Date Presented 03/28/20
This study tested the effectiveness of instruction designed to reduce cognitive load under task- and performance-incentive conditions to understand the effects of achievement incentives on instructional effectiveness. Findings exemplified the importance of matching desired achievement levels with suitable curricular incentives and learner goal orientation, as the benefits of effective instructional design may only be known when combined with learner motivation to achieve educational outcomes.
Primary Author and Speaker: Fredrick Pociask
Additional Authors and Speakers: Rosanne DiZazzo-Miller
Contributing Authors: Diane Adamo
INTRODUCTION: Learning becomes ineffective when instruction exceeds the processing capabilities of working memory. Cognitive load theory (CLT) is a field of research used to improve the learning of complex cognitive tasks by matching instruction to the strengths and limitations of human memory. Correspondingly, motivational processes drive the allocation of mental effort toward learning and impact the effectiveness of instruction. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of introductory gait instruction empirically shown to reduce cognitive load (CL) under task incentive (TI) and performance incentive (PI) conditions in order to understand the effects of achievement incentives on task involvement and instructional effectiveness. We hypothesized that delayed posttest scores, posttest completion times, and ratings of CL would be significantly greater under the PI condition; as compared to the TI condition. A research question asked how much time participants would devote to examination preparation.
DESIGN: This study used an experimental posttest only, randomized control group design and significance was set at p<0.05.
METHOD: Participants were 53 OT and PT students recruited on a voluntary basis and randomly assigned to a task-incentive (n = 25) or performance incentive (n = 27) group. The TI condition identified the importance of the instruction and rewarded participants for successful task completion regardless of level of achievement and the PI condition used assessment scores to determine the level of achievement. Materials included introductory gait analysis lesson content empirically shown to reduce CL, pre and post-assessment questionnaires and a written posttest.
RESULTS: MANOVA yielded an overall significant main effect between the TI and PI group (Pillai’s Trace: F [4, 47] = 81.56, P < .000, h2 = + 0.87. Post hoc ANOVA revealed significant main effects for subjective ratings of CL measured immediately after instruction (F [1,50] = 10.932, P < .002, h2 = + 0.18); for posttest completion times (F [1,50] = 153.734, P < .000, h2 = + 0.76); and for posttest scores (F [1,50] = 151.206, P < .000, h2 = +0.75). No significant differences were found for posttest ratings of CL. Post hoc ANOVA of total time devoted to exam preparation revealed a significant main effect for group (F [1,50] = 48.960, P < .000, h2 = +0.49) with the PI group devoting significantly more study time to exam preparation than the TI group.
DISCUSSION: Study findings support the use of CLT ID principles to improve learning effectiveness of complex curriculum under PI conditions and further provide empirical evidence of the isolated elements effect and the resulting reduction of CL by means of CLT ID principles. Conversely and of greatest relevance, study findings demonstrated that instruction empirically shown to reduce CL and foster learning under a PI condition, was essentially ineffective under TI and authentic learning conditions. This finding depicts a performance-goal-orientation towards learning (i.e., focus on performing well on learning indicators such as grades) as opposed to an orientation towards increasing competence independent of grades.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall findings exemplify the importance of matching desired achievement levels with suitable curricular incentives and learner goal orientation. The benefits of effective instructional design may only be known when combined with learner motivation to achieve desired educational outcomes.
References
Ginns, P., & Leppink, J. (2019). Special Issue on Cognitive Load Theory: Editorial. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09474-4
Paas, F. G., Tuovinen, J. E., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. A. (2005). A Motivational Perspective on the Relation Between Mental Effort and Performance: Optimizing Learner Involvement in Instruction. ETR&D, 53, 25–34.
Pociask, F. D., DiZazzo-Miller, R., & Samuel, P. S. (2013). Reducing cognitive load while teaching complex instruction to occupational therapy students.(Report).AJOT: American Journal of Occupational Therapy(5), 92. doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.008078
