Cognitive Load Implications of Social Media in Teaching and Learning

Abstract

Teaching and learning in the 21st century had taken advantage of technology to foster effective learning through multimedia education, active learning and improved classroom interaction. Social media have particularly helped in the area of content sharing and learner collaborations. Several schools in both developing and developed nations have incorporated social media as informal Learning Management Systems (LMSs). Reports also abound on the positive contributions of these media to teaching and learning. However, the capability of these media to derail learning due to the high cognitive load generated from the extraneous processing induced by their design have not been extensively studied. This paper discusses the place of social media as educational technology in terms of its ability to foster collaborative learning, classroom communication and improved learning. The challenges associated with its use are also discussed from cognitive load standpoint based on the nature of human cognitive architecture (HCA) and information processing. Implications for essential processing, effective processing and extraneous processing are discussed. The implications for teaching and learning are also highlighted.

Full text

Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
ISSN: 3159-0040
Vol. 2 Issue 11, November - 2015
www.jmest.org
JMESTN42351156 3026
Cognitive Load Implications of Social Media in
Teaching and Learning
1,2Bosede Edwards 1Baharuddin Aris Nurbiha Shukor
1Dept. of Educational Science, Mathematics & Creative Multimedia
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Johor
2Dept. of Chemistry, School of Science
Osun State College of Education
Ilesa. Osun State. Nigeria
Abstract—Teaching and learning in the 21st
century had taken advantage of technology to
foster effective learning through multimedia
education, active learning and improved
classroom interaction. Social media have
particularly helped in the area of content sharing
and learner collaborations. Several schools in
both developing and developed nations have
incorporated social media as informal Learning
Management Systems (LMSs). Reports also
abound on the positive contributions of these
media to teaching and learning. However, the
capability of these media to derail learning due to
the high cognitive load generated from the
extraneous processing induced by their design
have not been extensively studied. This paper
discusses the place of social media as
educational technology in terms of its ability to
foster collaborative learning, classroom
communication and improved learning. The
challenges associated with its use are also
discussed from cognitive load standpoint based
on the nature of human cognitive architecture
(HCA) and information processing. Implications
for essential processing, effective processing and
extraneous processing are discussed. The
implications for teaching and learning are also
highlighted.
Keywords— social software; cognitive load;
information processing; distraction; multitasking,
collaborative learning, extraneous processing
I. INTRODUCTION
Effective learning must be focused on the
generation of schemas; that is, single, large,
extensive information chunks that are retrievable
for use at any time and requiring no further
processing [1], [2]. Effective teaching and learning
techniques should therefore foster and support
creation of schemas. Various techniques are
constantly being explored in teaching and learning
to achieve improved effectiveness. The common
thread in these techniques being collaboration or
team work, which, according to Educational
Broadcasting Corporation (EBC), can help learners
create meaningful learning experiences [3].
Students are able to engage in paced learning,
individual differences are supported, and in many
cases, personal as well as group credit accrues.
Various methods are leveraged to foster
collaborative learning; face-to-face and remote
connections are possible depending on the
learners and the learning situations as well as the
resources available. In recent times, as the use of
media and gadgets become commonplace, great
advantage is being taken of the affordances of new
media and gadgets for educational purposes. As a
result, technology is continually invading the 21st
century classroom. These changes, according to
the submission of Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE), are due to the fact
that technology enhances learning and learners
are enthusiastic about technology in education [4].
The Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL)
research of the United Kingdom also identified
some benefits of technology in education to
include its ability to support the learning of abstract
concepts through the provision of visual systems
that the learner can relate with. It can also
enhance the productivity of both teachers and
students through the use of software which cuts
down the required effort, time and cost for some
tasks [5]. Other technologies (e.g. artificial
intelligence systems) have the ability to anticipate
and meet user-needs.
II. TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
A major stride of technology in education in the
form of media is the use of social software.
Classrooms across the world now employ these
software that were originally meant for non-
academic communication. The result has been
found to be quite positive. These media offer a
platform for learner-focused education by
promoting social interaction and collaborative
learning. They stimulate ‘proactive and reactive
participation’ [6] in addition to providing a platform
for content sharing. Facebook is particularly
outstanding in its classroom invasion due to its
design which affords a lot of applications for
academic transactions.
