Graphics for cognitive load reduction Lawrie Hunter Kochi

Graphics for cognitive load reduction Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http: //www. core. kochi-tech. ac. jp/hunter/

Dimensions Island of of Shikoku Media Object Compehensibility KUT Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http: //www. core. kochi-tech. ac. jp/hunter/

Tokyo Kochi

OUTLINE for today 1. Do humans have a graphic thought facility? 2. Are engineers wired differently? 3. What is readability? 4. Anchoring for cognitive load reduction 5. Literacy and technology 6. SEARCH for useful parameters of anchor types

Do humans have a GRAPHIC THOUGHT FACILITY? < $$$ ! Hunter: The knowledge structure map is a matrix (confluence) for the situated learner* and the situated mentor to confirm context and the nature of "stolen property. "** *Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Periperal Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. **Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2000) The social life of information. Harvard Business School Press.

Arguably important direction "Tomorrow's literacies. . . need to be process and systems literacies. ” -John Thackara, In the Bubble: Designing in a complex world. MIT Press 2005.

OUTLINE for today 1. Do humans have a graphic thought facility? 2. Are engineers wired differently? 3. What is readability? 4. Anchoring for cognitive load reduction 5. Literacy and technology 6. SEARCH for useful parameters of anchor types

Constraint: L 2 technical English The Japanese undergraduate engineering student -emerging non-native writer* of technical English -attempting a multi-level orchestration of -rhetorical moves -information elements -cohesion/readability devices. *(NNW)

Cognitive load Non-native writing carries a considerable cognitive load. It requires the writer to hold in conscious mind several types of linguistic representation: -rhetorical structure -information -grammar/lexical unit knowledge

Cognitive load reduction Non-native writing carries a considerable cognitive load. It requires the writer to hold in conscious mind several types of linguistic representation: -rhetorical structure -information -grammar/lexical unit knowledge If* some of these representation types can be encoded graphically, cognitive load** will be reduced. *observation suggests **or the load placed on Baddeley's working memory, Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. (2001). Working memory in perspective: Foreword. In J. Andrade (Ed. ), Working memory in perspective (pp. xv-xix). Hove: Psychology Press.

OUTLINE for today 1. Do humans have a graphic thought facility? 2. Are engineers wired differently? 3. What is readability? 4. Anchoring for cognitive load reduction 5. Literacy and technology 6. SEARCH for useful parameters of anchor types

Readability In the design of traditional high-text language learning materials, readability is a prominent concern. Reading difficulty has for some time been seen as depending on -word length -sentence length -text length -number of sentences per paragraph -vocabulary ‘difficulty’ More recent work has extended this list to include -subject-verb distance -adherence to old/new position conventions -topic position/stress position conventions Treated extensively in Hunter L. (1998) Text Nouveau: Visible Structure in Text Presentation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 11(4) pp. 363 -379.

Readability: phrase boundary marking http: //www. core. kochi-tech. ac. jp/hunter/Word. By. Word/

Readability: Tofu http: //amarsagoo. info/tofu/

READABILITY The missing link in technical academic writing: Gopen’s readability -subject-verb distance -topic position / stress position -old/new information placement Gopen, G. D. and Swan, J. A. (1990) The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550 -558. Downloadable as a pdf from http: //www. amstat. org/publications/jcgs/sci. pdf

2006~ new layer: READABILITY Textural Structural Grammar Lexical patterns Register Knowledge structures Cohesion Coherence/readability Functional grammar Information organization Rhetorical device Rhetorical structure

OUTLINE for today 1. Do humans have a graphic thought facility? 2. Are engineers wired differently? 3. What is readability? 4. Anchoring for cognitive load reduction 5. Literacy and technology 6. SEARCH for useful parameters of anchor types

Survey: graphical anchors Today: several load-reducing graphical representations currently in use in the curriculum and materials designed by the author. These representations provide writing task 'anchors' for (a) (b) (c) (d) information structures* prescribed sentence patterns rhetorical structures** cohesion devices***

Survey: graphical anchors Today: several load-reducing graphical representations currently in use in the curriculum and materials designed by the author. These representations provide writing task 'anchors' for (a) (b) (c) (d) information structures* prescribed sentence patterns rhetorical structures** cohesion devices*** Even if the learner's main writing strategy is the lexical and structural mimicry of model texts, the above forms of graphical scaffolding can provide an external 'hands on the controls' work space. *a variation on Mohan's (1986) knowledge structures **as seen in Mann's rhetorical structure theory (http: //www. sfu. ca/rst/) ***(Gopen and Swan, 1990).

