## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Separated information increases cognitive load**: When learners must integrate information from multiple sources separated physically or temporally, mental effort increases > - **Place related information together in space and time**: Essential information that must be combined should be presented together to avoid cognitive overload > - **Use modality effect strategically**: Combine spoken words (auditory) with visuals to reduce split-attention through dual-channel processing ## Definition **Split-Attention Effect**: Increased cognitive load when learners must split attention between information sources separated physically or temporally to understand complete meaning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991, 1992). ## Connected To [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Redundancy Effect]] | [[Modality Effect]] | [[Transient Information Effect]] | [[Use Booklets]] | [[Expertise Reversal Effect]] --- ## Two types of separation Split-attention occurs in two distinct forms, both creating cognitive burden (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). Physical separation places information in different locations, such as an image on one side of a page with explanatory text on the other. Temporal separation presents information at different times, such as showing a diagram first and providing the explanation later. Both forms force learners to hold information in working memory whilst searching for corresponding material, consuming cognitive resources needed for learning (Cowan, 2001; Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). The solution for physical separation involves integrating text with diagrams, whilst temporal separation requires presenting information simultaneously. ## Implementation guidelines Effective integration requires discriminating between what should and should not be combined (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Integration benefits information that must be processed together for comprehension (Sweller, 2010). This includes essential text and corresponding diagrams that explain each other, formulae with their variable explanations placed immediately adjacent, and questions with relevant reference materials that students will need to consult. However, integration proves counterproductive for [[Redundancy Effect|redundant information]] that competes for the same cognitive channel by saying the same thing twice in different ways (Sweller, Chandler, Tierney, & Cooper, 1990). Similarly, information students already know well suffers from [[Expertise Reversal Effect|expertise reversal]] (Kalyuga et al., 2003), and content that creates unnecessary complexity or visual clutter should remain separate. The goal is integration that reduces cognitive load, not integration for its own sake (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). ## Common classroom examples Split-attention appears frequently in typical classroom materials (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Pagination problems occur when information appears on one page whilst questions appear on the back page, requiring constant flipping that loses working memory contents with each turn (Cowan, 2001). Textbook layouts often separate diagrams from explanations by several pages, forcing readers to hold visual information in memory whilst searching for corresponding text. Presentation design creates similar difficulties when text-heavy slides show corresponding visuals separately, requiring students to integrate information across time. ## Strategic solutions Several approaches reduce split-attention effectively. The [[Modality Effect]] combines spoken explanation with visual diagrams rather than written text with diagrams, distributing load across auditory and visual channels (Mousavi, Low, & Sweller, 1995). Creating integrated materials designs worksheets with diagrams and text together, eliminating the need for cross-referencing (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Zooming into and out of presentations focuses on specific sections whilst maintaining the complete context available, rather than showing pieces sequentially. ## Key warnings and pitfalls Integration must be strategic, not automatic. Redundant integration creates the [[Redundancy Effect]] (Sweller et al., 1990), a different cognitive load problem where the same information competes for processing. Expertise reversal applies when experts find integrated presentations confusing because they already know the relationships (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Individual student expertise levels require consideration when designing materials, as one-size-fits-all integration may be too much for some and too little for others. Integration should not create overcrowding; if combining information makes materials harder to read, a different problem has emerged. ## Practical examples In geometry, angle labels integrate directly onto diagrams rather than in separate explanation text (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). Physics formulae place variable definitions directly with equations rather than in separate glossaries. Mathematical worked examples include step explanations adjacent to calculations, not below or separate (Tarmizi & Sweller, 1988). ![[SplitAttention1.png]] ![[SplitAttention7.png|300]] ## References Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. *Cognition and Instruction*, 8(4), 293-332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, 62(2), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 87(2), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319 Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. *Educational Psychology Review*, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 119(2), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.2.176 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 80(4), 424-436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.424