Some of the factors that make Facebook a
unique educational tool were identified by [6]

Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
ISSN: 3159-0040
Vol. 2 Issue 11, November - 2015
www.jmest.org
JMESTN42351156 3027
through comparison with a conventional LMS.
They identified among other elements, the factors
of student-focused ownership, creation,
organization, management and sharing of content
as well as synchronous interaction. They reported
on several studies of Facebook as an academic
tool and identified the advent of Facebook ‘groups’
as a major welcome development that was to
redefine teacher-student communication.
III. FOCUS OF STUDY
The use of social software in education when
viewed from its support for collaborative learning is
tremendous. However, technology in education is
not without its negative consequences. According
to [7], the design of multimedia instruction uses two
main approaches: the technology-centered and the
learner-centered approaches. The focus of the
learner-centered approach is the nature of human
cognitive system. The three possible learning
outcomes according to Mayer include: no learning
(indicated by poor retention and poor transfer of
learning), rote learning (typified by good retention
but poor transfer) and meaningful learning
(characterized by excellent retention as well as
transfer). This is however dependent on the
learner’s cognitive activity during learning. One of
the key issues of multimedia learning therefore
focuses on the cognitive load implications.
Cognitive load refers to the mental demand
placed on the information processing system for
learning based on the nature, type and design of
the learning material. Hence, this paper is focused
on the assessment of the implications of social
software in Education from cognitive load
perspectives. It will highlight the implications for
teaching and learning, retention and transfer as the
ultimate goal of instruction. It will also make
recommendations for addressing the identified
challenges.
IV. SOCIAL MEDIA EDUCATION: POSITIVES
The use of social software in education affords
several opportunities and advantages. Applications
for in-class use as well as for out-of-class
communication are extensive and have been
explored by many teachers in institutions across
the world. Some of the key affordances are
discussed.
A. Collaborative Learning and Classroom
Communication
Collaborative learning is greatly enhanced
through the use of social software. Classroom
communication and the sharing of content
(graphics, video, animations, documents), links
and many other educational materials are possible.
Groups within a large class group can also
collaborate separately and carry on private
discussion among the few members. Such
discussion can be labelled for easy reference or for
a revisit by members.
Through Facebook groups, classroom
communication is extended beyond the classroom.
Sharing of content including documents and
various multimedia materials are possible and out-
of-class ‘live’ interactions are enabled by the
asynchronous capabilities afforded by the platform.
These groups afford various modes of connection
and participants in a course or programme can
learn together ‘alone’ in their course group without
interferences from ‘outside’ the class. The teacher
is also able to provide guidance, corrections and
share useful materials with the learners. These
software can be great assets in distance education
settings.
B. Fostering Improved Learning
According to [8], various factors that support
improved education include factors of collaborative
learning (Fig 1). They submit that the identification
of a clear purpose for the learning as well as the
use of repetition is important for effective learning
but also identified the creation of stories, break-
times, enjoyment as well as the use of visuals
among other things as important factors. These
techniques work by supporting encoding of
information which is fundamental to retention and
learning. The techniques also underscore the
importance of engagement and motivation in
learning as factors that foster transfer and storage
and the creation of schemas (Fig 1).
V. SOCIAL MEDIA IN EDUCATION:
NEGATIVES
One of the key challenges of technology in
education is multitasking or engagement with
multiple media or gadgets. With the proliferation of
media and gadgets came the need for individuals
to attempt to do many things at the same time.
This is necessarily a challenge to learning where
there is an overriding need for focus or learner
engagement.
A. Multitasking and Distraction
According to [9], 72 hours of video content
alone goes online on YouTube every minute. This
amounts to 12-year content per week, putting the
normal person under the constant pressure to
meet up with so much information. Hence, the
need to continually multitask. This situation is
described by [9] as the ‘fear of missing out’ or
‘FOMO’. The effective 21st century person is thus
often found trying to ‘meet up’ by multitasking. This
is also carried on into the classroom. Multitasking
is defined by [10] as the ‘simultaneous execution of
two or more processing activities’. It is a parallel
processing function which [11] believe the
members of the ‘net’ generation are enabled for by
virtue of their relationship with technology.

Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
ISSN: 3159-0040
Vol. 2 Issue 11, November - 2015
www.jmest.org
JMESTN42351156 3028
However, many researchers [12],[13],[14],[15]
opined humans are incapable of multitasking.
Fig 1. Techniques for Improving Education
This is in spite of the fact that supporters of
multitasking believe it is the ‘way to go’ in the age
of information and it is promoted by the business
world and touted as the selling point for new tools,
gadgets and media. Invariably, humans are
expected to function the way these gadgets and
tools would. There is however no denying the fact
that multitasking constitutes a great source of
distraction. [16] in his article, reported on a Havard
study of distracted driving in America which
identifies 2,600 annual deaths and 330,000
moderate and severe injury cases resulting from
cell-phone distractions during driving alone. There
is therefore reason to expect ‘danger’ to learning
as well. Research actually attests to the
detrimental effect of multitasking on the brain and
personality [17] as well as the fact that ‘distractions
make learning harder’ [18]
VI. SOCIAL MEDIA IN EDUCATION AND THE
COGNITIVE LOAD EFFECTS
Information processing in the human memory
system is influenced by the design of the HCA.
This is because of the limitations of the working
memory responsible for information processing.
Cognitive resources are allocated in the HCA for
the handling of cognitive load which have three
components as identified. When social software is
being used, the learner is exposed to multiple
processing and distractions from sources including
posts and comments, chats, uploads (multimedia,
web links, etc.), notifications on the activities of
other connected users and many other factors
inherent in the design of the social software. The
implications of social media in education viewed
from cognitive load perspective are therefore
discussed from information processing
standpoints.
A. The Human Cognitive Architecture (HCA)
and Information Processing
The HCA describes the nature, design and
properties of the human memory system [19]. It
describes the manner in which information is
processed by humans as well as the limitations of
the human memory system. The HCA provides a
layout of the memory system as a 3-part structure
(Fig. 2) composed of an external or physical
sensory memory, a working memory that
constitutes the seat of information processing [20],
[21], [22] and a long term memory that is
responsible for storage of processed information
[23], [24].
The key significance of the HCA in education
lies in the capacity of the working memory [20],
[21], [22]. While the long term memory is unlimited
in its capacity, the working memory is quite limited;
able to process only a very small amount of
information at a given time. As a result of this,
when there is information overload, the processing
demand may exceed the capacity of the working
memory and the processing become ineffective,
resulting in consequent loss of material.
Ref [7] identified the implications of cognitive
load for essential processing, effective processing
and extraneous processing. He discussed the
need to employ cognitive load principles in the use
of media and technology in education and provided
insights on the means by which this might be
achieved.
B. Cognitive Load and Information Processing
According to cognitive load theory [19], [20],
[21], every learning material imposes a mental
demand or cognitive load on the working memory.
Total cognitive load (CLt) have three components
[23], [25] that are summative in nature. These are
the intrinsic load (CLint), the extraneous load (CLext)
and the germane load (CLger). The three
components are related such that,
CLint + CLext + CLger = CLt
This total capacity (CLt) cannot be exceeded;
hence an increase in one component can only
cause a decrease in others or vice versa. The
intrinsic load or CLint is a property of the learning
material and cannot be manipulated. CLext and
CLger can however be manipulated. Though both
CLext and CLger are functions of instructional
design/presentation, CLext is undesirable because
it constitutes a waste of cognitive resources and
does not contribute to learning. It is occasioned by
bad presentation of instruction, unnecessary
materials or activities that are unrelated to or
distracting from the learning tasks; this include
multitasks and distractions.
1) Implications for essential processing
The learning material constitutes the intrinsic
load. This load represents the mental demand
inherent in and native to the learning material. It is
the cognitive resource required to process the
learning material. It is ‘unalterable’ and can only be
managed in such a way that the learner is
supported to achieve effective processing.

Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
ISSN: 3159-0040
Vol. 2 Issue 11, November - 2015
www.jmest.org
JMESTN42351156 3029
Mayer suggested the use of paced presentation for
addressing this; that is, presentation of instruction in
small sequential parts rather than as a whole chunk of
heavy material. This will assist the learner in
mastering content in a stepwise manner such that
cognitive resources can be allocated according to the
need of each part.
