Chunking is the practice of breaking up steady streams of lecture content. The practice is informed by the concept of working memory, specifically, that our working memory holds a limited amount of space for processing information. Chunking lecture content accommodates the limitations of our working memory by opening up space through breaks or pauses. Chunking is used in motor learning, memory training systems, Expertise and Skilled Memory Effects, Short Term Memory, and Long-Term Memory structures (Williamson & Schell, 2014).
The Importance of Chunking
The ability to chunk information (a) helps an individual remember more, (b) gives the individual a means of accessing the information that is ultimately stored in his or her memory, and (c) increases ‘‘the amount of information we can deal with’’ (Miller, 1956, p. 95).
Miller suggested that this process is ongoing as we recode information constantly in an effort to assimilate new information with current knowledge. For instance, as we learn new information, if it sounds familiar or if it fits into an existing category we tend to remember and relate the new information to the existing category, creating powerful connections within the chunk (see also Gobet & Simon, 1996; Higham, 1997).
Thus, chunking serves as both a triggering device and as a code building device for our memory. The triggering aspect of chunks relies on the strength of a chunk or group of related chunks. Chunks are arranged in a hierarchical fashion, so the most memorable items will consist of information that is most relevant to the individual attempting to learn (Servan-Schreiber & Anderson, 1990). Code building is often accomplished through replication of chunks or related information that allows the participant to recall chunks for later use. As students build a system of codes (i.e. chunks), patterns begin to emerge which enable them to link related chunks and eventually build larger and larger stores of information (Koch & Hoffmann, 2000). Consequently, students are able to develop skills that are more complex than simple rules yet straightforward enough to be stored in memory, enhancing expertise in a given competency.
Why we Chunk
We chunk because we have to. If you look at anyone, anywhere with their face firmly fixed on the screen of their mobile device you’ll notice each of them doesn’t stay focused for very long. If fact the average time most of them will concentrate on the device is less than the attention span of a goldfish.
“According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (2014), the average attention span of a student is 8 seconds. In Bull Riding that makes you money. In education that causes ulcers. Unless, that is, you realize what you thought was once fancy is rooted in scientific fact: Our short attention spans are getting shorter. The average attention span of a goldfish (from the same study) is 9 seconds. A goldfish has a better attention span than you do. This is why we chunk” (Carr Knowledge Interactive Marketing & Advertising Inc. 2014).
“Content chunking breaks down massive amounts of content into manageable pieces. And when those info pieces are just the right size of small, your learners with short attention spans don’t have time to get distracted before they get through each piece” (Wroten, 2014). This is especially important with today’s learners incorporating more and more technology into their learning environments and always on the move which can be very distracting.
References
Bodie, G. D., Powers, W. G., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2006). Chunking, priming and active learning: Toward an innovative and blended approach to teaching communication-related skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 119-135.
Carr Knowledge Interactive Marketing & Advertising Inc. (2014, April 25). Chunking & the ModernClassroom.Retrievedfrom http://www.carrknowledge.com/article/2014/4/chunking--the-modern-classroom.html
Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22 – 35.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81 – 97.
Miller, G. A. (1994). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. In H. Gutfreund & G. Toulouse (Eds.), Biology and computation: A physicist’s choice (pp. 207 – 223). River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co.
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, The Associated Press. (2014). Attention Span Statistics (Data File). Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-statistics/
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592 – 608.
Williamson, Z., Schell, J. (2014). Chunking Instruction. Center for Teaching Learning, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://onramps.org/chunking-instruction/
Wroten, C. (2014, September 25). Key Tips for Working with Short Attention Spans. Elearning Design and Development. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/key-tips-working-short-attention-spans
The Importance of Chunking
The ability to chunk information (a) helps an individual remember more, (b) gives the individual a means of accessing the information that is ultimately stored in his or her memory, and (c) increases ‘‘the amount of information we can deal with’’ (Miller, 1956, p. 95).
Miller suggested that this process is ongoing as we recode information constantly in an effort to assimilate new information with current knowledge. For instance, as we learn new information, if it sounds familiar or if it fits into an existing category we tend to remember and relate the new information to the existing category, creating powerful connections within the chunk (see also Gobet & Simon, 1996; Higham, 1997).
Thus, chunking serves as both a triggering device and as a code building device for our memory. The triggering aspect of chunks relies on the strength of a chunk or group of related chunks. Chunks are arranged in a hierarchical fashion, so the most memorable items will consist of information that is most relevant to the individual attempting to learn (Servan-Schreiber & Anderson, 1990). Code building is often accomplished through replication of chunks or related information that allows the participant to recall chunks for later use. As students build a system of codes (i.e. chunks), patterns begin to emerge which enable them to link related chunks and eventually build larger and larger stores of information (Koch & Hoffmann, 2000). Consequently, students are able to develop skills that are more complex than simple rules yet straightforward enough to be stored in memory, enhancing expertise in a given competency.
Why we Chunk
We chunk because we have to. If you look at anyone, anywhere with their face firmly fixed on the screen of their mobile device you’ll notice each of them doesn’t stay focused for very long. If fact the average time most of them will concentrate on the device is less than the attention span of a goldfish.
“According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (2014), the average attention span of a student is 8 seconds. In Bull Riding that makes you money. In education that causes ulcers. Unless, that is, you realize what you thought was once fancy is rooted in scientific fact: Our short attention spans are getting shorter. The average attention span of a goldfish (from the same study) is 9 seconds. A goldfish has a better attention span than you do. This is why we chunk” (Carr Knowledge Interactive Marketing & Advertising Inc. 2014).
“Content chunking breaks down massive amounts of content into manageable pieces. And when those info pieces are just the right size of small, your learners with short attention spans don’t have time to get distracted before they get through each piece” (Wroten, 2014). This is especially important with today’s learners incorporating more and more technology into their learning environments and always on the move which can be very distracting.
References
Bodie, G. D., Powers, W. G., & Fitch-Hauser, M. (2006). Chunking, priming and active learning: Toward an innovative and blended approach to teaching communication-related skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 14(2), 119-135.
Carr Knowledge Interactive Marketing & Advertising Inc. (2014, April 25). Chunking & the ModernClassroom.Retrievedfrom http://www.carrknowledge.com/article/2014/4/chunking--the-modern-classroom.html
Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22 – 35.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63(2), 81 – 97.
Miller, G. A. (1994). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. In H. Gutfreund & G. Toulouse (Eds.), Biology and computation: A physicist’s choice (pp. 207 – 223). River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co.
National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, The Associated Press. (2014). Attention Span Statistics (Data File). Retrieved from http://www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-statistics/
Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592 – 608.
Williamson, Z., Schell, J. (2014). Chunking Instruction. Center for Teaching Learning, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://onramps.org/chunking-instruction/
Wroten, C. (2014, September 25). Key Tips for Working with Short Attention Spans. Elearning Design and Development. Retrieved from http://elearningindustry.com/key-tips-working-short-attention-spans
