Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by...
-
Upload
brianne-poole -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by...
![Page 1: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Working Draft:A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load
theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word structure
Pete Bowers Nov. 12/07
This slide show is just a draft made to think through cognitive load theory and how it might relate to my research on written word structure instruction based on Real Spelling teaching tools (Ramsden, 2001). It was made light of conversations with John Kirby and these three main readings:
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417-423.
Schnotz, W & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychology Review. 19, 496-508.
Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects of Animations in Multimedia Learning: Why Reduction of Cognitive Load Can Have Negative Results on Learning. Educational Technology Research & Development (53) 3, 47-58
![Page 2: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Working Memory
Unintegrated information in WM
Unintegrated information in WM
Learner A Learner B
![Page 3: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Germane Load:
Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
LTM
![Page 4: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
Working Memory
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTM
Learner A Learner B
LTM
![Page 5: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
Working Memory
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTM
unit of WM
processing Learner A Learner B
![Page 6: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 7: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 8: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 9: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 10: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 11: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Learner A Learner B
![Page 12: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
LTM
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Germane processing begins.
Germane processing not yet begun.
![Page 13: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
LTM
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
LTM
![Page 14: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM LTM
Working Memory
![Page 15: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM LTM
Working Memory
![Page 16: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM LTM
Working Memory
![Page 17: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM
Working Memory
Well integrated schema, is only helpful if represents
how things work!
![Page 18: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM LTM
Again… Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
For Educators to consider:
![Page 19: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Prior learning has produced:
Poorly integrated representations in
LTM
Well integrated representations in
LTMLTM LTM
For consideration: How well does typical instruction of the written word make use of this principle of instructional design? Might word structure instruction be a way of targeting well integrated mental representations of schemas for how the written word works to represent meaning?
Appropriate Instructional design encourages students to engage in cognitive processing that targets the construction of well integrated mental representation of schema.
(Paas & van Merriënboer, 1994; Schnotz & Kurschner, 2007)
![Page 20: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
Typical classroom instruction directs cognitive processing at surface patterns of ‘letter-sound’ correspondences. These patterns seem to break down randomly on some words and are treated as irregular (e.g. does, business).
“irregular” or confusing spellings
![Page 21: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
Some words have surface patterns that are not seen as irregular, but inconsistent letter-sound patterns make the formation of stable schemas difficult.
How does a child remember which spelling (hopping or hoping) describes what rabbits do?
“irregular” or confusing spellings
![Page 22: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Without knowledge of the details of how word structure works, teachers can hope to help students remember spellings like these, but they can’t build a coherent understanding of the principles which govern the spelling system and apply to all complex words.
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
“irregular” or confusing spellings
![Page 23: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
“irregular” or confusing spellings
What are the implications for the learner when instruction is limited to surface patterns of already constructed words……
![Page 24: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
“irregular” or confusing spellings
…instead of focusing cognitive processing on making sense of how those surface patterns derive logically and consistently from underlying morphological structural patterns?
regular written word structure
![Page 25: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
The surface patterns of all of these words can be clearly demonstrated as the result of extremely consistent underlying structural principles. The spellings of these words can be understood though instruction about underlying morpho-phonological structure of English spelling.
“irregular” or confusing spellingsregular written word structure
![Page 26: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
do + es --> does hop(p) + ing --> hopping hope/ + ing --> hoping busy/i + ness --> business
The word sum and the word matrix (following slides) are simple tools that teachers can use to point to the underlying morphological structure of any complex word.
“irregular” or confusing spellingsregular written word structure
![Page 27: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
The following slides are have been adapted from presentations for teachers and parents. They show how the word sum and the word matrix draw a learner’s attention to the coherent structure of English spelling with any complex word. For example the word <does> is used as a context to teach coherent, fundamental patterns that structure all complex words.
These slides are presented here to with the suggestion that this instruction seems to be an excellent match for what we know about learners’ “cognitive architecture” as described by cognitive load theory. Consider just two ways this instruction might effectively develop well integrated mental representation of written word schemas, in part by reducing extraneous load, while maximizing germane load…
![Page 28: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
1) Concrete representations of written word structure with matrices and word sums enable the use of “worked examples” of word structure. Such instruction facilitates explicit discussion, investigation and manipulation of complex patterns (germane load) while minimizing extraneous load. For example the word sum allows the learner to see each meaning unit of a complex word, how they combine (with or without suffixing changes) to create a completed spelling. This information does not need to be held in working memory while considering meaning connections and any pronunciation changes between derivations.
2) Consistent patterns are regularly reinforced with continued study. Integrated mental representations in LTM are strengthened and expanded with continued study instead of countered with frequent exceptions to previous learned rules (eg. I before e, except after c).
Do the following examples fit this description?
![Page 29: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Why might morphology be important for literacy development and instruction?
It clarifies the system…
Why does
not duz or dose?
Instruction limited to surface patterns, cannot explain the logical, consistent structure of <does>, but <duz> or <dose> are not.
