Cognitive Load Theory and Readability
Readable is a simple word with a straightforward meaning. An adjective, it is a good example of a self-referential word, that is, a word that reflects its meaning. Readable, the word, is readable, embodying, demonstrating, and illuminating its sense.
Pronunciation is another self-referential word, one that puts the mouth through its paces in its performance, taking the mouth through its most of the vowels. The act of saying it provides an embodiment of its meaning. Pronunciation is a property of readable, though not a part of its definition.
Short is self-referential, exemplifying its meaning through its orthography. Long, however, is non-self-referential; shorter than short, long is not long.
Simplicity shares meaning elements with readable; for a polysyllabic word, its simplicity is the essence of simplicity, embodied in its delicate pronunciation and its sturdy coherence.
Coherence is interesting, and I argue partly self-referential. To read the word, co- must mingle with -here, come together with other words coming from other places to here, joining together here. The process of reading the word demonstrates its meaning.
Clarity, simplicity, coherence, and ease seem appropriate on the list of descriptions of a readable text. Of course, you probably already know about studies showing how these qualities aren’t guaranteed by short sentences and short words.
Used in the context of specialized jargon, changed from an adjective to a noun, readability shifts its status from a self-referential to a heterological word, a word whose meaning is neither embodied nor revealed by the word itself.
Readability has nothing inherently to do with readable. Readability is a mathematical evaluation of linguistic surface features producing a scaled score signifying the grade level of achievement a reader must demonstrate to be expected to comprehend the text in question.
This quantification is nonsense in my opinion from the perspective of a teacher. The primacy of lucidity, parsimony, and coherence in determining textual accessibility cannot be overstated. However, it would be fatally reductive to conflate these attributes solely with syntactic brevity or lexical familiarity.
That said, there is a meaningful difference between short and easy, and long and hard. This difference is a direct consequence of readers’ individual experiences or lack thereof with similar texts and with the text’s content. In the real world where readable is what is readable, the only sure way to know is to let the reader try reading the text.
*****
Cognitive Load (CL) Theory developed by linguist John Sweller in the 1980s is concerned with demands made on cognitive activity during a learning activity. Sweller’s model, which Sweller himself tinkered with over the decades into the 21st century, is highly relevant to understanding readability as a pedagogical concept.
The CL model was intended to explain how teaching activities can be designed to sustain learner focus and persistence by keeping the work at a manageable cognitive load. Too demanding results in breakdown; too simple results in superficial learning. If the goal is deep learning, building and integrating new schemas into existing knowledge networks, mental effort is required.
Mental effort explains why some texts seem harder to process than others, based on the cognitive resources required to understand them. Readability, then, is not solely an aspect of the text, but of motivation.
How information is presented in a text, how topics are structured and presented, is critical for readability, particularly for schema building. Preteaching organizational patterns to reduce unnecessary cognitive load directly impacts readability.
Sweller’s model defines three types of cognitive load which instructional strategies and designs can reduce or manage. The intrinsic cognitive load, the difficulty of the task, depends entirely upon each reader’s background and experience. Preteaching core content vocabulary and concepts, providing advanced organizers, walking learners through a reading assignment can reduce the intrinsic load by providing tailor-made psychological tools.
Extraneous cognitive loads can be inadvertently intensified through instructional actions. Micromanaging the reading, for example, can divert reader focus from schema construction to fulfilling the asks of the teacher. Reminding students or making salient a grade for the work can distort self-interested learning. Distractions of any sort even from the instructor increase cognitive load.
Collaborative resources involving peers during reading events can decrease anxiety and frustration as well as extraneous cognitive load by reducing competition. Extraneous load created by a competitive, individualist ethos and no opportunity to consult outside texts can be changed and may be a fruitful spot to explore AI bots.
Germane load is the hard work leading to payoff for learners. Cognitive load addressing the integration of new knowledge and understanding with preexisting schemas, remodeling them as needed, creating new schemas, and making and naming links across schemas can be significantly strengthened through post-reading activities involving organizing, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating. Learners with fulsome opportunities to work in a learning community to objectify and represent information in their own fashions support germane cognition.
Cognitive Load Theory provides a basis for using the concept of authentic local readability by enhancing preparation to read, psychological tools to use during reading, and guided instruction after reading toward knowledge consolidation. Readability pedagogy isn't just about the words and the sentences on the page.