The objective of the research is to identify how differing methods of instructional sequence affects student performance and levels of cognitive load.

There is a now a research gap, i.e. lack of understanding as to how instruction should be sequenced in online learning.

Research questions: 

-       What are the different possible instructional sequences that are compatible with cognitive architecture? 

-       What instructional sequences lead to higher levels of student performance and lower levels of cognitive load.  

Research objectives:

-       Develop a framework for assessing which instructional sequences correspond to human cognitive architecture. 

-       Develop materials for an experimental environment under our control to test      varied sequences of instruction.  

-       Conduct an experiment comparing levels of cognitive load for unsupported problem solving, example free instruction and worked examples. 

-       Conduct an experiment comparing levels of cognitive load as well as student performance for an inductive vs a deductive sequence of instruction.

Theoretical framework:

The Cognitive load theory: the three main elements are intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. Intrinsic load represents content complexity, and is dependent on the amount of prior knowledge of the learners (Leahy & Sweller, 2019). While a level of intrinsic load is required for learning to occur, excessively high levels can have a negative effect on processing information in the working memory (Sweller, et al., 2019). This occurs when information is overly complex due to an abundance of interacting elements required to be processed at a single time, and one way to help learners deal with it is to break down content into separate manageable parts (Lu, Kalyuga, & Sweller, 2020). Reflective of poor instructional design, extraneous load  represents information delivered to learners that is not relevant to the learning process, and therefore contributes negatively to the overall processing load in the working memory (Sweller, et al., 2019). Germane load is the lone element in which higher levels are desirable to the learning process. It represents a deeper level of understanding due to efficient cognitive effort when dealing with intrinsic load, and therefore is not considered an additive source of cognitive load (Kirschner, et al., 2018). Although germane load is a unique element of cognitive load theory because it does not contribute to the overall load in the working memory, Sweller et al. (2019) recognize its relevance in that it represents a redistribution of processing effort away from elements not relevant for learning a particular task.

The ways to deliver content are still argued, some studies advocate the benefits of inductive teaching methods (discovery-oriented learning), other favor deductive teaching methods (euse of explicit instructions to present new information to novices). Researchers who reject problem-first inductive teaching methods often claim that it is incompatible with human cognitive architecture as described by cognitive load theory (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998, 2019). When discovering new concepts, the limited resources of the learner’s working memory may be fully allocated to the process of discovery and exploration, increasing the cognitive load and leaving no room for learning. However inductive learning leaves room for possibilities to provide learners with needed support while introducing problem solving first. 

Furthermore researchers claim the methods to be chosen should depend on the instructional goad, learners’ characteristics and other conditions in order to make learning effective, efficient, and attractive. There is a need for empirical evidence to prove that assumption.

- Controlled Random Experiments - Subjective measurements of three types of cognitive load through survey items (Leppink et al., 2013)

Findings of the 1st experiment: - Students’ levels of cognitive load differ by condition. - Inductive instructional methods with unsupported problem solving has a negative impact on intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. - The types of learning activities (example free instruction, unsupported problem solving, worked examples) do not have a significant impact on germane cognitive load. Hypotheses of the 2nd experiment - Instructional sequence affects cognitive load and performance - Inductive expository teaching with unsupported problem solving first imposes the highest intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, as a result worse performance - Inductive expository teaching with supported problem solving (goal-free problems) first has a positive impact on germane cognitive load and performance - Deductive expository teaching is more familiar to Russian students and therefore decreases extraneous load

1.Ashman, Greg & Kalyuga, Slava & Sweller, John. (2020). Problem-solving or Explicit Instruction: Which Should Go First When Element Interactivity Is High?. Educational Psychology Review. 32 2.Chen O., Woolcott G. & Kalyuga S. (2021) Comparing alternative sequences of examples and problem-solving tasks: the case of conceptual knowledge, Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 38:1, 158-170 3.Kapur, Manu. (2016). Examining Productive Failure, Productive Success, Unproductive Failure, and Unproductive Success in Learning. Educational Psychologist. 51. 1-11. 4.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 75-86 5.Lazonder AW, Harmsen R. Meta-Analysis of Inquiry-Based Learning: Effects of Guidance. Review of Educational Research. 2016;86(3):681-718 6.Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory, resource depletion and the delayed testing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 1-22. 7.Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 693-715. 8.Lu, J., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Altering element interactivity and variability in example-practice sequences to enhance learning to write Chinese characters. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34, 837–843. 9.McLaren B.M., van Gog T., Ganoe C., Yaron D., Karabinos M. (2014) Exploring the Assistance Dilemma: Comparing Instructional Support in Examples and Problems. In: Trausan-Matu S., Boyer K.E., Crosby M., Panourgia K. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8474. Springer, Cham. 10.Renkl A. & Atkinson R. K. (2003) Structuring the Transition From Example Study to Problem Solving in Cognitive Skill Acquisition: A Cognitive Load Perspective, Educational Psychologist, 38:1, 15-22 11.Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292. 12.Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers and Education, 64, 153-160.