This video is the next in a series about instructional design and technology integration. It focuses on “weeding” (Mayer and Moreno, 2003 as cited by Mayer and Clark, 2010, p. 308). Note the video in this post: https://ict-design.org/2013/11/28/instructional-design-and-technology-integration/ where cognitive overload occurs because of the split attention effect. As a viewer, you are trying to focus either on the writing at the bottom of the screen or the verbal explanation. The videos are nearly identical; however, in the video in this post most subtitles and music while speaking occurs was removed. The effect is that it reduces extraneous processing by the viewer.
Reference
Mayer, R. E., & Clark, R. C. (2010). Instructional strategies for receptive learning environments. In K. H. Silber, & W. R. Foshay (Series Ed.), Handbook for improving performance in the workplace: Vol. 1. Instructional design and training delivery, (pp. 298-328). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
This is the first video in a series involving key ideas in instructional design. It has technology integrated through authentic means in the lesson. It is meant to induce cognitive overload, but embeds a lot of information about instructional design in doing so. Watch this video as a comparison. This video specifically explores:
Split Attention Effect
Cognitive Overload
Learning Styles
Primacy and Recency
Presentation of the Whole Task (Pebbles in the Pond)
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. California Journal of Science Education, II(2), 76-98. Retrieved from http://www.marric.us
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lovelace, M. K. (2005, January/February). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn model. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 176-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.176-183
Martinez, M. E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Silber, K. H. (2010). A principle-based model of instructional design. In K. H. Silber, & W. R. Foshay (Series Ed.), Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Vol.1. Instructional design and training delivery, (pp. 23-52). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
van Gog, T., Ericsson, K. A., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 73-81. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu
education | technology | design 