Tip #260: Learning versus Training

For a long time now, I have emphasized this key message in each and every train the trainer workshop: the training program is about the learner, not the trainer. And each time, as I've shown participants how to develop learning objectives, I've had to continually remind them that learning objectives identify what the learner will do during the session, not what the trainer will do.

Well, I've finally figured out what I've been doing wrong- and it has to do with a disconnect between my message and my semantics.

For example, I originally created and taught the following six-step LESSON planning process:

1. L OOK into the TRAINING NEEDS.

2. E STABLISH the TRAINING GOALS.

3. S ELECT the LEARNING OBJECTIVES.

4. S ET the AGENDA.

5. O UTLINE the TRAINING METHODS.

6. N OTE how to EVALUATE if the training need has been met.

I became aware of the disconnect very gradually. First, since training methods identify how the learners will learn and demonstrate their learning, I realized that "training methods" was a misnomer. "Training methods' imply that the trainer is using the methods to train the learners. This places the emphasis squarely on the shoulders of the trainer.

However, if the training program is supposed to be about the learners and not the trainer, then this emphasis is incorrect. In actual fact, the learners participate in activities that help them learn and apply their new learning. Training methods are really learning activities. So I replaced all reference to "training methods" with "learning activities."

Then I began to extend this thinking to each step in the LESSON planning process. Aren't the "training needs" actually "learning needs?" After all, when we conduct a needs assessment, we are trying to identify performance gaps. Once we identify these performance gaps, we determine the knowledge and skills the employees need to learn to fill those gaps.

And if this is true, then the "training goals" are really "learning goals."

After all, the goals of the program are for the learners to fulfill these identified learning needs. The learning objectives are then the specific learner actions that will help the learners achieve these learning goals.

Thus began my replacement of almost all things "training" with "learning." This revised thinking and editing resulted in my current LESSON planning process:

1. L OOK into the LEARNING NEEDS.

2. E STABLISH the LEARNING GOALS.

3. S ELECT the LEARNING OBJECTIVES.

4. S ET the AGENDA.

5. O UTLINE the LEARNING ACTIVITIES.

6. N OTE how to EVALUATE if the learning need has been met. I've even started to refer to "learning programs" rather than "training programs." Now, there is no longer any disconnect. I feel that I truly model my message that the learning program is about the learner, not the trainer!

Next week, we will begin a discussion regarding how to teach subject matter experts to incorporate participatory learning activities into their technical curriculum and to become comfortable facilitating this interaction.

Last week's Tip on Learning versus Training apparently struck a positive chord for a number of folks.

Sarah Schenkat, HR/Development Specialist at Badgerland Financial, wrote:

"This is wonderful, thank you. I've been slowly getting our association to talk about learning, which is broader, than just training."

Lou Litchison, Program Evaluation, Hutchings Psychiatric Center, sent these comments along with the Tip to his team:

It always amazes me how sometimes things that seem so simple and obvious once pointed out, can be so very subtle and difficult to identify and communicate the first time.

This learning tip is one of those times in a big way. When I took Deb's course I was really struck, right off, how so many people in the class, mostly professional, full time trainers, approached the activities Deb assigned to practice learner centered methods, from a very self-centered, trainer orientation. I knew this was bass ackwards, but absolutely could not put my finger on why it was happening. This is really an excellent, real-world example of paradigm shift - how very difficult it is to challenge our own taken-for-granted view of things. But once we do, and make the shift, a whole bunch of new insights jump right out at us. Really brilliant, simple, very hard to do.

Porter Williams of Spring Mobile wrote:

"Nice changes, Deb. It does change your perspective. This is good. I often find myself not focusing enough on the learners. This is really good!"

Thank you all, including those not quoted here, for writing in. I really appreciate your supportive comments!

I know that last week I promised more information in this Tip about the upcoming Advanced Learning Design workshop on cognitive load, which is scheduled for April 21 and 22. I should have the brochure ready and posted on my website in a day or two.

In the meantime, let's start with a taste of tantalizing information. Cognitive load learning design experts say that, instead of assigning eight practice problems, we should create four worked examples and four practice exercises. (A worked example is a step-by-step demonstration of how to perform a task or solve a problem.) We should then alternate a worked example with a similar practice problem.

According to research findings reported by Ruth Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller (the "father" of cognitive load theory) in their book: Efficiency in Learning. Evidence-Based Guidelines To Manage Cognitive Load, 'starting with worked examples that transition gradually into practice exercises achieves better learning in less time. Why?

When studying worked examples, limited working memory capacity can be devoted to building a schema of how to perform the task. Having a worked example to study just prior to solving a similar problem provides the learner with an analogy available while solving the problem. When having to actively solve a problem without the benefit of an analogous example, most working memory capacity is used up in figuring out the best solution approach, with little remaining for building a schema.

More about this next week!

This week, we begin a discussion regarding how to teach subject matter experts (SMEs) to incorporate participatory learning activities into their technical curriculum and to become comfortable facilitating this interaction.

Tip #259: Bullet Points and PowerPoint Design

In his article: The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint: Q&A with Richard E. Mayer," "Cliff Atkinson poses two questions which I have combined for our discussion purposes:

"The use of bullet points in PowerPoint presentations has been widely criticized. Based on your research, what effect does on-screen text have on learning- and what are the characteristics of a PowerPoint that is compatible with the way people learn from words and pictures?"

I have adapted the following from Richard Mayer's responses to both questions:

"Bullets don't kill learning, but improper use of bullets kills learning. In order to create effective PowerPoint presentations, it is important to understand how people learn. In particular, cognitive scientists have discovered three important features of the human information processing system that are particularly relevant for PowerPoint users:

1. Dual-channels: people have separate information processing channels for visual material and verbal material.

PowerPoint design should take advantage of the dual-channel structure of the human information processing system by presenting complementary material in words and pictures. In presenting a graph, for example, it is useful to have labels on the slide pointing out the main points.

2. Limited capacity: people can pay attention to only a few pieces of information in each channel at a time.

PowerPoint design should take into consideration the limited capacity of the information processing channels, by minimizing the chances of overloading the cognitive system. One technique is to eliminate extraneous material. Thus, a bar graph should not be presented with three-dimensional bars and lots of cute, but irrelevant, clip art.

3. Active processing: people understand the presented material when they pay attention to the relevant material, organize it into a coherent mental structure, and integrate it with their prior knowledge.

PowerPoint design should promote active cognitive processing, by guiding the processes of selecting, organizing, and integrating information. For example, arrows can help highlight the main things that the audience should attend to, an outline can help people organize the material, and concrete examples- perhaps as video clips- can help people relate abstract concepts to their concrete experience.

The implications are that:

1. PowerPoint presentations should use both visual and verbal forms of presentation;

2. filling the slides with information will easily overload people's cognitive systems; and

3. the presentations should help learners select, organize and integrate presented information.

Next week, we will discuss my recent insight on learning versus training.

A quick reminder: There is still time to take advantage of the early bird discount to attend our upcoming two-day learning design workshop: Designing Participant-Centered Curriculum. The program is scheduled for March 18-19 in Madison, Wisconsin. If you are interested, you can see a brochure on our website or contact me directly at (608) 255-2010.

If you have found the discussion of cognitive load valuable to you, you may want to consider attending the Advanced Learning Design workshop on April 21-22. During this two-day session, participants will apply cognitive load theory principles to existing training programs in order to increase the probability that learning will occur and will be retained. More information about the program will be included in the next Tip.

This week, we look at the difference when we focus on learning rather than training.

Tip #258: Cognitive Load Theory Impact on Multimedia

For this week's Tip, I draw from "The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint: Q&A with Richard E. Mayer," by Cliff Atkinson.

Richard Mayer refers to his book: Multimedia Learning, in which he describes the following six research-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction:

1. Multimedia principle: people learn better from words and pictures than from words alone.

2. Coherence principle: people learn better when extraneous material is excluded.

3. Contiguity principle: people learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented at the same time or next to each other on the screen.

4. Modality principle: people learn better from animation with spoken text rather than animation with printed text.

5. Signaling principle: people learn better when the material is organized with clear outlines and headings.

6. Personalization principle: people learn better from conversational style than formal tone.

When designing a PowerPoint slide, Mayer says that it is important to present a limited amount of information (i.e., coherence principle) and it is useful to have simple graphics to supplement words (i.e., multimedia principle).

Next week, we will look at why Richard Mayer believes that the improper use of bullet points in PowerPoint kills learning!

This week, we conclude our series on cognitive load theory with a look at why Richard Mayer thinks that the improper use of bullet points in PowerPoint kills learning and how he believes PowerPoint should be designed.

Tip #257: Three More Cognitive Load Theory Effects

According to Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008), by Anthony R. Artino, Jr., there are six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load. The first three that we discussed last week relate to problem solving: (1) goal-free effect, (2) worked example effect, and (3) completion problem effect.

The remaining three are as follows:

4. Split Attention Effect means to replace multiple sources of information (i.e., separate pictures and text) with a single, integrated source of information. This reduces extraneous load because there is no need to mentally integrate the information sources.

5. Modality Effect means to replace a written explanatory text and another source of visual information (e.g. a diagram) with a spoken explanatory text and a visual source of information (i.e., use multiple modalities). This reduces extraneous load because multimodal presentation uses both the visual and auditory processors of working memory.