Systems view of writing Train of argument This is the domain of structures up here. Rhetorical structures Extension Functional structures Knowledge structures This is the domain of texture down here. Diversions Background Cohesion devices Evocative rhetoric Grammar Word order rules (sentence surface structure)

Systems view of writing Train of argument This is the domain of structures up here. False hierarchy: the train stops here. This is the domain of texture down here. Rhetorical structures Diversions Extension Functional structures Knowledge structures Cohesion devices Grammar (sentence surface structure) Background Rhetorical structure theory, systemic functional linguistics and knowledge structure mapping form a hierarchy of structures, whereas grammar and sentence diagrams reflect rules for texture management.

Systems view of writing Grammar staging Information orchestration Rhetoric, flow Prescriptive order charts (linear); sentence diagrams Knowledge structure maps Topic/stress and subject-verb distance gizmos Paragraph level Readability charts Knowledge structure maps Old/new and topic/stress gizmos Document level Knowledge Readability outlines structure maps Old/new and topic/stress gizmos Sentence level

Anchor: Sentence diagramming Moutoux, E. R. Sentence Diagrams: One Way of Learning English Grammar. http: //www. german-latin-english. com/diagrams. htm

Anchor: Sentence diagramming Every year on the afternoon of December 24, you, a Christmas procrastinator, loaded down with sacks and boxes, walk from store to store, but you concentrate on Mom. Moutoux, E. R. Sentence Diagrams: One Way of Learning English Grammar. http: //www. geocities. com/gene_moutoux/diagrams. htm

Mohan's (1986) knowledge structures Classification Principle Evaluation Description Process Choice

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’. . . reflect information types (Mohan's (1986) knowledge structures) Classification Principle Description Process Description Classification Comparison Evaluation Sequence Cause-effect Choice + inference Pro-con rather than speech act types such as SFL's text types. hunter’s tools GENRES REGISTERS MOVES

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’ At KUT, we have built our curriculum around these genres: Description Classification Comparison Sequence Cause-effect + inference Pro-con -a composite genre

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’ Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 2 nd year textbook 6 units (6 genres) in 2 quarters At KUT, we have built our curriculum around these genres: Description Classification Comparison Sequence Cause-effect + inference Pro-con -a composite genre

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’ The learning process used in this book Each of the 6 units in this book follows the same teaching/learning pattern: INPUT USAGE PRACTICE Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 2 nd year textbook 6 units (6 genres) in 2 quarters AUTHENTIC TASK hunter’s tools EXPRESSION GENRES REGISTERS MOVES

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’ The learning process used in this book Each of the 6 units in this book follows the same teaching/learning pattern: INPUT: the learners are exposed to the target vocabulary and phrases required for expression of the ideas which are basic to the genre in the unit. For input, the learners listen to explanations of the genre by the teacher, practice speaking and listening to sentences from the genre, and read various explanations of the genres language and language structure Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 2 nd year textbook 6 units (6 genres) in 2 quarters Read this on Hunter's website. USAGE PRACTICE: in each unit there a succession of activities and tasks which allow the learner to practice using the language required for the genre. It is important to emphasize to the learners that the activities and exercises are necessary to prepare the students for the final large task at the end of each unit. The activities and tasks may be performed in several different modes: for example, as in-class activities (individual or group) or as written homework. This flexibility is important for the teacher, allowing for a variety of timings and paces. AUTHENTIC TASK: the tasks at the end of the units are designed to be non-linguistic tasks, based in the real world. In some chapters the learners are asked to arrange information in certain structures; in other chapters the learners are asked to solve real-world type problems. These tasks may be done individually or in groups of 2, 3 or 4 learners. EXPRESSION: the language aspect of the authentic tasks lies in the expression of the product of the task. In this book the tasks are written tasks, but they may also be done as pair or group presentations. The presentation approach is explained in

Hunter’s ‘knowledge structures’ Thinking in English Critical Thinking Asahi Press 2001 2 nd year textbook 6 units (6 genres) in 2 quarters KUT Press 2004 A mapping workbook, companion to CT 6 units (6 genres) Extends CT to 4 quarters

Hunter’s infomaps stem from Mohan's (1986) knowledge structures Classification Description Principle Process Evaluation Choice < good

Hunter’s infomaps Classification Description Degree comparison < Hunter Graphical Anchoring of Second Language Writing Task Attribute comparison big Contrast ! Sequence hunter systems

Hunter’s infomap links DESCRIPTION My friend Canadian English teacher 57

Hunter’s infomap links CLASSIFICATION Cars sedans coupes station wagons

Hunter’s infomap links COMPARISON (relative) Calcutta < big old Tokyo

Hunter’s infomap links COMPARISON (by attribute) new 3 years old M’s car K’s car white red

Hunter’s infomap links SEQUENCE find ATM insert follow bank card directions

Hunter’s infomap links SEQUENCE structure signals First Then find ATM and insert follow bank card directions

Hunter’s infomap links SEQUENCE First toast two slices of bread Then and slice a tomato tear some lettuce

