This was the second kind. What is the 'something else'? Cognitive Load Theory.
The picture above illustrates a one of the main points below. Probably the main point. What is it? Answers in the comments if you think you know. Only those who get the answer exactly right will receive a chirpy point - and it's about us, the teachers, not the learner.
Background story:
Researchers want to know why some kids are disruptive. They do an experiment. We get to watch.
At the end of a class, the teacher and pupils tidy up the room of all the materials. It is at this point some kids are disruptive. In general, the kids are not disruptive when they're occupied and in learning flow.
The Four Experiments
Experiment one:
The teacher says something like, "Well done. Put away the pens." The result is that everybody does what they're asked and there are no disruptive kids.
Experiment two:
The teacher says something like, "Well done. Put away the pens and then return your books to the cupboard." The results are positive and there are still no disruptive kids.
When we get to Experiment four, something different happens:
The teacher says something like, "Well done. Put away the pens, return your books to the cupboard, put the waste paper in the bins and line up for lunch." The results are startling.
Most of the class immediately set to the task. But some of the kids are frozen to the spot. After a few moments, these kids get restless and start to distract some of the 'good' kids. A few moments more and half the class is diligently carrying out the task while the other half are being 'disruptive'.
I wish I could find this documentary to show you. What you're missing here is the 'disruptive' kids' expressions when the teacher gives them four tasks to carry out. I never ever get tired of six-year-olds giving it the 'WTF?' facial gesture.
What is Cognitive Load Theory and how does it help us understand the kids?
Okay, here's Cognitive Load Theory based on Ruth Clark's (with Frank Nguyen and John Sweller) in her book Efficiency in Learning (link to PDF sample of first chapter). It's my summary, but you can go and read Ruth Clark's chapter if I don't make sense. It's only 15 pages long.
- Working memory has a limited capacity
- Beyond a certain 'cognitive load', performance will suffer
- Intrinsic = load caused by content
- Germane = relevant load caused by a learning activity
- Extraneous = irrelevant load caused by a learning activity
- Cognitive load is cumulative, not parallel.
We can explain the kids' disruptive behaviour in terms of Cognitive Load Theory:
- The teacher gives simple tasks. The intrinsic load of the content itself is low in all four experiments.
- In the first three experiments, the kids have to remember one to three instructions. The germane load (ie the instructions for the activity) is also low. Low intrinsic load and low germane load means the task isn't taxing.
- In the fourth experiment, the germane load is higher because there are four tasks to remember. Even though the intrinsic load of the task themselves is low, the instructions are too much. Performance suffers.
- Not only that, but some of the disruptive kids start to distract the other kids, who are near to maxing out their attentional capacity. This extraneous load is too much for some. Performance suffers.
Cognitive Load Theory explains why your brain sometimes says, "WTF?"
And that's Cognitive Load Theory.
Three problems:
- Learning Styles is mostly a load of cobblers, but they are actionable. So people like them (even me, in moderation). Cognitive Load Theory is much harder to make use of. The theory itself is unpersuasive and far less effective than stories like the one above. I have some stories about the Marines and the Rule of Three, but what about you? Can you think of any teachable stories?
- Cognitive Load Theory might be suspect. @usablelearning pointed me to this piece which urges that we treat the theory with caution. (But not the above story. See?)
- Cognitive Load Theory - even if the theory was sound - is a recipe for North Korean re-educational-camp-style learning experiences. I'll be talking about that in the Soul of a Stick. And, there are alternative ways to maximise attention. Which I'll be talking about it Soul of a Carrot.
If you've made it down this far, chances are you'll be interested in this post which explores a similar theme:
It's one of my favourite posts but isn't really actionable, as such. Which is a pity.
[Image: Caleb Brown, who rules.]
11 comments:
I love this post! Going to be pimping it later :)
I'm going to guess (but may be wrong) that in your learning scenarios, there are sharks everywhere. That actually, so much of what passes for learning activity is really extraneous load, and your chances of being eaten by the attention sharks are pretty high.
BTW, the picture doesn't show up in Safari, though I wonder if that's a Blogger issue (I have similar problems with TypePad).
My teachable stories come from teaching. With kids, I very quickly realised that for some of them, one piece of information was enough. If you said "don't do it like, X, do it like Y", half of them would switch off after X, and do it exactly like that. (I had the luxury of watching someone else get this wrong; it would have been harder to figure out if it was just me doing it.)