![Page 30: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Why might morphology be important for literacy development and instruction?
It clarifies the system…
Why does
not duz or dose?
do
go
es
ne
ing
do+es doesdo+ne donedo+ing doing
![Page 31: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Why might morphology be important for literacy development and instruction?
Learned patterns expand to other words… do
go
es
ne
ing
do+es does go+es goes do+ne done go+ne gonedo+ing doing go+ing going
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001)
![Page 32: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
The following sequence of lessons directs students’ attention to the pattern for dropping silent <e>…
Matrix by Ramsden(2001) www.realspelling.com
![Page 33: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Test hypothesis with a wider set of words…
Clarify precision of the pattern.
Matrix by Ramsden(2001) www.realspelling.com
![Page 34: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Now that the consistent pattern has been established, this flow chart is used to practice this pattern systematically. Such practice aims to build coherent schemas in LTM so that recognition of this pattern can become automated.
The consistent patterns for consonant doubling and y/i patterns can be taught with similar flow charts.
![Page 35: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
A sketch of “Word Structured Inquiry”
Learning how to build words with meaning units helps you learn how to take written words apart into their meaning units.
Word structure knowledge and strategies for orthographic investigations with the aid of references are both reinforced and expanded as teachers explicitly teach how to apply that knowledge in the study of any content area.
![Page 36: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Students discover that lessons they learn in their explicit orthographic instruction and practice, is effective for making sense of printed words. Interesting and surprising discoveries, regularly sparked by students, are made. They identify questions to which teachers don’t know immediate answers.
Students get the opportunity to observe a mature learner find answers to questions. The teacher can take advantage of this context to explicitly break down the process of working out problems.
![Page 37: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Students discover that lessons they learn in their explicit orthographic instruction and practice, is effective for making sense of printed words. Interesting and surprising discoveries, regularly sparked by students, are made. They identify questions to which teachers don’t know immediate answers.
Students get the opportunity to observe a mature learner find answers to questions. The teacher can take advantage of this context to explicitly break down the process of working out problems.
The student who posed a question that was good enough that the teacher had to work to find an answer is likely to be interested in the answer. Students often work hard and independently to come up with good questions in classes learning in this way.
![Page 38: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
With more practice breaking words in to bases and affixes, we get better at seeing morphemes inside words and problem-solving word connections like these:
instruct: instructions / instructor / instructed
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
![Page 39: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
![Page 40: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Seems to be some kind of meaning connection, but the structure confuses. The pieces don’t seem to fit.
![Page 41: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Applying word structure knowledge to new contexts
And then a child notices: destruction and structure…
They ask, “Don’t these connect to instruction also?”
Seems to be some kind of meaning connection, but the structure confuses. The pieces don’t seem to fit.
Strategy: Look for structure and meaning cues. - Peel off any affixes?
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
![Page 42: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
We know the prefixes <in-> and <de->…
in+struction and de+struction
but <struction>, doesn’t make any sense.
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
![Page 43: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
We know the prefixes <in-> and <de->…
in+struction and de+struction
but <struction>, doesn’t make any sense.
The word <structure> could have a <-ure> suffix, and the others could use an <-ion> suffix.
struct+ure; in+stuct+ion; de+struct+ion
But <struct> isn’t a word either. Students have discovered something that needs teaching…
Example “Word Structured Inquiry”
![Page 44: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
re con
struct‘build’
sedingion iveor
indeob
sub
ure
eding
al ly
There are bases, that are never words on their own.
![Page 45: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own…
in+struct + ion instruction
re con
struct‘build’
sedingion iveor
indeob
sub
ure
eding
al ly
![Page 46: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own…
in+struct + ion instruction de+struct+ion destruction
re con
struct‘build’
sedingion iveor
indeob
sub
ure
eding
al ly
![Page 47: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own…
in+struct + ion instruction de+struct+ion destructionstruct+ure structure
re con
struct‘build’
sedingion iveor
indeob
sub
ure
eding
al ly
![Page 48: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Word matrix (Ramsden, 2001) www.realspelling.com
So, instruction, destruction and structure were connected in meaning and structure by a base that is not a word on its own…
in+struct + ion instruction de+struct+ion destructionstruct+ure structure
Teaching this matrix introduces students to the wider word family including:
construct, obstruction, substructure, instructive, instructor, structurally…
re con
struct‘build’
sedingion iveor
indeob
sub
ure
eding
al ly
![Page 49: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written word instruction:
If instruction that builds cohesive, well-integrated mental schemas in the LTM facilitates efficient, effective learning, isn’t it particularly important that instruction directs students to an accurate understanding of how written word structure works?
Are the teaching tools and strategies identified here “linking instruction to cognitive architecture”?
1) Structured inquiry of underlying patterns
2) Matrix and word sums for bringing focus to building block nature of English spelling
3) Flow charts to practice specific patterns
![Page 50: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written word instruction:
Most children learn to be successful readers and writers with the aid of instruction that is based on what would be considered the best research evidence.
