Comparing the effects of Merrill & Gagne’s instructional design models on cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency

Salehi, V.; Ghanbari, B.

doi:10.22061/jte.2019.4827.2123

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

V. Salehi ¹
B. Ghanbari ²

¹ Department of Educational Sciences, Sayyed Jamaleddin Asadabadi University, Asadabad, Iran

² Department of Educational Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2019.4827.2123

Abstract

Background and Objectives: With the increasing importance of instructional multimedia and the use of their interactive and unique features in the teaching-learning process, we are witnessing the design and production of this technology and its use in teaching courses and different levels of the educational system. Cognitive load theory, as one of the theories related to information processing, is one of the most effective theories in instructional design and an effective guide for designing multimedia and other instructional materials. The basic premise of this theory is that learners have very limited working memory capacity to process when facing with new information. The purpose of this theory is to predict learning outcomes by considering the capabilities and limitations of human cognitive structure. Cognitive load theory is based on the idea that the design of instructional materials should be based on our knowledge of how the human mind works. Based on this assumption, the various processes of acquiring knowledge and understanding are explained based on the load they place on the human cognitive system (which is an active system with limited information processing capacity). Because this theory links the design features of instructional materials to the principles of human cognitive processing, it can be used in a wide range of learning environments.The present study aimed to compare the effects of Merrill and Gagne's instructional design models on students' cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency in Science lesson.
Methods: The study was quasi-experimental with pretest and posttest design with two experimental and one control groups. The statistical population consisted of all male students of the sixth grade elementary school of Qazvin. The sample including three 30 students’ classes were selected through convenience sampling procedure and the classes randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The materials and instruments included instructional multimedia contents, learning tests, and cognitive load assessment scale. The first experimental group studied the multimedia based on the Merrill model, the second group studied the multimedia based on the Gagne model and the control group studied non-model multimedia. Data were analyzed by using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
Findings: The results of the study showed that multimedia based on the Merrill instructional design model compared to multimedia based on Gagne instructional design model and non-model multimedia, has led to less cognitive load, more learning and instructional efficiency. Also, multimedia based on Gagne's instructional design model compared to non-model multimedia led to less cognitive load, more learning and instructional efficiency.

Conclusion: One of the concerns of educational designers in the process of designing the content of multimedia educational materials and other learning materials has always been focused on the appropriate selection of instructional design models. Since there are different models for instructional design of learning materials, to choose a suitable model, one should rely on theoretical foundations and the results of research conducted in various theoretical areas, including cognitive load theory. According to the findings of this study, it is suggested that in order to reduce the cognitive load and increase students’ learning, Merrill instructional design model would be used in designing instructional multimedia content.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1399.14.4.6.0

Main Subjects

Educational Technology

COPYRIGHTS
©2020 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Mayer, RE. Multimedia learning (2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.

[2] Nückles M, Hübner S, Dümer S, Renkl A. Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn. Instructional Science. 2010; 38(3):237-58.

[3] Seufert T, Schütze M, Brünken R. Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude–treatment–interaction study. Learning and Instruction. 2009; 19(1):28-42.

[4] Salehi V, Moradimokhles H, Ghasemtabar, SA, Qarabaghi H. [Effect of pre-training on nursing students’ intrinsic cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency]. Research in Medical Science Education. 2017; 9(3): 38-46. Persian.

[5] Norouzi D, Razavi A. Instructional design foundations. Tehran: Samt; 2016. Persian.

[6] Jonassen D. Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. US: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.

[7] Fardanesh H. Theoretical foundations of instructional technology. Tehran: Samt; 2012. Persian.

[8] Kalyuga S. Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. New York: Hershey; 2009.

[9] Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory. New York: Hershey; 2011.

[10] Sweller J, Paas F. Should self-regulated learning be integrated with cognitive load theory? A commentary. Learning and Instruction. 2017; 51: 85-89.

[11] Sweller J. Measuring cognitive load. Perspectives on Medical Education. 2018; 7(1): 1-2.

[12] Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Kirschner F, Zambrano J. From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2018; 13(2): 213-233.

[13] Plass JL, Moreno R, Brunken R. Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

[14] Abeysekera L, Dawson P. Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development. 2015; 34(1): 1-14.

[15] Moreno R, Mayer RE. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review. 2007; 19 (3): 309–326.

[16] Sweller J. Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation. 2011; 55: 37-76.

[17] Abdi A, Rostami M. [The effect of instruction based on cognitive load theory on academic achievement, perceived cognitive load and motivation to learning in science courses]. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation. 2018; 10(40): 43-67. Persian.

[18] Zare M, Zarei Zavaraki E, Amirteimoury M, Sarikhani R. [Comparing the extraneous cognitive load of designing an instruction with Merrill's Model between instruction by multimedia and traditional methods]. Information and Communication Technology in Educational Sciences. 2016; 3(23): 25-40. Persian.

[19] Camos V, Portrat S. The impact of cognitive load on delayed recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2015; 22(4): 1029-1034.

[20] Zare M, Salari M, Sarikhani R. [The impact of educational strategies of cognitive load theory on extraneous cognitive load and learning in physiology course]. Journal of Medical Education Development. 2016; 9(22): 44-52. Persian.

[21] Debue N, Van De Leemput C. What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5: 1099.

[22] Plass JL, Chun DM, Mayer RE, Leutner D. Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior. 2003; 19 (2): 221–243.

[23] Pastore R. The effects of time-compressed instruction and redundancy on learning and learners’ perceptions of cognitive load. Computers & Education. 2012; 58(1): 641-651.

[24] Mehrvarz M, Moradi M, Abdoli S. [Comparing the effect of teaching methods based on Dick & Carey’s instructional design model and Gagne’s instructional design model on students’ motivation and learning]. Journal of Curriculum Research. 2014; 3(2), 73-93. Persian.

[25] Moradi R, Khazaee S, Karimi R, Velayati E. [Impact of the multimedia instructional based instructional design model Ganyeh on learning and retention of mentally retarded students]. Technology of Instruction and Learning. 2016; 2(5): 47-66. Persian.

[26] Paas FG, Van Merri¨enboer JJ. The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors. 1993; 35: 737–743.

Name *

Email Address *

Affiliation *

Comments *

Security Code *

Technology of Education Journal (TEJ)

Comparing the effects of Merrill & Gagne’s instructional design models on cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 14, Issue 4 - Serial Number 56
October 2020
Pages 813-820

Comparing the effects of Merrill & Gagne’s instructional design models on cognitive load, learning and instructional efficiency

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 14, Issue 4 - Serial Number 56October 2020Pages 813-820

Volume 14, Issue 4 - Serial Number 56
October 2020
Pages 813-820