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

Unintegrated information in WM Unintegrated information in WM Working Memory Unintegrated information in WM Unintegrated information in WM Learner A Learner B

LTM Germane Load: Working Memory Learner A 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)

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM Working Memory unit of WM processing Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Learner A Learner B Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Germane processing not yet begun. Germane processing begins. Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

LTM LTM Working Memory Prior learning has produced: Poorly integrated representations in LTM Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

Well integrated schema, is only helpful if represents how things work! 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 Well integrated representations in LTM 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 Well integrated representations in LTM LTM LTM

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping …instead of focusing cognitive processing on making sense of how those surface patterns derive logically and consistently from underlying morphological structural patterns? “irregular” or confusing spellings regular written word structure do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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. “irregular” or confusing spellings regular written word structure do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business

hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping 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. “irregular” or confusing spellings regular written word structure 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 does not 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 does not duz or dose? do go es ne ing do+es  does do+ne  done do+ing  doing

Why might morphology be important for literacy development and instruction? Learned patterns expand to other words… do go es ne ing Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) do+es  does go+es  goes do+ne  done go+ne  gone do+ing  doing 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. con struct ‘build’ s ed ing ion ive or in de ob sub ure al ly Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com

in+struct + ion  instruction So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own… in+struct + ion  instruction re con struct ‘build’ s ed ing ion ive or in de ob sub ure al ly Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com

in+struct + ion  instruction de+struct+ion  destruction So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own… in+struct + ion  instruction de+struct+ion  destruction re con struct ‘build’ s ed ing ion ive or in de ob sub ure al ly Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com

in+struct + ion  instruction de+struct+ion  destruction So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own… in+struct + ion  instruction de+struct+ion  destruction struct+ure  structure re con struct ‘build’ s ed ing ion ive or in de ob sub ure al ly Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com

in+struct + ion  instruction de+struct+ion  destruction So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own… 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… re con struct ‘build’ s ed ing ion ive or in de ob sub ure al ly 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”? Structured inquiry of underlying patterns Matrix and word sums for bringing focus to building block nature of English spelling 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.

Some final “stepwise animations” of orthographic structure… 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…

r Consider this presentation of two common words: Surface similarity Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level… r

re Consider this presentation of two common words: Surface similarity Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level… re

rea Consider this presentation of two common words: Surface similarity Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level… rea

reac Consider this presentation of two common words: Surface similarity Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level… reac

How do we know how to read these words? react reach ?

re + act <ea> not a digraph reach <ea> is a digraph Find quote for eye movement studies demonstrating eye is drawn to the base first

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 reach = base (<act> main meaning of the word) re + act <ea> not a digraph reach <ea> is a digraph <c> is a grapheme <ch> is a digraph

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 reach = base (<act> main meaning of the word) re + act <ea> not a digraph reach <ea> is a digraph <c> is a grapheme <ch> is a digraph Consider…

mishap misshapen mishmash mishear How do we sort out the meaning & pronunciation of these words? mishap misshapen mishmash mishear

mishap misshapen mishmash mishear Which uses <sh> and which uses <s+h>? mishap misshapen mishmash mishear

misshapen  mis+shape/+en mishmash  mish+mash mishear  mis+hear 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

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

Consider… react  re+act reach  reach mishap  mis+hap 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| teen |tin| (like <bean>) (like <bin>)

been |bin| or |b n| teen |tin| Is there a meaning cue for the varied pronunciation of the similar letter strings? been |bin| or |b n| teen |tin| (like <bean>) (like <bin>)

be+en not <ee> digraph teen <ee> digraph

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.

<heal> ‘base’ Practice this structure by writing word sums, whild spelling the letters out loud in their morphemic groups… Matrix by Ramsden (2001) www.realspelling.com From this link www.wordworkskingston.com http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html

un+heal+th+y/i+er--> unhealthier ‘base’ heal+s --> heals heal+th--> health un+heal+th+y--> unhealthy un+heal+th+y/i+er--> unhealthier Matrix by Ramsden (2001) www.realspelling.com From this link www.wordworkskingston.com http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html

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?