Cognitive Constraints in Selected Instructional Approaches and Materials in the Philippine Public Schools
Cognitive Constraints in Selected Instructional Approaches and Materials in the Philippine Public Schools
Juan Jr Espina
Introduction
Instructional designers now days focus on strategies on how to improve instructional methods by eliminating the barriers of learning considering that the human brain is limited in the amount of information that it can process (Miller, G., 1956). According to Clark,R., Nguyen, F. and Sweller, J. (2006), human cognitive load may be enhanced through eliminating extraneous cognitive load such as split-attention and redundancy effects and reinforce learning with dual-modality, imagination and cueing or signalling, fading, worked example, goal-free effects to effectively gain desirable learning outcomes. Furthermore, Cooper, G. (1998) believes that in designing quality instructional materials, the role and limitation of working memory should be given greater consideration.
In the Philippines, there is no single empirical research which shows how cognitive overload affect students’ efficiency in learning. Various instructional supervisors, textbook evaluators and curriculum designers focused on the content, grammar and competencies rather than the effective use of the instructional materials. Although, many countries today regarded Cognitive Science as a vital discipline in dealing with learners’ mental processes, memory and solving problems ( Cooper, G. ,1998), the Philippines remains traditional in designing instructional materials and its approaches in teaching.
Therefore, this essay argues that the Philippine Public Schools’ instructional approaches and materials do not conform to Cognitive Science and therefore need to be improved. Furthermore, this essay defines the term Cognitive Load Theory and its effect to learning; discusses the efficacies of instructional materials and procedures using Cognitive Load Theory; critically discusses the causes and effects of cognitive overload to learning; describes and analyses
Juan Jr Espina
Introduction
Instructional designers now days focus on strategies on how to improve instructional methods by eliminating the barriers of learning considering that the human brain is limited in the amount of information that it can process (Miller, G., 1956). According to Clark,R., Nguyen, F. and Sweller, J. (2006), human cognitive load may be enhanced through eliminating extraneous cognitive load such as split-attention and redundancy effects and reinforce learning with dual-modality, imagination and cueing or signalling, fading, worked example, goal-free effects to effectively gain desirable learning outcomes. Furthermore, Cooper, G. (1998) believes that in designing quality instructional materials, the role and limitation of working memory should be given greater consideration.
In the Philippines, there is no single empirical research which shows how cognitive overload affect students’ efficiency in learning. Various instructional supervisors, textbook evaluators and curriculum designers focused on the content, grammar and competencies rather than the effective use of the instructional materials. Although, many countries today regarded Cognitive Science as a vital discipline in dealing with learners’ mental processes, memory and solving problems ( Cooper, G. ,1998), the Philippines remains traditional in designing instructional materials and its approaches in teaching.
Therefore, this essay argues that the Philippine Public Schools’ instructional approaches and materials do not conform to Cognitive Science and therefore need to be improved. Furthermore, this essay defines the term Cognitive Load Theory and its effect to learning; discusses the efficacies of instructional materials and procedures using Cognitive Load Theory; critically discusses the causes and effects of cognitive overload to learning; describes and analyses
References: Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction, Cognition and Instruction. University of New South Wales.Vol.8,No.4,pp.293-332. Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1992). The Split-Attention Effect as a Factor in the Design of Instruction, British Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 62, Issue 2, pp.233-246. Clark, R., Nguyen, F. and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. Pfeiffer,San Francisco, CA. pp. 1-390. Cooper, G. (1998). Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW.School of Education Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney,NSW 2052, Australia.pp.1-34. Jamet, E & Bohec, O. (2007). The Effect of Redundant Text in Multimedia Instruction,Contemporary Educational Psychology. Volume 32, Issue 4, Rennes Cedex, France. pp. 588-598. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing Split-Attention and Redundancy in Multimedia Instruction, Applied Cognitive Psychology.13, University of New South Wales, Australia,pp.351-371. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design. Human Factors. Vol. 40, pp.1-17. Leahy, W. and Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive Load and the Imagination Effect, Applied Cognitive Psychology. University of New South Wales, Australia, 18:857-875 from www.interscience.wiley.com DOI:10.1002/acp.1061. Miller, G. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, The Psychologist Review, 63, pp. 319-334. Moreno, R. Mayer, R. (1999). Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity, Journal of Educational Psychology.Vo.91,No.2, University of California, Santa Barbara, California,pp.358-368. Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing Cognitive Load by Mixing Auditory and Visual Presentation Modes, Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol.82 (2), pp.319-334. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., and Grobe, C. (2004). How Fading Worked Solution Steps Works- A Cognitive Load Perspective, Instructional Science. Netherlands, 32: pp.59-82. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning, Cognitive Science. 12, pp. 257-285. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty and Instructional Design, Learning and Instruction, 4, pp. 295-312. Sweller, J., Merrienboer, J, and Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design, Educational Psychology Review.Vol.10, No.3. Plenum, Publishing Corporation, pp. 251-292. Tabbers, H., Martens, J. & Morrienboer, J.(2000). Multimedia Instructions and Cognitive Load Theory: Split-Attention and Modality Effects. Educational Technology Centre, University of the Netherlands,pp.1-10.