However, the vast majority of even the most successful students who receive this instruction will spend the rest of their literate life assuming that English spelling is irregular and doesn’t merit a great deal of attention.
![Page 51: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written word instruction:
The students who fail despite what is considered best practice for classroom and remedial instruction, are not failing to remember and apply the regular morphophonolgical patterns that structure words. These children have not yet had this underlying regularity presented to them.
We do not yet have research that has investigated the learning of children who learn to read and write with the support of instruction that -- from the very beginning -- constantly points to the order and structure of how English spelling works to represent meaning.
![Page 52: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Thoughts on linking Cognitive Load Theory to written word instruction:
The students who fail despite what is considered best practice for classroom and remedial instruction, are not failing to remember and apply the regular morphophonolgical patterns that structure words. These children have not yet had this underlying regularity presented to them.
We do not yet have research that has investigated the learning of children who learn to read and write with the support of instruction, that from the very beginning of school constantly points to the order and structure of how English spelling works to represent meaning.
Some final “stepwise animations”
of orthographic structure…
![Page 53: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
r
r
Consider this presentation of two common words: • Surface similarity • Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
![Page 54: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
re
re
Consider this presentation of two common words: • Surface similarity • Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
![Page 55: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
rea
rea
Consider this presentation of two common words: • Surface similarity • Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
![Page 56: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
reac
reac
Consider this presentation of two common words: • Surface similarity • Fundamentally different at meaning and structure level…
![Page 57: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
react
reach ?
How do we know how to read these words?
![Page 58: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
re + act <ea> not a digraph
reach <ea> is a digraph
![Page 59: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
re + act <ea> not a digraph
reach <ea> is a digraph
Notice how the different structures offers cues for both meaning and pronunciation.
react = prefix + base reach = base(<act> main meaning of the word)
<c> is a grapheme
<ch> is a digraph
![Page 60: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
re + act <ea> not a digraph
reach <ea> is a digraph
<c> is a grapheme
<ch> is a digraph
Consider…
Notice how the different structures offers cues for both meaning and pronunciation.
react = prefix + base reach = base(<act> main meaning of the word)
![Page 61: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
How do we sort out the meaning & pronunciation of these words?
mishapmisshapenmishmashmishear
![Page 62: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Which uses <sh> and which uses <s+h>?
mishapmisshapenmishmashmishear
![Page 63: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Which uses <sh> and which uses <s+h>?
Structure tells us the answer
mishap mis+hap
misshapen mis+shape/+en mishmash mish+mash
mishear mis+hear
![Page 64: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Relevance for instruction?Can select words, not only for frequency, but also for the clarity with which they illustrate principles of how words work.
mishap mis+hap
misshapen mis+shape/+en mishmash mish+mash
mishear mis+hear
![Page 65: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
react re+actreach reachmishap mis+hapmisshapen mis+shape/+en mishmash mish+mashmishear mis+hear
To teach ‘letter-sound correspondences’ we need to under stand the word structure too.
Consider…
![Page 66: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
(like <bean>) (like <bin>)
been |bin| or |b n|
teen |tin|
![Page 67: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
(like <bean>) (like <bin>)
been |bin| or |b n|
teen |tin|
Is there a meaning cue for the varied pronunciation of the similar letter strings?
![Page 68: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
be+en not <ee> digraph
teen <ee> digraph
![Page 69: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
The <ee> digraph can only represent the
‘long e’ or |i| phoneme.
be+en not <ee> digraph
teen <ee> digraph
Real Spelling is the only resource I’ve found that shows teachers how structure and sound work together.
![Page 70: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
heel or heal?
![Page 71: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
heel or heal?Strategy: Think of structurally related words.
One of these words has derivations that shifts from using the ‘long e’ pronunciation to the ‘short e’. That word family needs the <ea> digraph to be able to take on both jobs.
![Page 72: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
www.wordworkskingston.com
<heal> ‘base’
http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html
Matrix by Ramsden (2001) www.realspelling.com
From this link
Practice this structure by writing word sums, whild spelling the letters out loud in their morphemic groups…
![Page 73: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
heal+s --> heals
heal+th--> health
un+heal+th+y-->
unhealthy
un+heal+th+y/i+er-->
unhealthier
www.wordworkskingston.com
<heal> ‘base’
http://web.mac.com/peterbowers1/iWeb/Site%207/Teacher%20Resource%20Book.html
Matrix by Ramsden (2001) www.realspelling.com
From this link
![Page 74: Working Draft: A “stepwise animation” illustration of cognitive load theory, followed by speculation of how it might link to instruction of written word.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062802/56649e925503460f94b97933/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Finally…
Since this logical word structure and these instructional tools are available, is it reasonable to teach children that words like <does> or <sign> are irregular and need to be memorized?
Does cognitive load theory speak to this question?