and place great importance on the “socio-cultural context in which learning takes place and how the context has an impact on what is learned” (Huang, 2002). Learners learn actively and construct new knowledge based on their prior knowledge, and with the support of cognitive tools, learners can discover rich resources to solve problems and construct knowledge. For example, “synchronous and asynchronous discussions focus the development of knowledge-building communities where participants share information in the pursuit of a meaning, and reflect on the knowledge that they have constructed” (Huang, 2002).

To address concerns that “distance learning loses some humanity or it forms social isolation”, or “collaborative learning is in conflict with individual differences” (Huang, 2002), successful constructivist and social constructivist models provide a safe environment conducive to interaction, social negotiation, and individual experience. Students are able to express themselves freely, share ideas, and ask questions that promote reflective responses. Through asynchronous and synchronous discussion, students are given freedom to select and arrange their learning processes with other learners. By being distant from instructors and peers, the student takes ownership of his/her learning process through autonomy, self direction, and motivation.

Another concern of distance learning environments is authenticity of learning. Critics argue that only real-world, case-based environments can provide for meaningful and authentic knowledge. However, learners “must learn how to manage, analyze, critique, cross-reference, and transform the information presented to them into valuable knowledge” (Huang, 2002). When given a safe environment to interact with teachers and peers, the learner constructs knowledge in a way that is authentic to them. Using a constructivist approach to distance learning provides students the social interaction necessary to elicit reflective responses where the learner is able to build his her own authentic knowledge based on individual experience.

Reference:
Huang, H.-M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27-37.