Using instructional design and cognitive load management theories to improve the efficiency of a video-based college algebra learning environment through a note-taking guide and learner control

The problem under investigation was to determine if a specific outline-style learning guide, called a Learning Agenda (LA), can improve a college algebra learning environment and if learner control can reduce the cognitive effort associated with note-taking in this instance. The 192 participants were volunteers from 47 different college algebra and pre-calculus classes at a community college in the southwestern United States. The approximate demographics of this college as of the academic year 2016 – 2017 are as follows: 53% women, 47% men; 61% ages 24 and under, 39% 25 and over; 43% Hispanic/Latino, 40% White, 7% other. Participants listened to an approximately 9-minute video lecture on solving a logarithmic equation. There were four dependent variables: encoding as measured by a posttest – pretest difference, perceived cognitive effort, attitude, and notes-quality/quantity. The perceived cognitive effort was measured by a self-reported questionnaire. The attitude was measured by an attitude survey. The note-quality/quantity measure included three sub-measures: expected mathematical expressions, expected phrases, and a total word count. There were two independent factors: note-taking method and learner control. The note-taking method had three levels: the Learning Agenda (LA), unguided note-taking (Usual), and no notes taken. The learner control factor had two levels: pausing allowed and pausing not allowed. The LA resulted in significantly improved notes on all three sub-measures (adjusted R2 = .298). There was a significant main effect of learner control on perceived cognitive effort with higher perceived cognitive effort occurring when pausing was not allowed and notes were taken. There was a significant interaction effect of the two factors on the attitude survey measure. The trend toward an improved attitude in both of the note-taking levels of the note-taking factor when pause was allowed was reversed in the no notes level when pausing was allowed. While significant encoding did occur as measured by the posttest – pretest difference (Cohen’s d = 1.81), this measure did not reliably vary across the levels of either the note-taking method factor or the learner control factor in this study. Interpretations were in terms of cognitive load management, split-attention, instructional design, and note-taking as a sense-making opportunity.