The myth of multitasking

THE MYTH OF MULTITASKING

An introduction to cognitive learning theories and their implications for

teaching staff and students

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:The learner will be able to:

Describe components of memory and the methods by which information is processed and stored for future application

Explain the principles of cognitive load theory The three components Implications of overload

Analyze a learning situation for potential pitfalls and appropriate instructional methods based on cognitive theories of learning

BIG PICTURE

Learning

• Capacity• Processing

Working Memory

• Attention• Modalities

Input

THE INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM

Sensory Memory

Working Memory

Long-term Memory

IPS CAPACITYSensory

StoreWorking Memory

Long-term Memory

Capacity Large Small Large

Duration Very Short:Visual=1 second or lessAuditory=2 - 3 seconds

5 - 20 seconds

Indefinitely long

5

CHUNKING AND THE MAGIC NUMBER

7, +/- 2• Miller, 1956

3, +/- 1• Gobet & Clarkson, 2011

DON’T BELIEVE ME? Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some

limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2). 81-97

Doumont, J. (2002). Magical numbers: the seven-plus-or-minus-two myth. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(2). 123-127

Gobet, F., Clarkson, G. (2004). Chunks in expert memory: evidence for the magical number four… or is it two? Memory, 12(6) 732-747, DOI 10.1080/09658210344000530

WORKING TO LONG-TERM MEMORY

Retained

RelatedRehearsed

WHAT TO DOKnow your audienceEngage audible and visual sensesAllow processing/review timeTeach study tactics for new vocabulary/facts/etc.Quizzes, mnemonics, flash cards

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY: BIG PICTUREYou can only focus on one cognitive task at a time

You have a finite amount of cognitive capacity

Overload = no learning

THREE COMPONENTS

Intrinsic

•The inherent difficulty of the content •Includes complexity of the task

Germane

•Load imposed by the “meaningfulness” of the information•Schema creation and relation

Extraneous

•Load caused by unrelated sources•Poor instruction•Language/Reading level•Distractions

Intrinsic

Germane

Extrinsic

Three Sources of Cognitive Load

Intrinsic

Germane

Extrinsic

Three Sources of Cognitive Load

COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY (CLT)

Capacity Load

If load exceeds capacity, then learning stops

WAYS TO HANDLE COGNITIVE LOAD:

Goal-FreeWorked

Examples

Completion

Modality

GOAL-FREE LEARNING Goal-specific problems vs. goal-free problems

Goal-specific = highly scripted, process-oriented Goal-free = solution-oriented

Example: Goal-specific:

Find the value of ∠SRP Goal-free:

Find the values of

as many angles as

possible:

WORKED EXAMPLES AND COMPLETION

Worked Examples

• Eliminates inefficient search for solutions• Increases self-efficacy• Examples:

• Completed form, with or without annotations

Completion effect

• Learner completes partial example• Finishing a sentence• Adding body paragraphs to a provided intro and concluson

MODALITY AND REDUNDANCY

Embedded Text

AVOIDING SPLIT ATTENTION

Tarmizi, R.A. and Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4) 424-436

WANT TO KNOW MORE? Kirschner, P, Kirschner, F., Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive Load Theory.

Education.com Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory

Sweller, J. (2009). Cognitive bases of Human Creativity. Education Psychology Review, 21. 11-19.

Kalyuga, S. (2009). Instructional designs for the development of transferable knowledge and skills: a cognitive load perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 25. 332-338

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory: Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies. Springer

COMMON PROBLEMS OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION

Many

Words

Flashy

Images

Learnin

g

AVOID DISTRACTING

ELEMENTS

SEDUCTIVE DETAILS

SEGMENTATION

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

COGNITIVE CAPACITY AS A VESSEL

MYTHS OF LEARNINGMultitasking, learning styles, and digital learners

MULTITASKINGYou can’t cognitively attend to multiple tasks simultaneously

Serial tasking – switching between multiple tasks

Serial tasking is less efficient than single task attention

DON’T BELIEVE ME? Break into pairs Choose a timekeeper Choose a person to write – use lined paper and pencil/pen Step 1: On “GO!” write the passage on a line. Then write a number below for each letter.

THIS1234“Multitasking is worse than a lie”.Record time

Step 2: Alternate writing between letters and numbers Compare the times

STILL DON’T BELIEVE ME? Wang, Z., Tchernev, J. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: reciprocal

dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62. 493-513

Loukopoulos, l.D., Dismukes, R.K., Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking myth: handling complexity in real-world operations. Burlington, VT. Ashgate Publishing. 188 pages.

Crewnshaw, D. (2008). The myth of multitasking: how “doing it all” gets nothing done. Jossey-Bass.

THE MYTH OF LEARNING STYLES

Learning Preferenc

e

Preferenc

e Engaged

Increased Achieve

ment

KEY POINTSBut it seemed to work…?

Increased self-examination of practice is always beneficial

Not a refute of Gardner’s multiple intelligences

Not everything that we prefer is what is best for us

Perception can affect effortMatch strategies to content, not students

DON’T BELIEVE ME? Roher, D., Pashler. H. (2012). Learning styles: where’s the evidence? Medical Education, 46 (7). 634-635. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2923.2012.04273.x

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Education Psychology, 76(4). 647-658

THE MYTH OF THE DIGITAL LEARNERIncreased use Increased skillShallow skill levelSocial interactionOld skills applied to new medium

DON’T BELIEVE ME? Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G. (2010) Are digital natives a myth or

reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56. 429-440

Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., Meyer, E. (2001). Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study. British Journal of

Educational Technology, 42(4). 543-556

Selwin, N. (2009). The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(4). 364-379

CLT AND PEDAGOGYHow to choose the right tool for the job…

DIRECT INSTRUCTION & CLT

Pros• Control over pace and

participation• Good for novice learners

Cons• Passive involvement• Should be a controlled length• Frequent checks for

understanding

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING & CLT

Pros• Allows engagement of tasks

with higher intrinsic CL• Allows for strategic

pairing/grouping• Promotes practice of self-

regulation

Cons• Increased germane load• Must be monitored for

“loafing”• More difficult to assess

individual learning

INQUIRY-BASED LEARNING & CLT

Pros• Increased student engagement• Increased collective self-

efficacy• Increase transfer of learning

Cons & Cautions• Requires boundaries and

scaffolded support• Challenging to assess• Incompatible with rigid pacing

guides

COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Time permitting…..

James McKenna

[email protected] – email for a link to a VoiceThread for this presentation

Thank you for your attention!