the myth of multitasking
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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