Hunter’s infomap links CAUSE-EFFECT rain bus cancelled be late for school

Hunter’s infomaps Hunter Thinking in English: task support with graphics and varied processing Learner tasks with info mapping text writing from maps summarizing hunter systems controlling navigation

Infomaps for content control Writing from Hunter's information maps Hunter the style dossier approach STRUCTURE

Infomaps for content control Writing from Hunter's information maps Hunter the style dossier approach STRUCTURE

Infomaps for content control Writing from Hunter's information maps Hunter the style dossier approach STRUCTURE

Infomaps for content control Writing from Hunter's information maps Hunter the style dossier approach STRUCTURE

Glitch: infomaps and perception Massive diversity in learner perception of knowledge structures. Below: maps of the same content:

Glitch: infomaps and perception Massive diversity in learner perception of knowledge structures.

Example: sequence Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum: Description Classification Comparison Sequence Cause-effect Inference Pro-con INPUT USAGE PRACTICE AUTHENTIC TASK EXPRESSION

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence • Unit 2: Sequence • Input: listening and speaking: Giving directions and telling a story • Input: instructions and narration: Giving directions and telling a story • Usage practice: sequencing: The steps for making an omelette • Usage practice: giving instructions: Telling how to _______ • Input: narration: Mr. Nakamura’s Day: Dictation • Usage practice: writing: Mr. Nakamura's Sunday • Authentic task: narration: Putting a story in order • Usage practice: sequence words: Making a story better • Input: comparing instructions and narration: finding verbs and signal words • Authentic task: Get the gold! • Expression: Unit 2 final report: how Kenji and Junichi Got the Gold

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Input Sequence structure signals First To begin Then Next After that Finally At last In the end While + clause A, clause B After + clause A, clause B As + clause A, clause B When + clause A, clause B If + clause A, clause B Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression Input Sequence structure signals Processing input containing signals 1. First I got up and then I went to the bathroom and had a shower. After that I got dressed and went to the kitchen. 2. First I took the milk out of the fridge. Then I went to the cupboard and got a glass. Finally I poured myself a glass of milk and drank it.

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Sequence structure signals Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Usage practice Graphics from sentences Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Usage practice Sentences from graphics Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Sentences from graphics Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Usage practice Ordering information Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Usage practice Combining sentences Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Input: register Finding structure signals and other lexical items Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Hunter's knowledge structures curriculum Example: sequence Authentic task Real-world problem Input Usage practice Authentic task Expression

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level pattern anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level pattern anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Textual anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Perceptual anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Lexical anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Lexical anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Sentence level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Discourse level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Discourse level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Discourse level anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Page gestalt anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Page gestalt anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Page gestalt anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Moves anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Register anchoring Putting things in places

Anchoring types Pragmatics anchoring (next slide) Putting things in places

Anchoring types weightlessness increase in the growth rate of the bacteria that cause cavities Communication moves CLAIM EXTENSION PROPOSAL Pragmatics anchoring the need to develop a better method of ensuring oral hygiene for those who spend long periods in space placed a mouse in an airplane and checked the rate of growth of streptococcus mutans…. . in the mouse's mouth… at different levels of gravity. the flow of saliva changes in a state of weightlessness less saliva is secreted in space… use of water is restricted in space, in zero gravity bacteria grew 40 to 50 times faster than on Earth increased chance of bacteria remaining on teeth other bacteria in the mouth may afflict some space travelers with infectious diseases astronauts swallow toothpaste after brushing their teeth develop a toothbrush that will ooze toothpaste from the tips of the bristles and reabsorb it while the user is brushing his or her teeth EXERCISE: Please identify the communication move for each minimap and write it in the corresponding box. Then write names of the relations between minimaps in the spaces between boxes. What? The proposal is a distractor from the topic, a CLAIM. Research supporting claim PROCEDURE LINK? (No rhet signal) CLAIM (fact: ‘according to”) LIST of some moves: circumstance/background condition/extension elaboration/support sequence/procedure/list observation/result speculation/projection comparison/contrast need/objective application/enablement cause/result summary http: //www. sfu. ca/rst/01 intro/intro. html hunter systems

Readability anchoring Putting things in places

OUTLINE for today 1. Do humans have a graphic thought facility? 2. Are engineers wired differently? 3. What is readability? 4. Anchoring for cognitive load reduction 5. Literacy and technology 6. SEARCH for useful parameters of anchor types

Creating a PATTERN LANGUAGE A pattern language? . . . our lives consist mainly of patterns of events, and that architecture which supports these patterns helps us feel more “alive” and “whole. ” Christopher Alexander

Creating a PATTERN LANGUAGE …The language, and the processes which stem from it, merely release the fundamental order which is native to us. They do not teach us, they only remind us of what we know already, and of what we shall discover time and time again, when we give up our ideas and opinions, and do exactly what emerges from ourselves. -Christopher Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building

