Working Draft:
A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load
theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to
instruction of written word structure
Pete Bowers Nov. 12/07
This slide show is just a draft made to think through cognitive load theory
and how it might relate to my research on written word structure instruction
based on Real Spelling teaching tools (Ramsden, 2001). It was made light
of conversations with John Kirby and these three main readings:
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working
memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417-423.
Schnotz, W & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of Cognitive Load
Theory. Educational Psychology Review. 19, 496-508.
Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects of
Animations in Multimedia Learning: Why Reduction of Cognitive Load Can
Have Negative Results on Learning. Educational Technology Research &
Development (53) 3, 47-58
Working Memory
Unintegrated
information in WM
Learner A
Unintegrated
information in WM
Learner B
Working Memory
LTM
Learner A
Germane Load:
Learner B
Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to
engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction
of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
Working Memory
LTM
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
unit of WM
processing
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Learner A
Learner B
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Germane
processing
not yet begun.
Germane
processing
begins.
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Working Memory
Well integrated schema, is
only helpful if represents
how things work!
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
For Educators to consider:
Again… Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to
engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction
of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to
engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction
of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
For consideration: How well does typical instruction of the written word
make use of this principle of instructional design? Might word structure
instruction be a way of targeting well integrated mental representations of
schemas for how the written word works to represent meaning?
Prior learning has
produced:
Poorly integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Well integrated
representations in
LTM
LTM
Typical classroom instruction directs cognitive processing at surface
patterns of ‘letter-sound’ correspondences. These patterns seem to
break down randomly on some words and are treated as irregular
(e.g. does, business).
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
Some words have surface patterns that are not seen as irregular,
but inconsistent letter-sound patterns make the formation of stable
schemas difficult.
How does a child remember which spelling (hopping or hoping)
describes what rabbits do?
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
Without knowledge of the details of how word structure works, teachers
can hope to help students remember spellings like these, but they can’t
build a coherent understanding of the principles which govern the
spelling system and apply to all complex words.
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
What are the implications for the learner when instruction is limited to
surface patterns of already constructed words……
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
…instead of focusing cognitive processing on making sense of how
those surface patterns derive logically and consistently from underlying
morphological structural patterns?
regular written word structure
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
The surface patterns of all of these words can be clearly demonstrated
as the result of extremely consistent underlying structural principles.
The spellings of these words can be understood though instruction
about underlying morpho-phonological structure of English spelling.
regular written word structure
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
The word sum and the word matrix (following slides) are simple
tools that teachers can use to point to the underlying morphological
structure of any complex word.
regular written word structure
“irregular” or
confusing spellings
do + es --> does
hop(p) + ing --> hopping
hope/ + ing --> hoping
busy/i + ness --> business
The following slides are have been adapted from
presentations for teachers and parents. They show how the
word sum and the word matrix draw a learner’s attention to
the coherent structure of English spelling with any complex
word. For example the word <does> is used as a context to
teach coherent, fundamental patterns that structure all
complex words.
These slides are presented here to with the suggestion that
this instruction seems to be an excellent match for what we
know about learners’ “cognitive architecture” as described by
cognitive load theory. Consider just two ways this instruction
might effectively develop well integrated mental
representation of written word schemas, in part by
reducing extraneous load, while maximizing germane load…
1) Concrete representations of written word structure with
matrices and word sums enable the use of “worked
examples” of word structure. Such instruction facilitates
explicit discussion, investigation and manipulation of
complex patterns (germane load) while minimizing
extraneous load. For example the word sum allows the
learner to see each meaning unit of a complex word, how
they combine (with or without suffixing changes) to create
a completed spelling. This information does not need to be
held in working memory while considering meaning
connections and any pronunciation changes between
derivations.
2) Consistent patterns are regularly reinforced with continued
study. Integrated mental representations in LTM are
strengthened and expanded with continued study instead
of countered with frequent exceptions to previous learned
rules (eg. I before e, except after c).
Do the following examples fit this description?
Why might morphology be important for
literacy development and instruction?
It clarifies the system…
Why
not
does
duz or dose?
Instruction limited to surface patterns, cannot explain the logical,
consistent structure of <does>, but <duz> or <dose> are not.
Why might morphology be important for
literacy development and instruction?
It clarifies the system…
Why
not
does
duz or dose?
do+es  does
do+ne  done
do+ing  doing
es
do
ne
go
ing
Why might morphology be important for
literacy development and instruction?
