Promoting Long-lasting Learning  Through Instructional Design

Patrik Hultberg; David Santandreu Calonge; Askhat Eugene Safiullin Lee

doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i3.23179

PDF

Published: Oct 2, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i3.23179

Keywords:

Learning and Teaching strategies, cognitive load theory, instructional design

Patrik Hultberg

Kalamazoo College

David Santandreu Calonge

Canadian University Dubai

Askhat Eugene Safiullin Lee

Sungkyunkwan University

Abstract

Passively listening to a lecture (deWinstanley & Bjork, 2002), skimming a textbook chapter, or googling for an answer to a homework problem is not conducive to deep and lasting high-order learning. At the same time, presenting complex concepts in problem-based classes might overload students’ working memory capacity. Effective student learning necessitates students to process information in their working memories, as well as storing information, facts and skills, in their long-term memories. Students must then be able to retrieve this information into their working memory in the future, in order to apply the information to new situations. That is, students must be able to recognize the characteristics of a future situation or problem and correctly retrieve the appropriate information stored in their long-term memory (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006) to tackle the issue. Using the framework of Cognitive Load Theory, this article proposes an instructional model that promotes five strategies for learning and teaching; i.e. spacing, retrieval practice, elaboration, interleaving, and concrete examples, to effectively help students store and retrieve information from their long-term memory.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Hultberg, P., Santandreu Calonge, D., & Safiullin Lee, A. E. (2018). Promoting Long-lasting Learning Through Instructional Design. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i3.23179

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 3 (2018): Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Section

Articles

Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Author Biographies

Patrik Hultberg, Kalamazoo College

Economics and Business

David Santandreu Calonge, Canadian University Dubai

Social Sciences

Askhat Eugene Safiullin Lee, Sungkyunkwan University

International Studies

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R. and Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20(4), R136-R140.

Bligh, A. B. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Brame, C. J. and Biel, R. (2015). Test-enhanced learning: The potential for testing to promote greater learning in undergraduate science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14, 1-12.

Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L. and McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Make it stick. Harvard University Press.

Carey, B. (2014). How We Learn: The Surprising Truth about When, where and why it Happens. Pan Macmillan.

Chandler, N. J. and Sweller, J. (1992). The Split-Attention Effect as a Factor in the Design of Instruction: A Review and Qualitative Synthesis. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2): 233-246.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24, 87-114.

Deans for Impact. (2015). The Science of Learning. Austin, TX: Deans for Impact.

Debue, N. and van de Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1099. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01099

DeWinstanley, P. A. and Bjork, R.A. (2002). Successful lecturing: Presenting information in ways that engage effective processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 1931.

De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38: 105-134.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Karpicke, J. D. and Grimaldi, P.J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401-418.

Karpicke, J. D. and Roediger, H.L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966-968.

Karpicke, J. D. and Roediger, H.L. (2007). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 704.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. and Clark, R.E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Lang, J. M. (2016). Small Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lowe, D. (2016). Remembrance of Philosophy Classes Past: Why Cognitive Science Suggests that a Brief Recap Is the Best Way to Start Each Class Day. Teaching Philosophy, 39(3), 279289.

Lyle, K. B. and Crawford, N.A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 94-97.

Mayer, R.E. (2004). Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? American psychologist, 59(1), 14.

McGuire, S. Y. (2015). Teach Students how to Learn: Strategies You Can Incorporate Into Any Course to Improve Student Metacognition, Study Skills, and Motivation. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.

Moreno, R. (2006) Learning in High-Tech and Multimedia Environments. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 15(2): 63-67.

Pashler, H., Bain, P. M., Bottge, B. A., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M. and Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. IES Practice Guide. NCER 2007-2004. National Center for Education Research.

Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. J. and Carpenter, S.K. (2007). Enhancing learning and retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 14(2), 187-193.

Peterson, L. and Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term Retention of Individual Verbal Items. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 58, 193-198.

Roediger, H. L. and Butler, A.C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(1), 20-27.

Roediger, H. L. and Karpicke, J.D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological science, 17(3), 249-255.

Storm, B. C., Bjork, R. A. and Storm, J.C. (2010). Optimizing retrieval as a learning event: When and why expanding retrieval practice enhances long-term retention. Memory & Cognition, 38(2), 244-253.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design.

Learning and Instruction, 4: 295-312.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2001). What is Backward Design? In G. Wiggins & J. McTighe’s Understanding by Design (p. 7 – 19). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zull, J.E. (2002). The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning, Virginia: Stylus Publishing.

Article Sidebar

Main Article Content