Earlier this week I received an email from a reader, let’s call her Annalisa. It went something like this:
Our team at [organisation X] are diving deeply into the practices around student engagement and TAPPLE. The engagement norms, track with me’ and ‘read with me’* are used widely in our classrooms. A close reading of your book, Cognitive Load Theory in Action, appears to debunk this as a learning strategy (page 62) as it states that hearing spoken words at the same time as seeing them inhibits learning due to the processing of both modes in working memory. “When information is presented simultaneously in written and spoken form, both sources of information are vying for the same working memory resources, and therefore interfering with each other.”
Have you any insights to this please? Thanks so much.
This was an excellent question, and it demonstrates a fantastic understanding on Annalisa’s part of the ideas covered in this chapter on Redundancy.
In the following, I’ll give a brief overview of the redundancy effect as it pertains to text and spoken word, then we’ll return to Annalisa’s question.
*’track with me’ and ‘read with me’ are both teaching techniques from Explicit Direct Instruction. I discuss them at length with the co-creator of EDI, John Hollingsworth, here.
The Redundancy Effect with text and spoken word
This section is a modified excerpt from Cognitive Load Theory in Action
‘The most common form of redundancy occurs when the same information is presented in different modalities’ (Sweller et al., 2011). One example of this is when information is presented in both spoken and written forms simultaneously.
It’s a common practice for presenters to provide written information on their slides and then to read out that information during the presentation. To conventional audiences, this represents an example of the presentation of redundant information. Only one presentation format is needed: either the written words or the spoken words.
Why does hearing spoken words at the same time as seeing them written inhibit learning? To answer this question, we must first gain a deeper understanding of human cognitive architecture.
All language is processed within a dedicated portion of working memory that deals with language (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). Whether the language enters this portion of working memory through the ears (spoken words) or the eyes (written words), it is still processed in the same place. This means that when information is presented simultaneously in written and spoken form, both sources of information are vying for the same working memory resources, and therefore interfering with each other.
By way of example, imagine a fish and chip shop that is able to take orders via phone or online. The chip shop is the central processor of fish and chips (representing ideas, because fish and chips are always a good idea), and phone and internet represent two information channels (written text and spoken words). Regardless of whether the order comes via the phone or online, it is still processed by the fish and chip shop. As such, it’s redundant (and annoying, and confusing) if a customer were to phone up to make an order at the same time as putting through that same order online. This would impose significant cognitive load on the worker in the shop, because they would spend time trying to work out which order to pay attention to, and determine whether it was a duplicate and if any differences exist.
This is exactly what happens when we present written text and spoken words to a learner at the same time. Both signals are processed in the same place (central executive within working memory), and so sending the same info via two channels is redundant and unnecessarily confusing.
The bottom line. As teachers, we should only send one message at a time. Don’t call up the chip shop and order online at the same time. Don’t read out our slides!
Is it redundant for students to read or track with the teacher?
Back to Annalisa’s question.
In short, redundancy occurs when the same info is presented via both channels simultaneously. It’s redundancy if the simultaneous listening and viewing confers no additional benefit than doing either one alone.
In the case of ‘read with me’ and ‘track with me’, there are (or at least can be) additional benefits.
With ‘read with me’, the children are also verbalising the content along with the teacher. This can be helpful if there are tricky vocab words where practicing the pronunciation is helpful for students. Therefore, there can be a benefit to students hearing these words pronounced by the teacher and verbalising them themselves (though I think there is an argument to be made for call and response of the specific target words in addition to, or instead of, ‘read with me’ too).
With ‘track with me’ (as with any ‘read along with me’ kind of activities), this can be helpful if student’s don’t have 100% fluency with decoding already. If students aren’t fluent decoders yet, track with me ensures that all students know what the words on the page say, rather than being stuck not being able to decode them (though it will lead to some redundancy for the more fluent readers). If, however, all students are 100% fluent with decoding the text on the screen or board, then ‘track with me’ is redundant from a learning point of view.
But the above misses one more important point, that ‘read with me’ and ‘track with me’ are both engagement norms, meaning they’re designed to drive engagement. I see benefit gained from both of these strategies as a routine to tune all students into key content at specific times in the lesson, to ensure that there is nothing in their hands (as they track with their finger) and that they’re not whispering to mates (as they read aloud). Engagement norms are just that, and they’re often highly valuable in their own right for simply that end.
As with everything in education, it’s all about trade-offs. Understanding the why behind the techniques you’re using places you well to decide when to use which instructional strategy!
Announcements and Opportunities
Craig Barton’s ‘Becoming a Better Maths Teacher’ Aussie Tour!
I’m super pumped about Craig’s upcoming trip to Aus for the four sessions we’re running together in late June. This is going to be a fantastic day for any upper primary or secondary maths teachers keen to network with other like minded and passionate maths educators. Don’t miss out on this amazing opportunity – who knows when Craig will be in Aus again. Find out more and book here.
Instructional Coaching: Brisbane on March 3rd, Melbourne on March 24th!
That’s right, it’s time for some more Instructional Coaching Intensives in Aus!
On March 3rd Rory McCaughey and yours truly are coming up to The Gap High School in Brisbane for a one day intensive. Then on March 24th, Steplab founder Josh Goodrich is flying over from the UK to collaborate with Rory and me on a Melbourne intensive at Lowther Hall Anglican Grammar School.
If you’ve been thinking about upping your coaching game for a while, this is a phenomenal opportunity – whether you’re a Steplab school or not. This training is relevant even if you don’t, and never plan to, use the Steplab platform.
If you are interested in Steplab, you can also book directly into a personal Steplab demo with me via this booking link. I run them every Wed and Friday arvo.