Learned patterns expand
to other words…
es
do
ne
go
ing
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001)
do+es  does
do+ne  done
do+ing  doing
go+es  goes
go+ne  gone
go+ing  going
The following sequence
of lessons directs
students’ attention to
the pattern for dropping
silent <e>…
Matrix by Ramsden(2001)
www.realspelling.com
Test hypothesis with
a wider set of
words…
Clarify precision of
the pattern.
Matrix by Ramsden(2001)
www.realspelling.com
Now that the consistent
pattern has been
established, this flow chart is
used to practice this pattern
systematically. Such practice
aims to build coherent
schemas in LTM so that
recognition of this pattern
can become automated.
The consistent patterns for
consonant doubling and y/i
patterns can be taught with
similar flow charts.
A sketch of “Word Structured Inquiry”
Learning how to build words with meaning units
helps you learn how to take written words apart into
their meaning units.
Word structure knowledge and strategies for
orthographic investigations with the aid of references are
both reinforced and expanded as teachers explicitly
teach how to apply that knowledge in the study of any
content area.
Students discover that lessons they learn in their explicit
orthographic instruction and practice, is effective for making
sense of printed words. Interesting and surprising discoveries,
regularly sparked by students, are made. They identify
questions to which teachers don’t know immediate answers.
Students get the opportunity to observe a mature learner find
answers to questions. The teacher can take advantage of this
context to explicitly break down the process of working out
problems.
Students discover that lessons they learn in their explicit
orthographic instruction and practice, is effective for making
sense of printed words. Interesting and surprising discoveries,
regularly sparked by students, are made. They identify
questions to which teachers don’t know immediate answers.
Students get the opportunity to observe a mature learner find
answers to questions. The teacher can take advantage of this
context to explicitly break down the process of working out
problems.
The student who posed a question that was good enough that
the teacher had to work to find an answer is likely to be
interested in the answer. Students often work hard and
independently to come up with good questions in classes
learning in this way.
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
With more practice breaking words in to bases and
affixes, we get better at seeing morphemes inside
words and problem-solving word connections like
these:
instruct: instructions / instructor / instructed
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Seems to be some kind of meaning connection, but
the structure confuses. The pieces don’t seem to fit.
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Seems to be some kind of meaning connection, but
the structure confuses. The pieces don’t seem to fit.
Strategy: Look for structure and meaning cues.
- Peel off any affixes?
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
We know the prefixes <in-> and <de->…
in+struction and de+struction
but <struction>, doesn’t make any sense.
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
We know the prefixes <in-> and <de->…
in+struction and de+struction
but <struction>, doesn’t make any sense.
The word <structure> could have a <-ure> suffix,
and the others could use an <-ion> suffix.
struct+ure;
in+stuct+ion;
de+struct+ion
But <struct> isn’t a word either. Students have
discovered something that needs teaching…
There are bases, that are
never words on their own.
s
ed
ing
re con
ion
struct ive
‘build’ or
in
ed
de
ing
ure
ob
sub
al ly
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and
structure were connected in meaning
and structure by a base that is not a word
on its own…
s
ed
ing
re con
ion
struct ive
‘build’ or
in
ed
de
ing
ure
ob
sub
al ly
in+struct + ion  instruction
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and
structure were connected in meaning
and structure by a base that is not a word
on its own…
s
ed
ing
re con
ion
struct ive
‘build’ or
in
ed
de
ing
ure
ob
sub
al ly
in+struct + ion  instruction
de+struct+ion  destruction
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and
structure were connected in meaning
and structure by a base that is not a word
on its own…
s
ed
ing
re con
ion
struct ive
‘build’ or
in
ed
de
ing
ure
ob
sub
al ly
in+struct + ion  instruction
de+struct+ion  destruction
struct+ure  structure
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and
structure were connected in meaning
and structure by a base that is not a word
on its own…
s
ed
ing
re con
ion
struct ive
‘build’ or
in
ed
de
ing
ure
ob
sub
al ly
in+struct + ion  instruction
de+struct+ion  destruction
struct+ure  structure
Teaching this matrix introduces
students to the wider word family
including:
construct, obstruction,
substructure, instructive,
instructor, structurally…
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to
written word instruction:
If instruction that builds cohesive, well-integrated
mental schemas in the LTM facilitates efficient,
effective learning, isn’t it particularly important that
instruction directs students to an accurate
understanding of how written word structure works?
Are the teaching tools and strategies identified here
“linking instruction to cognitive architecture”?
