Cognitive Load Theory vs. Constructivist Approaches: Which Best Leads to Efficient, Deep Learning?

Autor/inn/en	Vogel-Walcutt, J. J.; Gebrim, J. B.; Bowers, C.; Carper, T. M.; Nicholson, D.
Titel	Cognitive Load Theory vs. Constructivist Approaches: Which Best Leads to Efficient, Deep Learning?
Quelle	In: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (2011) 2, S.133-145 (13 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0266-4909
DOI	10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00381.x
Schlagwörter	Educational Strategies; Constructivism (Learning); Instructional Design; Teaching Methods; Cognitive Processes; Difficulty Level; Military Training; Learning Theories; Problem Based Learning; Skill Development; Electronic Learning; Computer Simulation; Computer Assisted Instruction; Comparative Analysis; Learning Processes; Instructional Effectiveness + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Lehrstrategie; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Schwierigkeitsgrad; Militärausbildung; Learning theory; Lerntheorie; Problem-based learning; Problemorientiertes Lernen; Kompetenzentwicklung; Qualifikationsentwicklung; Computergrafik; Computersimulation; Computer based training; Computerunterstützter Unterricht; Learning process; Lernprozess; Unterrichtserfolg
Abstract	Computer-assisted learning, in the form of simulation-based training, is heavily focused upon by the military. Because computer-based learning offers highly portable, reusable, and cost-efficient training options, the military has dedicated significant resources to the investigation of instructional strategies that improve learning efficiency within this environment. In order to identify efficient instructional strategies, this paper investigates the two major learning theories that dominate the recent literature on optimizing knowledge acquisition: cognitive load theory (CLT) and constructivism. According to CLT, instructional guidance that promotes efficient learning is most beneficial. Constructivist approaches, in contrast, emphasize the importance of developing a conceptual understanding of the learning material. Supporters of these theories have debated the merits and shortcomings of both positions. However, in the absence of consensus, instructional designers lack a well-defined model for training complex skills in a rapid, efficient manner. The current study investigates the relative utility of CLT and constructivist-based approaches for teaching complex skills using a military command and control task. Findings suggest that the acquisition of procedural, declarative, and conceptual knowledge, as well as decision-making skills, did not differ as a function of the type of instruction used. However, integrated knowledge was slightly better retained by the group provided with CLT-based instruction. These results are contrary to our expectation that constructivist approaches, which focus on the development and integration of information, would yield better performance in an applied problem-based environment. Thus, while contemporary researchers continue to defend the use of constructivist strategies for teaching, our research supports earlier findings that question the utility, efficiency, and impact of these strategies in applied domains. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10