User talk:Scout37/sandbox

Definition of cognitive load

I need to find a textbook resource or other general guide to define cognitive load. The current sentence is close paraphrasing to an online source that I do not think would be Wiki approved. I am also unsure of the wording that I used for mental load and mental effort. They are both important to cognitive load but am not sure how/if I should include them in the way I have right now. I will also be adding a short blip of information on the manner in which information is stored in the working memory, how this is different from long term memory, and how it can lead to cognitive load.

Update- I have changed the wording of mental load and mental effort. I think it encompasses cognitive load without going too far into the details and thus the three different types of cognitive load. Resolved Scout37 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition I need to give an example. I think it is important that the public knows that there are many different elements that can be considered or contribute to cognitive load. At the same time, I do not want an exhaustive list of examples. Perhaps a number of broad examples that can contribute to cognitive load (i.e., distractions, difficult tasks, time constraints, + a few more when I think of them). Scout37 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update- I think I have managed the examples in the first paragraph. Resolved Scout37 (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now pleased with what I have so far for the definition/example of cognitive load. I would like to find an image of cognitive load that is not too complicated/detailed eventually and insert it here. That could possibly lead to a change in examples to complement the image better. Scout37 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive load in children

I am generally pleased with what I have so far with cognitive load in children but it definitely needs some fine-tuning. As you can see I have 2 areas where I have plans to put more information (increased cognitive load in low SES households and decreased cognitive load with gesture), but haven't had the brain power to integrate them cohesively. yet. I think there may be room for more citations here with regards to cognitive resources used while learning how to speak and environmental elements that can increase cognitive load, but am unsure. My next steps will be to incorporate the 2 above plans and hunt for some support about my claims. Scout37 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Nice start to that article. Good job linking to existing articles.

There are a few little things that could be fixed. You left the title (Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design) off your first reference. Rather than just referring to 'Baddely and Hitch' you should link to their bios (Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch); better yet, you should say who they are (e.g., "British psychologists, Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch..."). Bear in mind that many of the people who come across Wikipedia articles will know nothing about the background of the topic.

The next thing is structural, and this is more difficult (and less essential). The ideal structure of a Wikipedia article includes a lead which summarizes all the major points of the article, and it contains subsections which deal with the major topics of a subject roughly in proportion to their importance to the topic. If you wanted to move the article in that direction, you'd need to split your first section in two (lead but main overview), including a summary of the 'cognitive load in children' section. You should also expand your first section after the lead so as to balance it relative to the section about children. None of this is essential, but it would improve the overall quality of the article.

Finally, before you move this article into the main article space, you should add some relevant categories. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good start here Scout37.

Ian suggests how to present the lead. This is an important contribution to a strong article in Wikipedia. I recommend you have a look at these pages (Autism, Asperger's syndrome, Schizophrenia), all of which are Feature Articles in Psychology. Presumably they show good form. I can see the kind of summary that Ian is requesting in the third paragraph of each of these leads.
By all means link to Working memory, but consider whether you need to use that term in the first sentence (I'm not convinced about "in one instant" either). Think about a reader who knows nothing of cognitive psychology. They likely don't know much about working memory. Tell a regular person what cognitive load is in one plain sentence. Then in the next sentences unpack it using the technical terms of your discipline.
How is attention different from focus?
I think you worked through mental load and mental effort, but I am not certain what is the difference between mental load and cognitive load. Why switch to mental? Is this Sweller's language that you are honouring? The page does seem very heavily weighted to his work, which you may have to stick with.
What does "lack of directed goal achievement" mean? Failure? If so, say so. I find most of what needs to happen at this point in Wiki writing is combing through it to be as plain and direct as possible. This is often very hard for university students as we seem to train you to obfuscate!
Apply the same kinds of comments to the subsequent paragraphs which I like quite a bit but things can still be pared down.
Re Cog load in children... again pare down, but here are a few suggestions: "limited reserves of information" can be replaced by Children lack general knowledge. Later on in the paragraph I would replace constitute with "support" processing efficiency.
Does ADHD provide any examples of cog load? The answer is no, not already there, so it isn't useful.
Likely a better question for Ian, but can't you use the same number over again, the ref list shouldn't have so many different instances of the same source should it?
Categories are the bits at the very bottom of the page, in case you didn't find them yet.