1) Structured inquiry of underlying patterns
2) Matrix and word sums for bringing focus to building
block nature of English spelling
3) Flow charts to practice specific patterns
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written
word instruction:
Most children learn to be successful readers and writers with the aid
of instruction that is based on what would be considered the best
research evidence.
However, the vast majority of even the most successful students who
receive this instruction will spend the rest of their literate life
assuming that English spelling is irregular and doesn’t merit a great
deal of attention.
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written
word instruction:
The students who fail despite what is considered best practice for
classroom and remedial instruction, are not failing to remember and
apply the regular morphophonolgical patterns that structure words.
These children have not yet had this underlying regularity presented
to them.
We do not yet have research that has investigated the learning of
children who learn to read and write with the support of instruction
that -- from the very beginning -- constantly points to the order and
structure of how English spelling works to represent meaning.
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written
word instruction:
The students who fail despite what is considered best practice for
classroom and remedial instruction, are not failing to remember and
apply the regular morphophonolgical patterns that structure words.
These children have not yet had this underlying regularity presented
to them.
We do not yet have research that has investigated the learning of
children who learn to read and write with the support of instruction,
that from the very beginning of school constantly points to the order
and structure of how English spelling works to represent meaning.
Some final “stepwise animations”
of orthographic structure…
Consider this presentation of two common words:
• Surface similarity
• Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
r
r
Consider this presentation of two common words:
• Surface similarity
• Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
re
re
Consider this presentation of two common words:
• Surface similarity
• Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
rea
rea
Consider this presentation of two common words:
• Surface similarity
• Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
reac
reac
How do we know how to read these words?
react
reach
?
re + act
<ea> not a digraph
reach
<ea> is a digraph
Notice how the different structures offers cues for both
meaning and pronunciation.
react = prefix + base
(<act> main meaning of the word)
reach = base
re + act
<ea> not a digraph
<c> is a grapheme
reach
<ea> is a digraph
<ch> is a digraph
Notice how the different structures offers cues for both
meaning and pronunciation.
react = prefix + base
(<act> main meaning of the word)
reach = base
re + act
<ea> not a digraph
<c> is a grapheme
reach
<ea> is a digraph
<ch> is a digraph
Consider…
How do we sort out the meaning &
pronunciation of these words?
mishap
misshapen
mishmash
mishear
Which uses <sh> and which uses <s+h>?
mishap
misshapen
mishmash
mishear
Which uses <sh> and which uses <s+h>?
Structure tells us the answer
mishap  mis+hap
misshapen  mis+shape/+en
mishmash  mish+mash
mishear  mis+hear
Relevance for instruction?
Can select words, not only for frequency, but also for
the clarity with which they illustrate principles of how
words work.
mishap  mis+hap
misshapen  mis+shape/+en
mishmash  mish+mash
mishear  mis+hear
To teach ‘letter-sound correspondences’ we need
to under stand the word structure too.
react  re+act
reach  reach
mishap  mis+hap
misshapen  mis+shape/+en
mishmash  mish+mash
mishear  mis+hear
Consider…
been
|bin| or |b n|
(like <bean>)
teen
|tin|
(like <bin>)
Is there a meaning cue for the varied
pronunciation of the similar letter strings?
been
|bin| or |b n|
(like <bean>)
teen
|tin|
(like <bin>)
be+en not <ee> digraph
teen
<ee> digraph
Real Spelling is the only resource I’ve found
that shows teachers how structure and sound
work together.
be+en not <ee> digraph
teen
<ee> digraph
The <ee> digraph can only represent the
‘long e’ or |i| phoneme.
heel or heal?
heel or heal?
Strategy: Think of structurally related words.
One of these words has derivations that shifts from using
the ‘long e’ pronunciation to the ‘short e’. That word family
needs the <ea> digraph to be able to take on both jobs.
Practice this structure by
writing word sums, whild
spelling the letters out
loud in their morphemic
groups…
<heal>
‘base’
Matrix by Ramsden (2001)
www.realspelling.com
From this link
http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html
www.wordworkskingston.com
heal+s --> heals
heal+th--> health
un+heal+th+y-->
unhealthy
un+heal+th+y/i+er-->
unhealthier
<heal>
‘base’
Matrix by Ramsden (2001)
www.realspelling.com
From this link
http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html
www.wordworkskingston.com
Finally…
Since this logical word structure and
these instructional tools are available, is
it reasonable to teach children that
words like <does> or <sign> are
irregular and need to be memorized?
Does cognitive load theory speak to this
question?