Spatially Distributed Instructions Improve Learning Outcomes and Efficiency Jooyoung Jang, Christian D. Schunn, and Timothy J. Nokes University of Pittsburgh Learning requires applying limited working memory and attentional resources to intrinsic, germane, and extraneous aspects of the learning task. To reduce the especially undesirable extraneous load aspects of learning environments, cognitive load theorists suggest that spatially integrated learning materials should be used instead of spatially separated materials, thereby reducing the split-attention effect (Sweller & Chandler, 1994). Recent work, however, has suggested a new distinction between two common formats of spatially separated displays: spatially distributed versus spatially stacked (Jang & Schunn, 2010). Moreover, a distinction between instructions and learning task materials has rarely been made. Across two studies with 106 college students (56 in Study 1 and 50 in Study 2), we compared spatially distributed (multiple sources of information are placed side by side) versus spatially stacked (only one at the top is visible) instructions, without changing the learning task materials, on both task performance and learning. With materials more typical of practice, Study 1 showed that the distributed-display instructions led learners to more efficient learning; learners finished the task faster and scored higher in the overall learning test. With materials more tightly controlled for spatial format per se, Study 2 replicated the effect and found that the benefit of the distributed instructions appeared to be associated with changes in cognitive load. Implications for educational practice are discussed. Keywords: cognitive load theory, split-attention effect, instruction design Learning usually takes place through interactions with multiple sources of information. Moreover, learning materials commonly involve a mixture of textual and pictorial information, which has spurred research on various types of graphs and tables and their effectiveness under different circumstances (Cleveland & McGill, 1985; Larkin & Simon, 1987; Peebles & Cheng, 2003; Shah & Hoeffner, 2002; Shah, Mayer, & Hegarty, 1999; Zacks & Tversky, 1999). Determining the optimal type of representation (i.e., tables, graphs, and diagrams) for a given learning content is an important strand of research in instructional design. But because of the volume of information to process, improving learning often also requires optimizing the spatial arrangement of information, that is, spatially organizing multiple sources of information to support learnability and problem solving. In this article, we investigate relations between spatial organization of materials and learning from the perspective of cognitive load theory. According to cognitive load theory (Sweller & Chandler, 1994; Sweller, van Merrie ¨nboer, & Paas, 1998; van Merrie ¨nboer & Sweller, 2005), learning is defined as a process of schema con- struction and automation, which takes place within the human memory system. Because working memory capacity is severely limited in the number of items that can be stored and processed simultaneously (Baddeley, 1992; Miller, 1956), learning materials that present too much new information overload working memory, thereby reducing learning. Building on the notion of limited working memory resources, cognitive load theorists posit three types of cognitive load that are influential in the process of learning: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous loads (van Merrie ¨nboer & Sweller, 2005). An intrinsic load is the type of load that is required for learning itself: Con- scious processing of information for learning demands more cog- nitive resources than does automatic processing, and simultaneous processing of multiple items (i.e., complex tasks that require integration of information to solve the problem) consumes more resources than does independent, sequential processing with smaller amounts of information. In this conceptualization, intrinsic load is caused by the nature of the learning tasks and cannot be alleviated by changes in material design. By contrast, germane and extraneous loads are the types of load that are not required for task performance and learning but instead involve additional load caused by the way materials are presented. When this type of load facilitates learning by encouraging learners to actively engage in the process of schema construction, it is called germane (Sweller et al., 1998; van Gog, Paas, & van Merrie ¨nboer, 2008). For example, giving a fully worked out ex- ample may not be as effective as having students fill in the blanks of the worked example. Incomplete examples draw learners’ at- tention and help them actively participate in the cognitive pro- cesses of learning. By contrast, extraneous load hinders learning by imposing an unnecessary load that is not related to learning or a necessary component of the core task being performed. Extraneous load is This article was published Online First January 24, 2011. Jooyoung Jang, Christian D. Schunn, and Timothy J. Nokes, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SBE-0823628. We thank the lab teaching fellows—Daniel Belenky, Soniya Gadgil, Melissa Patchan, Nikole Patson, and Elisabeth Ploran—for their assistance in these studies. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jooyoung Jang, Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, 823 Learning Research and Development Center, 3939 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. E-mail: joj15@pitt.edu Journal of Educational Psychology © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 103, No. 1, 60 –72 0022-0663/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021994 60