2) Implications for effective processing
Effective cognitive load or germane load (CLger)
contributes positively to learning. It is invested in
effective transfer and storage of fully processed
materials. In other words, it is required for the
formation of schemas. This refers to chunks of
learnt materials that have been automated and
needs no more processing but available for use
whenever needed. Good instruction is therefore
one that maximizes CLger. Cognitive load devoted
to effective processing is cognitive resource
effectively employed.
3) Implications for extraneous processing
When multitasking is viewed within the context
of cognitive load theory, it can be understood that
having to handle many tasks simultaneously
demands a correspondingly huge working memory
capacity that can easily become unaffordable for
the memory system. This is extraneous processing
and can result in ineffective learning. Materials
capable of causing extraneous processing include
unnecessary texts, graphics, sounds and other
similar cognitive activities. They constitute the
extraneous load, causing unnecessary processing,
transfer losses and poor storage (reduced
germane load) and a defeat of the ultimate goal of
instruction.
Allocation of cognitive resources in the HCA is
depicted in Fig 2. The green arrows depict
information received in the sensory memory while
the thick arrows represent cognitive resources
allocated to intrinsic, germane and extraneous
loads in the Working Memory. The red arrows
represent fully processed information as schema
passed into the long term memory for storage
while the long broken arrows symbolize wasted
cognitive resources devoted to extraneous
processing which makes no contribution to learning
but rather defeats transfer and storage.
4) Implications for Teaching and Learning
The implications of social software in education
from cognitive load viewpoint can be summarized
based on the operations of working memory and
long term memory. When social media is employed
in education, the design of the interface could
constitute a source of multitasking and distraction
to the learner. This imposes cognitive load on the
working memory system as the extraneous
processing competes for the consumption of
cognitive resources. This can impose additional
threat on concentration and engagement with
learning, resulting in ineffective learning.
It is possible that extraneous processing may
override the learning materials in the competition
for cognitive resources due to the fact that they are
less demanding on attention, more engaging and
more motivating. This can jeopardize the entire
learning process. Furthermore, the demands
placed by this extraneous processing in addition to
those legitimately placed by essential processing
of actual learning material may exceed the working
memory capacity. Failure of processing in the
working memory will result in ineffective transfer
and consequent ineffective storage, thereby
jeopardizing the formation of schema and a
compromise of the goal of education.
VII. CONCLUSION
Social software in education have great benefits
as effective platforms for multimedia education,
content sharing and collaborations. They can
provide cost-effective platforms for collaborative
and peer learning and academic communications
at various levels and modes of education. The fact
that they are designed primarily for social rather
than academic communication must however not
be lost on especially learners, teachers and
designers of instruction. Efforts at using these
software should be with cognizance to the
cognitive load implications of their employment to
achieve effectiveness. Instructional design
employing social media should focus at minimizing
cognitive load. Learners should understand the
dangers of distractions during learning while
teachers should take into account these factors
during instructional presentation.
VIII. RECOMMENDATION
The use of social software should leverage on
cognitive load principles as presented in the
cognitive load theory. Principles that foster
essential processing, effective processing and
those that reduce extraneous processing should
be employed for use with social software for
education. Instructional methods that leverage on
the increase of learner motivation and engagement
with learning materials should also be employed
Fig. 2. Cognitive Load & Resource Allocation in the HCA

Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)
ISSN: 3159-0040
Vol. 2 Issue 11, November - 2015
www.jmest.org
JMESTN42351156 3030
REFERENCES
[1] Recker, M. “Overview of Lev Vygotsky's
Theory. Learning and Communication
Theories in Instructional Technology”, 1996
Utah State Univ.
[2] McLeod, S. A. Jean Piaget. 2009 [Online]
http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
[3] Educational Broadcasting Corporation, EBC.
“Cooperative and collaborative learning”.
Concept to Classroom Workshop. 2004.
[4] HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council
for England). Effective Practice in a Digital
Age: A guide to technology-enhanced
learning and teaching. JISC Innovation
Group, 2009. University of Bristol.
