SCU Teaching and Learning Grants - Final Report
Evaluating and improving higher education units for flexible
delivery using the practical application of Cognitive Load
Theory: a pilot study
Project Team
Dr Raina Mason, School of Business and Tourism, Project leader, all parts of the toolkit design and development
Carolyn Seton, School of Business and Tourism, Current postgraduate student, toolkit development
Dr Graham Cooper, School of Business and Tourism, work on information library and tool generation
Dr Barry Wilks, School of Business and Tourism, feedback on toolkit.
Project summary
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is a learning theory based on an information-processing model of human cognition
(Sweller, 2010) - in particular the limitations of working memory (Cowan, 2001; Miller, 1956). CLT has
successfully been applied to many disciplines to improve student learning, particularly in lower-performing
students. Despite the usefulness of CLT for designing and developing learning materials, to our knowledge prior
to this project there was no existing tool or toolkit that allowed academics who wished to improve their unit
using these techniques to evaluate their learning materials and obtain practical guidelines on using these
principles.
The CAFÉ Toolkit project developed an online CLT information library and an interactive unit-evaluation toolkit
to assist academics to apply CLT instructional design techniques to their learning materials. The toolkit makes
customised suggestions on how the learning materials for these evaluated units may be improved
(http://cafe.cognitiveload.net).
The CAFÉ toolkit was successfully piloted with Australasian academics at a research workshop at the Australasian
Computing Education conference in February 2016, to overwhelmingly positive response. The toolkit was also
introduced to the SCU academic community in an online workshop in May 2016, and several academics
expressed interest in taking part in case studies that measured the impact of changes in their learning materials.
Approach and dissemination
•
The principles and effects of CLT were codified into ‘success factors’ that could be used in a decision tree
to evaluate current student learning resources and a unit as a whole.
•
The four initial student learning resource types were determined, and suitable questions to measure
success and feedback was added to the decision tree for the adaptive evaluation tools. It is anticipated
that further student learning resource types will be added in the future, in response to feedback.
•
Webspace and a domain name (cognitiveload.net) was purchased after it was determined that it was
not possible to develop the adaptive evaluation tools on the University webspace (RM, CS).
•
The CAFÉ toolkit was expanded with an information library organised to complement the structure of
the evaluation tools. The first section of the library presents general information on aspects of human
cognitive architecture, the dynamics of learning and theoretical underpinnings of CLT. The remainder of
the library presents detailed information on reducing extraneous cognitive load, promoting germane
SCU Teaching and Learning Grants – Final Report
Page 2
cognitive load, accounting for differences in learners’ expertise, and general factors for managing
learning. References to academic papers on the relevant topic are included in the library.
•
The feedback from the adaptive evaluation tools was linked with the relevant parts of the information
library, for further reading after feedback is given to users.
•
The CAFÉ toolkit was launched at a workshop called “Using Cognitive Load Theory to improve
troublesome courses” at the Australasian Computing Education Conference in February 2016.
Workshop attendees were invited to participate in research into usage of the toolkit via a registration
survey and feedback survey.
•
The CAFÉ toolkit was disseminated to the general SCU academic community via a workshop held in May
2016. Again, workshop attendees were invited to participate in research via a registration survey and
feedback survey.
•
One paper has been submitted for review and another paper is currently under preparation to
disseminate the outcomes of the project.
•
The CAFÉ toolkit can be found at http://cafe.cognitiveload.net.
Project outcomes
•
The project resulted in the design and development of an educational website:
http://cafe.cognitiveload.net including innovative tools to adaptively evaluate units as-a-whole and
individual student learning resources, using the principles and effects of Cognitive Load Theory.
•
The ACE2016 workshop participants were explicitly asked about their future intentions to use the toolkit
and/or cognitive load concepts encountered in the toolkit. Their responses indicated:
o 60% were likely or very likely to use the toolkit to evaluate materials in future;
o 60% were likely or very likely to use the toolkit to make changes to their existing materials;
o 60% were likely or very likely to use the toolkit to design future materials;
o 90% were likely or very likely to use cognitive load concepts encountered in the CAFÉ toolkit in
designing future materials;
o 70% were likely or very likely to recommend the toolkit to others.
•
One paper “Developing CAFÉ – an educational design toolkit” has been submitted to the ASCILITE
conference for November 2016 and another paper “The CAFÉ Toolkit – a tale of two pilots” is under
preparation and will be submitted to a journal;
•
Dr Raina Mason and Carolyn Seton have been invited to speak and run a 3 hour workshop at the Flipped
Classroom Symposium in Adelaide in November 2016;
•
Dr Raina Mason has been invited to present at the Queensland University Educators Showcase (QUES)
in September 2016, on the CAFÉ toolkit project.
References
Cowan, N. (2001). Metatheory of storage capacity limits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 154-176
Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology
Review, 22, 123–138.