Skip to main content

Helping With Student Focus & Motivation in the Remote Classroom, Part 3: Limiting New Technologies to Reduce Extrinsic Cognitive Load

A librarian colleague used to say to me, "Technology is great until it's not." This couldn't be more true in the classroom.  As many of us prepare for a fall entirely or partially online, there's a rush to familiarize ourselves with lots of new educational technology to teach our classes. There's this sense that if you're not using the best and newest ed tech in your class, you're doing something wrong.

Fortunately, the science doesn't back this up.  Using too many different types of technology can be a contributing factor to cognitive overload in students. Cognitive load is a term cognitive psychologists use to describe the mental challenge that the limitations of working memory puts on a student's learning.[1] Basically, working memory is extremely limited in both time and duration. Humans can only hold on to between four and nine "chunks" of information at any given time,[2] and can only hold on to new information in their working memory for about thirty seconds if not rehearsed.[3] Learning complex, new information exhausts students' finite working memory on its own--without adding to the mix a long list of new technologies that students haven't used before.

Cognitive theorists divide cognitive load into two primary types. The first is intrinsic cognitive load, which refers to the mental challenge inherent to the material students are learning.[4]  For law students, this would be the legal concepts and skills in which they are submersing themselves. The second type of cognitive load is extraneous cognitive load, which occurs when information unnecessary to the classes' primary learning objectives is introduced. This unrelated or unnecessary information actually interferes with student learning.[5]  For law students, this is anything that requires students' attention and effort without adding to their knowledge base--from poorly designed PowerPoint slides with too much text and technology that is hard to navigate.  As instructors, our goal should be to decrease extrinsic load, so students can use their working memory to try to retain the important concepts from the class.

By no means does this mean we should avoid using educational technology in our online classes; they are an excellent way to engage and motivate our students.  We should just limit the number that we are using and give clear instructions on how to use those tools at the start of our semester so students don't disengage due to frustration from using too many different, new-to-them technologies.  Another best practice is to provide instructional documents or videos explaining how and why you're going to use these tools should be part of the first day homework assignment.  Keep these videos short and to the point.  If you want your students to actually read or watch these materials and ensure that all students know how to use them properly, it's also a best practice to include a short quiz about the assignment.

In considering which technology tools to use, start from your learning objectives. Which technologies can help you meet your course learning objectives?  Brainstorm different ways you can use one or two technologies to do different types of active learning activities in your class.  Then test those technologies so you're as familiar with them as possible and to troubleshoot any issues that your students might later experience.  Some barriers to be aware of that can hinder learning include "a difficult log-in process, out-of-pocket expenses, nonfunctionality with keyboard use only, or levels of complexity that require learners to use all their cognitive resources to navigate the tech."[6]

By limiting the number of technologies you use, you will be able to help students stay engaged and motivated without overloading their working memories.  We want to use technology that enhances, rather than inhibits, learning.



To see other parts of this series:
Part I: Considering Serial Position Effect
Part II: Prioritizing Transparency
Part IV: Building an Online Teaching Presence



[1] Fred Pass et al., Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of the Interaction Between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture, 32 Instructional Sci. 1, 2 (2004).

[2] Cognitive Learning Theory--Making Learning More Effective, MindTools, https://mindtools.com/pages/article/cognitive-load-theory.htm.

[3]  Richard E. Clark et al., Putting Students on the Path to Learning: The Case for Fully Guided Instruction, Am. Educator (Spring 2012), at 8.

[4]  Id. at 9.

[5]  Terri L. Enns & Monte Smith, Taking a (Cognitive) Load Off: Creating Space to Allow First-Year Legal Writing Students to Focus on Analytical and Writing Processes, 20 J. Legal Writing Inst. 109, 110 (2015).

[6]  Flower Darby & James M. Lang, Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes 68 (2019).

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Why Experts Can Struggle to Teach Novices

This week in our Slack group on teaching , there was an interesting discussion about expertise and the amount of time needed to prep for instruction. I mentioned something that I recalled reading: that experts can be less effective in teaching novices because often the expert skips cognitive steps that the novice learner needs to understand.  I thought I'd dig into this a little more today on the blog. The fact is novices and experts learn very differently.  The major reason for this is that experts not only know a lot about their chosen discipline, but they understand how that discipline is organized. As such, what has a clear structure to the expert is a jumbled set of unorganized information to the novice.  The information presented to novices "are more or less random data points."[1]  In contrast, when the expert learns something new in her area of expertise, she just plugs it into the knowledge structure that already exists in her long-term memory. Because the...
Read more

The Experiential Simulation Course Checklist, Part 1

When developing courses to meet the requirements for experiential simulation courses, there are three ABA standards that come into play: Standard 303(a)(3), Standard 302, and Standard 304. When combined, there are eight bullet points that one must meet to comply with the standards for experiential simulation courses**: " Primarily experiential in nature " (Standard 303(a)(3)):  To meet this bullet point, an ABA Guidance Memo provides additional help. It notes that the "primarily" suggests "more than simply inserting an experiential component into an existing class." Furthermore, the "primarily" "indicates the main purpose of something." It is clear that the experiential nature of the course should be central to the course's design and should be prevalent across the entire length of the course. In fact, the ABA notes that the "experiential nature of the course should . . . be the organizing principle of the course, and th...
Read more

Reflection in the Legal Research Classroom

Reflection is a critical component of experiential learning.  We see in ABA Standard 303 that experiential courses must include multiple opportunities for self-evaluation.  Self-evaluation is critically important to legal research.  Students must reflect on and assess their research methodology each time they research to continue becoming more efficient legal researchers and to determine what research strategies work best in which situations. [1] Reflection relates to several ideas found in cognitive theory that have been shown to result in stronger learning and retention: Retrieval : recalling recently-learned information;  Elaboration : finding a nexis between what you know and what you are learning; and  Generation : putting concepts into your own words and/or contemplating what you might do differently next time. I've been contemplating how to better incorporate reflection into legal research classes. At the beginning of this semester, at the recom...
Read more

Cognitive Disruptors in Legal Education

The pandemic has had a significant impact on all of our lives (biggest understatement ever).  However, with the return to in-person learning at many institutions, there has been this feeling that we should have returned to our "normal" teaching strategies in an effort to get back to the way things were. But of course, we know that things are not the same.  People traumatized by the pandemic--loved ones being gravely ill and dying, extreme isolation, financial stressors due to industries being impacted, and more--are experiencing lingering effects of the past two years.  Burnout has become the buzz word, as entire circles of friends and colleagues report feeling emotionally, physically, and mentally exhausted. This means that our classrooms should not go back to normal.  We must consider what might be impacting our students' ability to attend to and retain new information presented in our classrooms.  I've written before about cognitive (over)load and the limits...
Read more