Curios of the week #91

Clippings, endnotes and other ephemera

This week was a special one for me. I attended the cognitive load theory conference in Sydney. This is the first time I have attended this conference and it had been something of an ambition of mine. The greats of the field were there, including John Sweller, Fred Paas, Paul Ayres and others. Sadly, one great who was not in attendance was Jeroen van Merriënboer who passed away just over a year ago following illness. There was a moving session full of reflections on his work and personal anecdotes about fun times.

However, one comment that will particularly stick with me was made by Luke Fryer of the University of Hong Kong. Fryer’s work only overlaps a little with the field of cognitive load theory and he recounted emailing van Merriënboer in September last year, asking for his contribution to an upcoming special issue of a journal he was editing. Fryer had no idea he was unwell. He recounted how van Merriënboer sent him an extensive response, complete with suggested contributors to the issues and reasons why they would offer some valuable insights. However, he noted that he was unlikely to have time in the coming months to contribute himself.

This week’s Curios are the cognitive load theory conference special edition.

Correlational research of the week

Professor Andrew Martin’s keynote on Load Reduction Instruction

My own understanding of correlational research moved forward as a result of the conference. Although I have always drawn on, and referenced, correlational research, my PhD involved conducting an experiment. These two research methods are different if complementary.

Load Reduction Instruction is an approach aimed at analysing cognitive load principles in wider educational programs. It can therefore test claims that would be hard to test experimentally. Through a process known as ‘structural equation modelling’, this research can inch towards figuring out if one thing causes another, without proving it to the same extent that an experiment can. The fact that small, controlled experiments like the ones I conducted, as well as correlational research based on programs that look a little more like what you would see in regular classrooms, tend to lead to similar results is highly suggestive that we are on to something.

Professor Andrew Martin presented on the state of Load Reduction Instruction research and as I have commented before, he is effectively testing a large model of explicit teaching similar to those described in Rosenshine’s Principles of Instruction and finding supporting evidence.

At the end of Martin’s talk, some of the researchers present questioned the name, ‘Load Reduction Instruction,’ rightly noting we don’t always want to reduce cognitive load, we want to optimise it. Yes, load should be reduced for complex concepts in the early stages of learning, but with very simple tasks, or if the students are relative experts, we may need to increase it. Although true, I am of the view that in regular classrooms, if we make an error, it is usually on the side of imposing too much load, too early on students and so I am less worried about this.

Media appearance of the week

Lucy Carroll of the Sydney Morning Herald has written a thoughtful and well-researched piece about the way some schools are reevaluating their relationship with technology in the classroom. Carroll has managed to obtain quotes from the likes of Paul Kirschner and Daisy Christodoulou. Christodoulou notes:

“There are some educationally sound websites and apps out there. But I would be happier if students were accessing them on desktops rather than on phones and tablets. And I would be happier if there were significant chunks of school time that were screen-free”

Carroll also asked me for comment and so I make my point at the end of the piece:

“We can get immediate feedback – they are also good for practising particular types of questions and for recall activities. They can be really useful… But in a history lesson, for example, if all students are doing is copying and pasting text and from the internet into a PowerPoint, and faffing around with animations, that’s not helping students learn.

I think we all see technology as having its uses, but the wide-eyed view of the early 2000s that simply adding tech would lead to huge learning gains has long departed.

Big boss of the week

I left for the conference with strict instructions to take pictures.