Creating a PATTERN LANGUAGE “A pattern language is really nothing more than a precise way of describing someone’s experience of a building. ” Christopher Alexander

Creating a PATTERN LANGUAGE “A pattern language is really nothing more than a precise way of describing someone’s experience of communicating. ” Lawrie Hunter

Exploratory framework Graphic type Symbolic-metaphoric Metaphoric Zoom-out map (scaled image) Image (superimposable) Atomic [word level] Molecular [lexical unit level] Compound [sentence level] Complex Mini-world [text [genre Level] level] Language complexity

Exploratory framework [2] Language scale Major genres Sentence clusters [niche genres, e. g. report] Sentences Word clusters [lists, groups] Sentence ordering support Lexical Function unit support array support Genre array support Writing support type

Do humans have a GRAPHIC THOUGHT FACILITY? < $$$ !

Graphics for cognitive load reduction 48 word summary for the presentation Second language writers of English are performing a number of cognitive activities simultaneously. Along with input decoding stress, this imposes considerable cognitive load. This presentation demonstrates the author's set of graphical tools for reducing cognitive load: illustrations, sentence charts, readability charts and knowledge structure maps. 250 word abstract for the presentation Second language writers of English for critical thinking are performing a number of cognitive activities simultaneously: recalling lexical units, remembering appropriate register and attending to sentence word order, and orchestrating rhetorical structure and readability. In addition to lack of confidence in decoding the wording of problems, this amounts to considerable cognitive load. This presentation outlines the author's collection of graphical tools for reducing such cognitive load: illustrations, sentence charts, readability charts and knowledge structure maps, and demonstrates the use of each tool. Illustrations can support and/or confirm the learner's comprehension of task input language, and can motivate problem solving, thus backgrounding language concerns. Sentence charts are highly prescriptive, but do afford check-list confirmation that the writer has gotten all the necessary parts together for sentence construction. Readability charts enable the learner to keep in mind some basic principles of cohesion, and to confirm cohesion after writing. Knowledge structure maps (following Mohan, 1986) keep learner attention on the information aspect of task, even during learner composition. The use of information maps as graphical heuristics is also shown here. As well, a decision matrix is proposed which can help clarify instructor decisions about (a) degree of explicitness of scaffolding and (b) assessment criteria (e. g. selection of best lexical model; correct application of model).

Alexander, C. , Ishikawa, S. , & Silverstein, M. (1997) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. D. & Hitch, G. (2001). Working memory in perspective: Foreword. In J. Andrade (Ed. ), Working memory in perspective (pp. xv-xix). Hove: Psychology Press. Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2000) The social life of information. Harvard Business School Press. Chandler, P. and J. Sweller (1992) The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology 62: 233 -246. Goldman, S. R. , & Rakestraw, Jr. , J. A. Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds. ), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. xx-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gopen, G. D. and Swan, J. A. (1990) The Science of Scientific Writing. American Scientist (Nov-Dec 1990), Volume 78, 550 -558. Downloadable as a pdf from http: //www. amstat. org/publications/jcgs/sci. pdf Horn, R. E. (1998) Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21 st Century. Bainbridge Island, WA: Macro. VU Press. http: //www. macrovu. com Hunter, L. (1998) Text nouveau, visible structure in text presentation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 11 (4) October 1998. Hunter, L. (2002) Information structure diagrams as link icons. Learning Technology 4(3) July 2002. ISSN 1438 -0625. 2002. http: //lttf. ieee. org/learn_tech/issues/july 2002/index. html#1 Lave, J. , & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mann, William C. and Sandra A. Thompson (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. " Text 8 (3): 243 -281. Mohan, B. A. (1986) Language and content. Addison-Wesley. Moutoux, E. R. Sentence Diagrams: One Way of Learning English Grammar. http: //www. geocities. com/gene_moutoux/diagrams. htm Olive, Thierry (2004) Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European psychologist 9(1), pp. 32 -42. Working paper downloaded from http: //cat. inist. fr/? a. Modele=affiche. N&cpsidt=15431008 Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in Document Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tufte, E. R. (1990) Envisioning information. Cheshire, CONN: Graphics Press. Shannon, C. E. , & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Explained at http: //www. tcw. utwente. nl/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20 clusters/Communication%20 and%20 Information%20 Technology/Information_Theory. doc/ and http: //www. cultsock. ndirect. co. uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sw. html Swales, C. and Feak, C. (2004) Academic Writing for Graduate Students. 2 nd edition. University of Michigan Press.

Thank you for your kind attention. Don’t hesitate to write to me. Lawrie Hunter Kochi University of Technology http: //www. core. kochi-tech. ac. jp/hunter