Helpful background information: One characteristic of working memory is that its capacity is distributed over two, partially independent processors. This dual-processing assumption is based on theories that suggest there are two separate channels for processing visual and auditory information. The implication of this dual-processing model is that limited working memory capacity can be effectively expanded by using both visual and auditory channels rather than either processing channel alone.

6. Redundancy Effect means to replace multiple sources of information that are self-contained (i.e., they can be understood on their own) with one source of information. This reduces extraneous load caused by unnecessary processing of redundant information.

Next week, we will look at how cognitive load theory can affect the use of multimedia in instructional design.

Laurel Learning Tips is now listed with at BestEzines.com.

If you feel that these Tips have been of value to you, I would very much appreciate it if you would visit our entry and either vote or write a testimonial comment. To write a testimonial, you just click on the "Write A Review" section. Favorable reviews will give subscribers confidence in Laurel Learning Tips. Thank you!

This week, we will look at how cognitive load theory can affect the use of multimedia in instructional design.

Tip #256: Three Cognitive Load Theory Effects

I had originally thought that I could simply tell you what the cognitive load theory effects are. However, when I looked at them more closely, I realized that I needed more information to even begin to understand them. The following is intended to provide some contextual explanation for the three cognitive load theory effects identified at the end of this week's Tip.

According to Fred Paas, Alexander Renkl and John Sweller in "Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments' [2003], the manner in which information is presented to learners and the learning activities required of learners can impose a cognitive load. When that load is unnecessary and interferes with schema acquisition and automation, it is referred to as an extraneous or ineffective load.

They state that many conventional instructional procedures impose extraneous cognitive load because most instructional procedures were developed without any consideration or knowledge of the structure of information or cognitive architecture. For example, any instructional procedure that requires learners to engage in either a search for a problem solution or a search for referents in an explanation (i.e., when Part A of an explanation refers to Part B without clearly indicating where Part B is to be found) is likely to impose a heavy extraneous cognitive load because working memory resources must be used for activities that are irrelevant to schema acquisition and automation.

The use of worked examples rather than solving the equivalent problems is one of the earliest and probably the best known cognitive load reducing technique. In the earliest stages of learning, when intrinsic cognitive load is high because few schemas are available, learners should study instructions; during intermediate stages when schema formation has freed some working memory capacity, they should study worked examples and increase germane load by using self-explanations; in the final stages, there should be sufficient working memory capacity to permit more problem solving.

Complete worked examples are faded by successively eliminating sections of the worked example until eventually only a full problem remains. This fading technique has been found to be superior to the traditional procedure of alternating worked examples and problems.

According to Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008), by Anthony R. Artino, Jr., there are six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load. The first three relate to problem solving:

1. Goal-Free Effect means to replace conventional problems with goal-free problems that provide learners with a non-specific goal. This reduces extraneous load caused by relating a current problem state to a goal state and attempting to reduce the difference between them.

2. Worked Example Effect means to replace conventional problems with worked examples that must be carefully studied. This reduces extraneous load caused by weak-method problem solving.

3. Completion Problem Effect means to replace conventional problems with completion problems, providing a partial solution that must be completed by the learner. This reduces extraneous load because giving part of the solution reduces the size of the problem space.

If anyone can help to clarify this information and distill it down into layman's terms, I would be very grateful!

Next week, we will discuss the last three of the six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load.

Before we begin, I would like to ask your assistance. If anyone is aware of excellent training for either film making or for web design that is offered within driving distance of Wisconsin (Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa), I would appreciate it if you would let me know. Thank you!

A final reminder: Our four day Train the Trainer program: Designing and Delivering Dynamic Learning, which is scheduled for February 17-20 in Madison, Wisconsin, still has some slots open.

Last week, we looked at the first three of six cognitive load theory effects. This week, we will look at the last three cognitive load theory effects.

Tip #254: Introducing Cognitive Load Theory

In early December, Janis Taylor sent me this intriguing note:

I forget how I came across 'cognitive load theory' but I find it fascinating. I wonder if you have any good resources you could suggest or insights on the topic. I know when I'm learning something new I reach the point where I say, "Don't tell me anything else, I need to absorb this first." And I've observed the same with my learners when we try to introduce too many new concepts at the same time.

Maybe the subject of a future 'tip'?

Quite honestly, I had never even heard of cognitive load theory before. So, I started to collect as much information as I could about the topic. When I began to read some of the research articles, my initial response was: Thanks a lot, Janis! This is heavy stuff for someone who just wants sound bites!

Although the articles may not be written in a way that accomplishes this, the intention of cognitive load theory is to avoid overwhelming the learner with new information. My first source: Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008), by Anthony R. Artino, Jr., ( I was attracted by the promise of the abbreviated review!!) provided the following information: The basic premise of CLT is that learners have a working memory with very limited capacity when dealing with new information.

