Another take on Cognitive Load Theory

The authors of the Eide Neurolearning Blog weigh in on recent research and articles on cognitive load (including the death of Powerpoint that have been talked about here). While they recognize that some of this info is useful for understanding ways to effectively present information, "...the researchers still underestimate the diversity of their audience." Their main take-home point:

For the classroom, what may seem to be redundant information in a presentation, may be necessary for students with different information processing preferences.

This comes back to some of the basic "instructional design" I learned early in the game: that it's important to present information in a variety of ways because each of us learns differently and has a different learning style (in addition to providing that critical repetition and reinforcement -- what Clark Quinn called "multiple representations" in his session at the eLearning Guild event: "Deeper Learning Cognitive Science and Instructional Design")

On a sidebar note: assessing your own learning style is a whole 'nother matter.

One test showed me to be a VKA learner (Visual, Kinesthetic, Auditory)...

The TIPP learning theory showed me to be Traditional Personal with a visual preference (although I was also high on the auditory scale).

It's so easy to take one of these tests and skew your own results.

NewsFlash: PowerPoint Bad For Learning

Found via SlashDot, an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald "Research points the finger at PowerPoint."

The article cites new research from the University of New South Wales (home of John Sweller, "founding father" of Cognitive Load Theory).

Some key nuggets from the Sydney Herald article:

It is more difficult to process information if it is coming at you in the
written and spoken form at the same time.

"The use of the PowerPoint presentation has been a disaster," Professor Sweller
said. "It should be ditched."

"It is effective to speak to a diagram, because it presents information in a different form. But it is not effective to speak the same words that are written, because it is putting too much load on the mind and decreases your ability to understand what is being presented."

And how many e-Learning courses have you created with on-screen text bullets timed to narrative audio? Raise your hand. Me too. You know -- appeal to multiple learning styles; address the needs of both auditory and visual learners....

If the on-screen text is just a blurb that relates to the audio is that any different? I'm thinking about Karl Kapp's recent post Design: Bullets Be Gone. Or should we just end this practice completely?