Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 217–236 | Cite as

Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of Shakespearean text

Article

Abstract

The reported study compared the instructional effectiveness of Modern English explanatory interpretations of Shakespearean play extracts integrated line by line into original Elizabethan English text, with a conventional unguided original text condition. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the explanatory notes group reported a lower cognitive load and performed better in a comprehension test than the control group when students had no prior knowledge of the text. In Experiment 2, a reverse effect occurred when the same material was presented to a group of Shakespearean experts. Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiment 1 using a different Shakespearean play. The study demonstrated that the relative effectiveness of instructional conditions depended on learner levels of expertise. In accordance with the expertise reversal effect, the benefits of guided instruction reversed and became detrimental for learners with high prior knowledge levels. Retrospective verbal protocols indicated that the explanations were redundant for expert readers.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Expertise reversal effect Redundancy effect Shakespearean texts Explanatory notes 

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, J. E., & Seefeldt, R. W. (1989). Repeated reading and recall. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 21, 351–361.Google Scholar
  3. Batho, R. (1998). Shakespeare in secondary schools. Educational Review, 50(2), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch's computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 329–345.Google Scholar
  5. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.Google Scholar
  7. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Durband, A. (2001). Shakespeare made easy: Romeo and Juliet. Cheltenham, England: Stanley Thornes.Google Scholar
  9. Kalyuga, S. (2005). Prior knowledge principle. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325–337). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kalyuga, S. (2006). Instructing and testing advanced learners: A cognitive load approach. New York: Nova Science.Google Scholar
  11. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luhrmann, B. (Producer/Director), & Martinelli, G. (Producer). (1996). Romeo+Juliet [Motion picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corps.Google Scholar
  18. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual-processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.Google Scholar
  23. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Groβe, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spiro, R. J., & Jehng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility, random access instruction, and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear and multi-dimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & F. J. Spiro (Eds.), The “handy” project. New directions in multimedia instruction (p. 201). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in Ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 2, 4–33. (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Strain, L. B. (1976). Accountability in reading instruction. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill.Google Scholar
  30. Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Voss, J., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2008). Is underestimation less detrimental than overestimation? The impact of experts’ beliefs about a layperson’s knowledge on question asking and learning. Instructional Science, 36, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeung, A. S. (1999). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split attention and redundancy effects in reading comprehension tasks with vocabulary definitions. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations