CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 244Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Understanding instructions.

Open access
Marcus, Nadine, Cooper, Martin, Sweller, John·1996·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The understanding of instructions was explored within the context of cognitive load theory.Instructional material may be difficult to understand if it consists of many elements that must be held in working memory simultaneously.If the number of elements that must be processed exceeds working-memory capacity, then some elements must be combined into schemas before the material can be understood.Some diagrams may reduce cognitive load by providing such a schema.In Experiments 1 to 4, three different electrical resistor problems were given to students to complete, with instructions presented using diagrams (which cue pre-existing schemas) or text.In Experiment 5, four different angle construction tasks were given to students to complete.Instructions were presented using either diagrams which cue pre-existing schemas, diagrams which were unlikely to cue pre-existing schemas, or text.Results, including measures of cognitive load, suggested that understanding depends on the degree of interaction among elements of information.However, if interacting elements can be incorporated into a diagrammatic schema by modifying the instructional presentation mode, cognitive load will be reduced and understanding enhanced.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49

Cites

169 of 169 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Marcus et al. (1996) used the original Paas and van Merriënboer formula with the absolute value of M-P but stated that the value can be negative or positive.

    “A second example involves Marcus et al. (1996), who use the original formula by Paas and van Merrie ¨nboer in which the absolute value of M -P was taken and who nonetheless state that this value can be negative or positive.”

    From Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought (2010) · cites this paper as Marcus et al. (1996)

  • Simultaneously performing learning tasks and studying high-complexity supportive information would almost certainly cause cognitive overload.

    “Simultaneously performing the tasks and studying the information would almost certainly cause cognitive overload (Kester et al., 2001;Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996).”

    From Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning (2003) · cites this paper as Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996

  • Instruction via diagram was of most benefit for higher element interactivity problems.

    “the researchers found that instruction via diagram (a schema facilitating instructional technique) was of most benefit for the higher element interactivity problems.”

    From Assimilating complex information (2002) · cites this paper as Marcus, et al. (1996)

  • Difficult to understand material is difficult precisely because it is high in element interactivity and imposes a heavy load on working memory.

    “Difficult to understand material is difficult precisely because it is high in element interactivity and imposes a heavy load on working memory”

    From Assimilating complex information (2002) · cites this paper as Marcus, Cooper & Sweller, 1996

  • High element interactivity material imposes a high intrinsic cognitive load because many elements must be processed in working memory simultaneously.

    “As a consequence, they impose a high, intrinsic cognitive load because many elements must be processed in working memory simultaneously.”

    From Assimilating complex information (2002) · cites this paper as Marcus, Cooper & Sweller, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1996-03
Volume
88
Issue
1
Pages
49-63
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49
OpenAlex
W4214825932
Cited by
244
References
160
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 20
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney)
Funders
University of New South Wales
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
instruction understanding, cognitive load theory, working memory capacity, schemas, diagrams, text-based teaching, information interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review