Marentette (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC) As I said, great start, I'll be in touch with more thoughts.[reply]
Paula Marentette (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in response to feedback

I have started to pare down my work but am having a hard time telling what is enough. I will have some lay people read this and hopefully get an idea of what is too much information/description/psychological rifraf and continue from there.

I summarized the entire cognitive load article including the main space material and find the lead choppy. I looked at the 3 articles suggested to me and tried to model my work after theirs, but am unsure about paragraph divisions. Their articles have more substantive bodies of information and thus a larger more divided lead. Just not sure how my lead should look or be divided. Additionally, I do not know where to put or integrate paragraphs 2 and 3 that are currently feeling like sitting ducks to me. They are not summaries of any part of the body, rather they are explanations and examples of cognitive load, but I am unsure where to put them or if I should delete them altogether.- should they go with the definition in the first paragraph and then the summary as the second paragraph? Scout37 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A summary is never going to have the flow of the main article - by it's very nature it is likely to be a bit choppy. Don't worry about that too much.
In the second paragraph, the first sentence is a clear statement, which is good. The second sentence is an illustration of what that means. It's less important in a summary. You could do something like this:
"A person's environment can contribute to their cognitive load. ~~A loud atmosphere, a very difficult math problem, a hot room or time pressures are all examples that could increase the load on working memory.~~ Cognitive load can ~~also~~ be increased by the thought processes used ~~to accommodate a task such as~~ {for/when} concentrating on a tough problem, maintaining focus, or ~~trying to do something you have never done before~~ {attempting a new task}.[2] Too much cognitive load ~~on the working memory~~ can ultimately lead to failure."

You can treat the third paragraph similarly - cut out the examples, hone the text a little. But you also need to add a summary of your 'cognitive load in children' section. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and edited the first paragraph. I didn't make many changes but I encourage you to look at the few I made (use the diff comparison in the view history page). I was aiming for simple sentence structure. Ian has made suggestions about what to do with the examples above. I agree, mostly eliminate them from the lead. Save them, you might want them to use in the various sections of the paper. You need to add in a bit about the elderly, students and children for the lead.

you need a ref for the researchers referred to in the first para.
I think you can move most of the 2nd para and put it in a section relevant to environment in the article (is there one?, if so you can put the poverty papers in there)
Can para 3 be moved to the section "individual differences in processing capacity"?
Also reword to get rid of awkward possessive its' (which never has an apostrophe)
the "simple examples are ungrammatical - and mostly they should be deleted or altered and put in the right place
In the new section on children. Again go back and rewrite for clarity and plain sentences. Picky point: when you use the word amount in the plural I shudder. Amount is for mass nouns like milk. Would you ever say amounts of milk? heavy amounts of milk? I would stick with high cognitive load, high demand, or increased cognitive load.
This makes learning to speak an incredibly difficult task. Hm... I'm not sure I agree with this or that it will be useful to your readers. From the outside, learning to speak is easy-peasy for almost all kids. You accurately reflect the challenges they have, but these are not accessible to most readers of Wiki. I see you have a Baddeley paper for support. I don't disagree but I'm not sure how you can make this a strong example for the Wiki reader. I think learning to read is a more concrete example (but even there a challenge)
My biggest problem with this page is that it leans so heavily to Sweller - did you find any Cog Psy refs to cog load that can be added to the Theory section?
Any suggestions for the section on the elderly or the effects of heavy cognitive load?
did you find new categories to add?

I think you you should fix the lead a bit and then move these changes to the main page and get out of this sandbox. Everything after that can be changed on the live form so that watchers are attending and are not thrown by the nature of your changes all coming in one huge shift. I'm not sure how that is done, Ian likely can point you at the right procedure which must be outlined somewhere - was there something in the training about moving sandbox work onto the main page? Paula Marentette (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A potentially useful suggestion about getting away from the dominant focus on Sweller is to highlight in greater detail the measurement of cognitive load by pupillary response, which is directly related to WM. See the already linked page Task-invoked pupillary response. This refers back to your page, without the connection being very obvious. I think this info could help broader the lead. Here are a few relevant articles I located - not after an exhaustive search 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb01071.x and doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2003.00148.x Paula Marentette (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved to the main space!

To anyone viewing this page and its changes, more have been made on the article's main space. You can find more changes/additions on the Cognitive load article. Thanks! Scout37 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]