Many of us are already aware that working memory can only hold about seven (plus or minus two) items or chunks of information at a time. (That is why telephone numbers have only seven digits.)

Although working memory can hold only a limited number of items at a time, the size and complexity of those items are unlimited!

However, we are able to process (organize, contrast or compare) only two or three items of information at the same time.

And if new information in working memory is not rehearsed, it is lost within about 15-30 seconds!

So, how does CLT think we can expand the capacity of our working memory?

This is where long-term memory comes into play. The capacity of long-term memory is essentially limitless. The information held in long-term memory is organized and stored in schemas that categorize elements of information according to how they will be used. These schemas effectively expand working memory capacity because complex schemas consisting of huge arrays of interrelated elements can be held in working memory as a single entity.

Automation is another critical component of schema construction. Automation occurs when information stored in schemas can be processed automatically and without conscious effort, thereby freeing up working memory resources. Constructed schemas because automated after extensive practice.

Another important characteristic of working memory is that it has two separate channels for processing visual and auditory information. The implication of this dual-processing model is that limited working memory capacity can be effectively expanded by using both visual and auditory channels rather than either processing channels alone.

Tip #255: Three Types of Cognitive Load

The intention of cognitive load theory is to avoid overwhelming the learner with new information. I will do my best.

For the purpose of honest disclosure, all of the following information is drawn from Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008), by Anthony R. Artino, Jr.

Before we begin, we need to have some understanding of schemas and automation, and why they are important for learning.

Schemas categorize elements of information according to how they will be used. Schemas are how long-term memory organizes and stores information. Since complex schemas with many interrelated elements can be held in working memory as a single entity, these schemas effectively expand the capacity of working memory.

Automation is a critical component of schema construction. Automation occurs when information stored in schemas can be processed automatically and without conscious effort, thereby freeing up working memory resources. Constructed schemas become automated after extensive practice.

A key point is that entirely new tasks may be impossible to complete until prerequisite skills have been automated because there may not be enough working memory capacity available for learning. It is for this reason that, from a cognitive load perspective, schema construction and automation are the major goals for instruction.

Cognitive load theorists are concerned with the ease with which information can be processed in working memory. There are three different types of cognitive load, and only two of them are helpful to the learning process:

Intrinsic cognitive load

Extraneous or ineffective cognitive load

Germane or effective cognitive load

1. Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the number of elements that must be processed simultaneously in working memory for schema construction (element interactivity). Element interactivity is dependent on both the complexity of the to-be-learned material and the learners' expertise (their schema availability and automation).

2. Extraneous cognitive load (also known as ineffective cognitive load) is the result of instructional techniques that require learners to engage in working memory activities that are not directly related to schema construction or automation. Many commonly used instructional designs require learners to use cognitive resources that are not related to, or helpful for, learning (for example, searching for information that is needed to complete a learning task). Because intrinsic cognitive load due to element interactivity and extraneous cognitive load due to instructional design are added to each other, the end result may be fewer cognitive resources left in working memory to devote to schema construction and automation during learning. Consequently, learning may suffer. This is definitely the cognitive load you want to avoid.

3. Germane cognitive load (also known as effective cognitive load) is the result of beneficial cognitive processes such as abstractions and elaborations that are promoted by the instruction. When intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load leave sufficient working memory resources, learners may invest extra effort in processes that are directly relevant to learning, such as schema construction. These processes also increase cognitive load, but it is germane cognitive load that contributes to, rather than interferes with, learning.

Based on the cognitive demands imposed on working memory from the three sources of cognitive load, cognitive load theory suggests that instructional designers should focus on two tasks: (a) reduce extraneous cognitive load and (b) encourage learners to apply available resources to advanced cognitive processes that are associated with germane cognitive load.

This is very heavy stuff. I think it is well worth wading through because an understanding of cognitive load will enable us to design more effective learning activities. However, I'm wondering how you are holding up.

Next week, I plan to discuss the first three out of six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load- unless you write in screaming "Enough!"

Last week, I mentioned my plan to discuss the first three out of six cognitive load theory effects that reduce extraneous cognitive load- unless you wrote in screaming "Enough!!"

Janis Taylor, who started this entire conversation, replied: "Thanks so much for all the effort you put into this research Deborah. I really appreciate it and hope it doesn't overload the recipients of your tips. No pun intended."

Porter Williams responded: "NOT ENOUGH! " I quite liked this. Please expand on it.

Tracy Hudrlik wrote: I am finding this fascinating. "I can't wait until next week. It is interesting that having someone look up information is not helpful........I will have to remember that one."

So, then, on we go!