With adults (at least, over-18s), you have a bit more capacity to work with, but I've seen colleagues reduce classes to confused silence by asking about three questions in one sentence (or asking very convoluted questions that take too long or too much capacity to process) . I try to work very hard now to ask simple, concrete questions — which doesn't mean the questions are simple, just phrased simply. As ever, still plenty of room for improvement on this.
Hmmm. The image shows up in Safari in mine - must be a Blogger thing. Blogger's simple to use but it is a complete pain.
Not a bad guess on the picture. It's certainly a plausible thing for me to say. And I like the idea of attention sharks (in some ways, it's better than what I'm trying to say). But I'm thinking more about what teachers (as always here, used in the loosest possible sense) are like.
Don't do x, do y - brilliant. I think this has been shown in advertising too. Don't do drugs, kids! All some kids hear is "Drugs, kids!".
This short video gives a clue to what the Shark Picture is all about:
http://www.shockmd.com/2009/11/26/teaching-with-twitter/
The picture is illustrating the point that when things go bad, you should have a giant octopus handy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa7ck5mcd1o
I find the same thing giving instructions to adults in a training seminar. I give just one step at a time eg: "stand up" , have them do that, and then give them the next instruction eg: "find someone to partner with".
Even at that level of simplicity, if I don't break it down like that, one or two people out of the group would be floundering!
Hi Olivia
The marines are past masters at Cognitive Load Theory. It's drummed into everything they do - the Rule of Three is something they use in instruction, organisation and structure. Your approach is endorsed by people who know what they're talking about!
I think this is one of the hidden benefits of doing 'traditional' activities. We can watch a film like Harry Potter and already know so much because of the stock characters - it's straight to the action. Same with training - and presenting too, to a certain extent.
I have a friend who will only let you give him one instruction at a time while he's driving (for example "Turn left and get into the right lane" gets vetoed as TMI). I struggle with it because I keep thinking that it's useful to have some sense of what's coming up, but he's good at setting those limits. We aren't necessarily good at limiting ourselves as instructors.
Even when we do try to minimize the load, our perspective is probably off -- what seems a small cog load to us (given that we have the whole picture), isn't necessarily a small cog load for them.
Love this old New Yorker Cartoon for this: http://bit.ly/7gbeSN
Hmh..not sure about the image. Is it that too much of a good thing (and who doesn't love sharks, skydiving and explody things?) all at once turns to shite (or a Michael Bay movie > same diff)?
Great post! Ok the picture......I'd imagine that when skydiving the most important point to remember is to pull the cord and open the chute.! BUT if you're the instructor teaching a new student you will also tell the student, make sure you do X don't do Y avoid landing on Z. In the end the learner remembers to avoid the flying sharks and to not land near bomb blasts but then (and too late) they remember their teacher saying 'don't forget the most important thing to remember is to open the chute' - The dangers of cognitive load theory for skydiving instructors!
Usable - yes, yes, yes. About the cog thing. Who's to say what's extraneous. You're ahead of me with the Soul of a Stick.
Sticky - you're guess about the image is totally wrong. But far better an idea than mine. So you win.
The answer to the image thing is, inevitably, a story. I found the image on the web. I loved it. (I could tell that I'm a fan of hyperrealism and I enjoyed the witty comment on language, multimedia and fantasy - but really I just like sky sharks.) And I couldn't stop myself. Everything I did that day I thought to myself - maybe I could use that image here?
We can't stop ourselves. From making things more pretty. From saying "One more thing." From marking our territory.
PS There is another reason too about the image. But that's for Soul of a Carrot.
My first glance interpretation of the picture is that there has been a mixing of the program schedules on the Discovery Channel. It's not so much about cognitive load, but more about bringing back associations from my long term memory. I immediately remembered Ricky Gervais, in one of his comedy sketches, talking about being an expert on Nazi sharks (from watching so many documentaries when resting between jobs).
On another level the sharks seem to be simply a metaphor for danger (cold blooded instinctive killing machines) or difficult problems, with many of them signifying difficulties from many sources. The nearest shark possibly represents the most imminent danger, and symbolically the first instruction. The sharks further away represent the follow-on sequence of instructions, but they are irrelevent if the first shark kills you (you mess up). The one person in the distance suggests that not everyone successfully gets through the shark (instruction) gauntlet.
Post a Comment