Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T14:01:30.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Cognitive load theory, attentional processes and optimized learning outcomes in a digital environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2011

By
Renae Low ,
Putai Jin  and
John Sweller
Edited by
Claudia Roda
Claudia Roda
Affiliation:
The American University of Paris, France
Get access

Summary

The interactive relation and equivalence between working memory and attentional processes has been demonstrated by experimental, developmental, educational and clinical studies on preschoolers, schoolchildren, adolescents, younger adults and the elderly. It is important to understand the features of working memory from the ground theory of human cognitive architecture and its derived evolutionary educational psychology, which argue that the constraints of working memory are virtually necessary for both human survival and learning. Based on our knowledge of cognitive architecture and empirical research on effective instruction design that is in accordance with the functioning of working memory and related cognitive structures, cognitive load theory has been developed during recent decades to provide a number of principles for teaching and learning in a variety of settings. Much of this work has been carried out in a digital supported environment. In this chapter, recommendations based on cognitive load perspectives are presented along with further explorations of the potential for constructing digital supporting systems and tools.

Introduction

Digital technologies bring many capabilities to the teaching and learning environment. Anyone with access to the Internet can easily and quickly locate multimedia information. Text, images, sound and video can be accessed with the movement of a mouse or at the stroke of a key. Synchronous (e.g., video teleconferencing, chat sessions) and asynchronous (via bulletin boards, emails and the like) collaboration is possible.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Attention in Digital Environments , pp. 93 - 113
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., Hitch, G. 2006. Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135(2): 298–313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A., and Hitch, G. 1974. Working memory, in G. A. Bower, (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press: vol. VIII: 47–89Google Scholar
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
Bays, P. M., and Husain, M. 2008. Dynamic shifts of limited working memory resources in human vision, Science 321: 851–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berninger, V. W., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., and Stock, P. 2008. A multidisplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction, Developmental Neuropsychology 33(6): 707–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. 2004. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects, Instructional Science 32: 115–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. 2002. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology, Experimental Psychology 49: 109–19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. M. 1990. The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. M., Smith-Kerker, P., Ford, J., and Mazur-Rimetz, S. 1987. The minimal manual, Human–Computer Interaction 3: 123–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1996. Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program, Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: 151–703.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. 1973. Perception in chess, Cognitive Psychology 4: 55–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, G., and Sweller, J. 1987. The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer, Journal of Educational Psychology 79: 347–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. 2005. Working Memory Capacity. New York: Psychology PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, A. 1965. Thought and Choice in Chess. The Hague: Mouton (original work published 1946)Google Scholar
Diao, Y., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 2007. The effect of written text on learning to comprehend spoken English as a foreign language, American Journal of Psychology 120: 237–261Google Scholar
Diao, Y., and Sweller, J. 2007. Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations, Learning and Instruction 17: 78–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelhardt, P. E., Nigg, J. T., Carr, L. A., and Ferreira, F. 2008. Cognitive inhibition and working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Journal of Abnormal Psychology 117(3): 591–604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., and Kintsch, W. 1995. Long-term working memory, Psychological Review 102: 211–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., and Smith, I. M. 2008. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework, Psychological Bulletin 134(1): 31–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geary, D. 2002. Principles of evolutionary educational psychology, Learning and Individual Differences 12: 317–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. 2005. The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological AssociationCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geary, D. 2007. Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology, in J. S. Carlson, and J. R. Levin, (eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Contemporary Educational Issues. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing: 1–99Google Scholar
Geary, D. 2008. An evolutionarily informed education science, Educational Psychologist 43: 179–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirai, A. 1999. The relationship between listening and reading rates of Japanese EFL learners, Modern Language Journal 83: 367–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, H. C. M. 2007. ‘Split attention in reading comprehension: A case of English as a foreign/second language’, unpublished masters thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia
Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1997. The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction, Educational Psychology 17: 329–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1998. Levels of expertise and instructional design, Human Factors 40: 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 2000. Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology 92: 126–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 2004. When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning, Human Factors 46: 567–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, E. S., Bayles, K. A., and Beeson, P. M. 2008. Instruction processing in young and older adults: Contributions of memory span, Aphasiology 22(7): 753–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., and Caterino, L. C. 1994. Reference maps as a framework for remembering text, in W. Schnotz, and R. W. Kulhavy, (eds.), Comprehension of Graphics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science: 153–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavie, N. 2005. Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 9(2): 75–82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Low, R., and Sweller, J. 2005. The modality principle in multimedia learning, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 147–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makovski, T., Sussman, R., and Jiang, Y. V. 2008. Orienting attention in visual working memory reduces interference from memory probes, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(2): 369–80Google ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R. E. 2001. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. 2005. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., and Anderson, R. 1991. Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis, Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 484–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., and Anderson, R. 1992. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning, Journal of Educational Psychology 84: 444–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., and Tapangco, L. 1996. When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons, Journal of Educational Psychology 88: 64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. 1998. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 312–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., and Sims, V. K. 1994. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning, Journal of Educational Psychology 86: 389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 63: 81–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, W. 1937. The picture clutch in reading, Elementary English Review 14: 263–4Google Scholar
Moores, E., and Maxwell, J. 2008. The role of prior exposure in the capture of attention by items in working memory, Visual Cognition 16(5): 675–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., and Mayer, R. E. 1999. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity, Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 358–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., and Lester, J. C. 2001. The case for social agency in computer-based multimedia learning: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction 19: 177–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousavi, S., Low, R., and Sweller, J. 1995. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes, Journal of Educational Psychology 87: 319–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., and Bialkova, S. 2009. Accessing information in working memory: Can the focus of attention grasp two elements at the same time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(1): 64–87CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oka, K., and Miura, T. 2008. Allocation of attention and effect of practice on persons with and without mental retardation, Research in Developmental Disabilities 29(2): 165–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paas, F., and Merriënboer, J. 1993. The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures, Human Factors 35: 737–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Parks, E. L., and Hopfinger, J. B. 2008. Hold it! Memory affects attentional dwell time, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(6): 1128–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penney, C. G. 1989. Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory, Memory and Cognition 17: 398–422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, L., and Peterson, M. J. 1959. Short-term retention of individual verbal items, Journal of Experimental Psychology 58: 193–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reder, L., and Anderson, J. R. 1980. A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 19: 121–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reder, L., and Anderson, J. R. 1982. Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for main points of a text, Memory and Cognition 10: 97–102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
San Miguel, I., Corral, M., and Escera, C. 2008. When loading working memory reduces distraction: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence from an auditory-visual distraction paradigm, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(7): 1131–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W. 2005. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H., and Gilmartin, K. 1973. A simulation of memory for chess positions, Cognitive Psychology 5: 29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solman, R., Singh, N., and Kehoe, E. J. 1992. Pictures block the learning of sight words, Educational Psychology 12: 143–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design, Learning and Instruction 4: 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. 2005a. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. 2005b. The redundancy principle, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 159–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. 1991. Evidence for cognitive load theory, Cognition and Instruction 8: 351–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. 1994. Why some material is difficult to learn, Cognition and Instruction 12: 185–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., and Cooper, M. 1990. Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 119: 176–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., and Cooper, G. 1985. The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra, Cognition and Instruction 2: 59–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., and Sweller, S. 2006. Natural information processing systems, Evolutionary Psychology 4: 434–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarmizi, R., and Sweller, J. 1988. Guidance during mathematical problem solving, Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 424–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. 1997. When two sensory modes are better than one, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 3: 257–87Google Scholar
Torcasio, S. and Sweller, J. 2010. The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load theory approach, Applied Cognitive Psychology 24(5): 659–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., Merriënboer, J., Hendriks, M., and Schmidt, H. G. 2003. The efficienty of multimedia learning into old age, British Journal of Educational Psychology 73(4): 489–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J., and Kester, L. 2005. The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning, in R. E. Mayer, (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press: 71–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J., and Kirschner, P. 2007. Ten Steps to Complex Learning: A Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Ward, M., and Sweller, J. 1990. Structuring effective worked examples, Cognition and Instruction 7: 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. 2003. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., and Sweller, J. 1998. Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes, Contemporary Educational Psychology 23: 1–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y., Du, Y., and Zhang, J. X. 2008. Working memory selection and competition between target and distractor representations, Psychological Reports 102(1): 194–212CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, X., and Simon, H. 1987. Learning mathematics from examples and by doing, Cognition and Instruction 4: 137–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×