[5] Technology-Enhanced Learning. “Does
technology enhance learning? Some findings
from UK’s Technology Enhanced Learning
(TEL) Research Programme”, 2011. London:
Knowledge Lab
[6] Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G. and Pieterse E.
Facebook Groups as LMS: A Case Study.
The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 13, 2012 (4) 33-
48
[7] Mayer, R. Multimedia Learning 2nd Ed.,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2009
[8] Ludescher, F., Rahbek, K., Jensen, I.,
Kumpulainen, K., Jackson, K. and Madrid D.,
et al. Brain-friendly Learning. Teachers
Manual. Brain-friendly Accelerated Language
Learning (BALL) Project of the Pädagogische
Akademie Feldkirch (Austria), Jelling
Seminarium (Denmark), University of Lapland
(Finland), Universidad de Granada (Spain)
and Kölcsey Ferenc Reformatus Tanitoképzö
Föiskola in Debrecen (Hungary). [Online]
http://www2.vobs.at/ball-
online/main_menu.htm
[9] Nurun. Multitasking: Focus and Dispersion in
the Age of FOMO. Our Thinking: Emerging
Behaviour. 2013. [Online]
http://www.nurun.com/en/our-
thinking/emerging-behavior/multitasking-
focus-and-dispersion-in-the-age-of-fomo/
[10] Kirschner, P. and Karpinski, A. (2010).
“Facebook and academic performance”.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, (6),
pp1237-1245, 2010.
[11] Prensky, M. Digital game-based learning.
Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 1(1), 2003,
pp21-21
[12] Bullen, M., Morgan, T. and Qayyum, A. Digital
Learners in Higher Education: Looking
Beyond Stereotypes. In T. Bastiaens & M.
Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia,
Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011,
pp678-687. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
[13] Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T.,
Waycott, J., Bennett, S., Maton, K., Krause,
K., Bishop, A., Chang, R. & Churchward, A.
The net generation are not big users of Web
2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In R.
Atkinson, C. Mcbeath, A. Soong Swee Kit &
C. Cheers (Eds.) Proceedings of ASCILITE
Singapore: ICT: Providing Choices for
Learners and Learning. 2007, pp517-525.
Australia: ASCILITE.
[14] Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray,
K., and Krause, K. First year students’
experience with technology: Are they really
digital natives? Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology 24(1), 2008, pp108-
122
[15] Kvavik, R. Convenience, communications,
and control: How students use technology. In
D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating
the Net Generation: 7.1-7.20. 2005.
EDUCAUSE.
http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen
/ (accessed November 19, 2009)
[16] Richtel, M. Driven to distraction: Drivers and
legislators dismiss cellphone risks. The New
York Times. 2009. [Online]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technolog
y/19distracted.html?_r=0
[17] Wallis, C. The impacts of media multitasking
on children’s learning and development:
Report from a research seminar, New York,
NY. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at
Sesame Workshop, 2010.
[18] Stevenson, P. Distractions make learning
harder. CBS News. July 24, 5:27pm, 2006
[19] Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem
solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive
Science, 12, 1988, pp257-285
[20] Paas F., Ayres P. and Pachman M.
Assessment of Cognitive Load in Multimedia
Learning: Theory, Methods and Applications
In Robinson D. and Schraw G. (Eds). Recent
Innovations in Educational Technology that
Facilitate Student Learning. 2008. USA.
Information Age.
[21] Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. Cognitive
load theory: Instructional implications of the
interaction between information structures
and cognitive architecture. Instructional
Science, 2004a, pp32, 1-8.
[22] Paas, F., Renkl, A. and Sweller, J. (eds.).
Cognitive Load Theory. Instructional Science
32, 2004b (1–2; special issue)
[23] Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. Nine ways to
reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.
Educational psychologist, 38(1), 2003, pp43-
52.
[24] Kirsh D. (2000). A Few Thoughts on Cognitive
Overload. Intellectica, 1, 30, 2000, pp. 19-51
[25] De Jong, T. Cognitive load theory,
educational research, and instructional
design: some food for thought. Instructional
Science, 38(2), 2010, pp105-134.