Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:16:18.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Online reading: a preliminary study of the impact of integrated and split-attention formats on L2 students’ cognitive load

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

Saleh Al-Shehri  and
Christina Gitsaki
Saleh Al-Shehri*
Affiliation:
School of Education, The University of Queensland, Australia (email: salehmm23@hotmail.com)
Christina Gitsaki*
Affiliation:
Sharjah Higher Colleges of Technology, United Arab Emirates (email: christina.gitsaki@hct.ac.ae)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cognitive load theory has been utilized by second language acquisition (SLA) researchers to account for differences in learner performance with regards to different learning tasks. Certain instructional designs were shown to have an impact on cognitive load and working memory, and this impact was found to be accentuated in a multimedia environment where there is a variety of interacting elements and tools that can lead to cognitive overload and consequently reduced learning outcomes. This study investigated the influence of split-attention and integrated instructional formats on students’ cognitive load and how they might facilitate second language online reading and vocabulary learning. Twenty English as a Second Language (ESL) intermediate students studying at an Australian language institution were randomly assigned to four conditions: SAND (Split-Attention No Dictionary), SAOD (Split-Attention with Online Dictionary), IFND (Integrated Format No Dictionary), and IFOD (Integrated Format with Online Dictionary). Subjects were asked to complete an online reading comprehension task in which subjects tested under the SAND and SAOD conditions were exposed to a typical reading text followed by comprehension questions, whereas subjects in the IFND and IFOD conditions were exposed to a reading text where the comprehension questions were physically inserted within the reading text. Under the SAOD and IFOD conditions, subjects had access to an online dictionary. Results showed that the integrated reading format was found to facilitate students’ reading comprehension more than the split-attention format. Also, students who had access to the online dictionary in the SAOD and IFOD groups performed better on the vocabulary test, but spent more time on the reading task than the other two groups. Furthermore, participants in the split-attention format group looked up more words than their counterparts in the integrated format group. The results of the present study have certain implications for multimedia instructional designers and ESL teachers.

Keywords

cognitive loadmultimedia learningsecond language (L2) online readingonline dictionarysplit-attention formatintegrated format
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 356 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akbulut, Y. (2007) Effects of multimedia annotations on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of advanced learners of English as a foreign language. Instructional Science, 35(6): 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardac, D.Unal, S. (2008) Does the amount of on-screen text influence student learning from a multimedia-based instructional unit? Instructional Science, 36(1): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L.Leutner, D. (2004) Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effect. Instructional Science, 32(1–2): 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M. (2001) L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5): 367–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M.Payne, J. S. (2004) What makes students click: Working memory and look-up behavior. System, 32(4): 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coady, J.Tozcu, A. (2004) Successful learning of frequent vocabulary through CALL also benefits reading comprehension and speed. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5): 473–495.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, A. I. (2007) Using technology to assist in vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. The Internet TESL Journal. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Constantinescu-Vocabulary.htmlGoogle Scholar
DeStefano, D.LeFevre, J. (2007) Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3): 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P.Scheiter, K. (2003) Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1): 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K.Catrambone, R. (2004) Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1–2): 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, M. (2003) Assessing learning from hypertext: An individual differences perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4): 425–438.Google Scholar
Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B.Sweller, J. (2007) Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6): 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, H. C. M. (2007) Reducing extraneous cognitive load by using integrated format in reading comprehension for EFL/ESL. In: Gitsaki, C. (ed.), Language and Languages: Global and Local Tensions. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 130–146.Google Scholar
Kandil, A. (2003) CALL lab and increasing students’ reading speeds. In: Syed, Z., Coombe, C. and Troudi, S. (eds.), Critical reflection and practice: TESOL Arabia 2002 conference proceedings. UAE: TESOL Arabia, 360–380.Google Scholar
Keller, T., Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K.Garsoffky, B. (2006) Information visualizations for knowledge acquisition: The impact of dimensionality and color coding. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1): 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M.Stockwell, G. (2006) CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mikk, J. (2008) Sentence length for revealing the cognitive load reversal effect in text comprehension. Educational Studies, 34(2): 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2004) Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1–2): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R.Valdez, A. (2005) Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 53(3): 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozono, S.Ito, H. (2003) Logical connectives as catalysts for interactive L2 reading. System, 31(2): 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. (2007) Manipulating L2 learners’ online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word retention. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2): 36–58.Google Scholar
Pillay, H. K. (1994) Cognitive load and mental rotation: Structuring orthographic projection for learning and problem solving. Instructional Science, 22(2): 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, M. D., Mayer, M. A.Leutner, D. (2003) Cognitive load in reading a foreign text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(2): 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P.Sweller, J. (2002) Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1): 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawaki, Y. (2001) Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language. Language Learning & Technology, 5(2): 38–59.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W.Kürschner, C. (2007) A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4): 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2): 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G.Paas, F. (1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3): 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Merrienboer, J. J. G.Sweller, J. (2005) Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2): 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Schaik, P.Ling, J. (2003) The effect of link colour on information retrieval in educational intranet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(5): 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, A., Jin, P.Sweller, J. (1997) Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split attention and redundancy effects in reading and explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar