A Cognitive Load Approach to Collaborative Learning: United Brains for Complex Tasks

Abstract

This article presents a review of research comparing the effectiveness of individual learning environments with collaborative learning environments. In reviewing the literature, it was determined that there is no clear and unequivocal picture of how, when, and why the effectiveness of these two approaches to learning differ, a result which may be due to differing complexities of the learning tasks used in the research and the concomitant load imposed on the learner's cognitive system. Based upon cognitive load theory, it is argued that learning by an individual becomes less effective and efficient than learning by a group of individuals as task complexity increases. Dividing the processing of information across individuals is useful when the cognitive load is high because it allows information to be divided across a larger reservoir of cognitive capacity. Although such division requires that information be recombined and that processing be coordinated, under high load conditions, these costs are minimal compared to the gain achieved by this division of labor. In contrast, under low load conditions, an individual can adequately carry out the required processing activities, and the costs of recombination and coordination are relatively more substantial. Implications of these ideas for research and practice of collaborative learning are discussed.Keywords Collaborative learning . Cognitive load . Task complexity . Brain science Contemporary learning paradigms argue for the facilitation of lifelong learning in collaborative as opposed to individual environments. This is based upon the premise that the collaboration process will include discussion, argumentation, and reflection upon the task at hand, thus leading to deeper processing of the information and richer and more

Effects of increased self-regulated learning opportunities on student teachers’ metacognitive and motivational development

“…In addition, the transaction costs (communication and coordination within the group) should be kept to a minimum to ensure positive interdependence (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009). …”

Example-Based Learning: Integrating Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Research Perspectives

“…Kirschner et al showed that learning from "traditional" worked examples on a highly structured task (heredity problems) was more effective when done individually than collaboratively, whereas learning by solving conventional problems was more effective when done collaboratively than individually. They explained this in terms of the amount of cognitive load involved: because worked examples impose less cognitive load on individual learners than problem solving, the learning task can easily be performed by the individual, whereas problem solving imposes higher cognitive load, which can be shared by group members in collaborative learning situations (see also Kirschner et al 2009). In contrast, Chi et al showed that collaboratively observing a tutoring session and solving the same problems as the tutee in that session was more effective for learning than individual observation.…”

Group awareness tools: It’s what you do with it that matters

“…In sum, CSCL environments should incorporate tools or mechanisms that offer students group awareness information to facilitate coordination and regulation of activities in both spaces. Such tools are called group awareness tools (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009;Van Bruggen, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002).…”

“…Moreover, collaboration also requires coordination or regulation of activities in the relational space (cf., Yager, Johnson, Johnson, & Snider, 1986). During collaboration, group members have to discuss collaboration strategies, monitor collaboration processes, and evaluate and reflect on the manner in which they collaborated (Kirschner et al, 2009). …”