Making Room for Learning: Cognitive Load, Multimedia, and Agency in the Online Classroom

Part II: From Intentional Choices to Manageable Learning

When a Good Resource Asks Too Much

An engaging video can still become a demanding assignment. A teacher may see an inspiring speaker and a worthwhile topic, while students face unfamiliar vocabulary, rapid speech, changing images, and questions to answer. The resource has educational value, but the conditions for learning need attention.

The earlier discussion, blog post #597, of agency and purposeful tool selection leads to a further question: can learners use the opportunities we offer when processing the lesson already consumes their attention? In my online teaching with college young adults and corporate working adults, this question makes lesson design a matter of professional responsibility. Meaningful choices need a manageable path through the learning.

Looking Beyond Student Effort

The ISTE+ASCD section “How Students Process” reminds teachers that working memory “can only hold and process a limited amount of new information at once” (ISTE+ASCD, n.d.-a, opening paragraph). This observation invites a different response when students struggle. Before assigning the difficulty entirely to preparation or motivation, we should examine what the task asks them to manage.

Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas (2019) explain that working memory is limited when processing unfamiliar information, while knowledge in long-term memory changes what learners can handle. The same assignment can therefore place different demands on students with different preparation. In language learning, knowing the topic does not necessarily mean understanding its presentation in English. A corporate learner may recognize the workplace problem immediately but struggle to follow the speaker’s explanation. A college student may understand individual words while losing the relationship between them. Both situations deserve instructional attention.

Recognizing Different Demands

The course distinguishes intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Intrinsic load concerns the complexity of the material in relation to the learner’s knowledge. Extraneous load involves demands that do not serve learning, such as confusing instructions or unnecessary movement between screens. Germane load describes effort directed toward understanding. In my personal course notes, I acknowledged, “I had never learned about the three different types of cognitive load in task design” (Acuña Solano, 2026, first reflection, sentence 1). Naming these demands helped me examine familiar teaching decisions more carefully.

The distinction needs one qualification. Sweller, van Merriënboer, and Paas (2019) describe germane load as resources devoted to handling intrinsic demands, rather than a separate load simply added to the other two. Segmentation can help manage essential complexity as well as unnecessary demands. The practical aim is to preserve effort for understanding, connecting, and using ideas.

Clarity as a Teaching Responsibility

The course recommends “clearly bounded chunks” and predictable navigation (ISTE+ASCD, n.d.-a, “Reducing Extraneous Load,” para. 1). These suggestions sound modest, yet they invite an honest inspection of the learner’s route. Imagine opening a lesson and finding the video in one location, instructions in another, and discussion questions in a separate document. Each component may be clear individually. Together, they require students to remember where to go and what to do next.

My proposed response is to place the objective, viewing sequence, and response instructions together. Each stage would explain its purpose and lead visibly to the next. For learners attending online after work or alongside university responsibilities, that clarity respects the attention they bring. It also makes the learning challenge easier to recognize.

Making Multimedia Serve Understanding

The course’s section “Multimedia That Works” emphasizes that words and images should do “different, complementary work” (ISTE+ASCD, n.d.-b, “How the Brain Processes Words and Images,” para. 1). An illustration should help explain something. Spoken commentary should help learners understand what they see. Mayer’s (2020) multimedia learning framework brings these decisions together. Coherence concerns removing irrelevant material; spatial contiguity places related words and images near each other; segmenting allows manageable stages; modality and redundancy address how spoken words, printed words, and visuals share limited processing capacity.

For my lessons, these principles suggest a practical question: what does this element contribute? A useful diagram may clarify a relationship that would require considerable explanation. A decorative picture may add little. A page filled with instructions, images, and text can look complete while making its central purpose difficult to find.

Revisiting the TED Talk Assignment

My clearest example comes from homework assigned to corporate adult learners. Although the textbook offered a segmented TED Talk activity, I asked students to watch the complete talk. Reflecting on that decision, I wrote that watching a lengthy talk “might not necessarily be a good idea” (Acuña Solano, 2026, second reflection, sentence 1). The concern is the relationship between the viewing demand and the intended outcome. A complete talk may serve extended listening or an overall argument. A focused excerpt may better support examining one claim. Neither choice can be justified by duration alone.

Brame (2016) recommends considering cognitive load, engagement, and active learning together when using educational video. Her review supports focused videos and purposeful questions. It does not establish a universal minute limit for every lesson. My course’s suggested three- or five-minute targets are useful planning prompts, rather than guarantees of comprehension.

Applying Principles With Judgment

My initial notes also treated several multimedia principles as already satisfied by TED Talks. That conclusion requires examining the particular recording. A speaker, slides, captions, music, and visual transitions can combine differently across talks. Professional production does not settle instructional suitability.

Captions deserve particular care in language education. Winke, Gass, & Sydorenko (2010) found benefits from captioning in foreign-language video activities, with differences across conditions. Their findings caution against treating all repeated spoken and written language as harmful. I would therefore retain access to captions when they support comprehension or accessibility, while helping learners decide how to use them. Some might listen first and consult captions during review; others may need them immediately. Applying a principle responsibly includes considering the learner and the purpose.

A Proposed Redesign With Agency

A revised TED Talk task could begin with a shared outcome: explain one central claim, support it with evidence from the talk, and discuss its relevance. This is a proposed improvement to my assignment; its classroom effects still need evaluation. Before viewing, students would see the outcome, three short guiding questions, and a small vocabulary preview. Only terms essential to understanding the selected passages would receive attention. Students could then choose an application: a university situation, a workplace situation, or another relevant context they can explain.

I would organize the viewing around three meaningful sections: the problem, the speaker’s response, and the implications. Each might last two to four minutes where the argument allows. A passage would end at a useful conceptual boundary, rather than at an arbitrary timestamp. Edpuzzle is the tool I identified in my reflections for developing this sequence. Its use would need to preserve a simple learner experience. The instructional improvement lies in the sequence and the decisions it supports.

From Viewing to Communication

After the first section, learners would state the problem in one sentence. After the second, they would identify evidence supporting the speaker’s response. After the third, they would explain one possible application or limitation. These pauses would invite processing without turning every moment into a quiz. For this reason, students would control replay and pause as far as the task permits. They could keep brief notes as keywords, a small diagram, or short sentences. A student who needs another viewing should have a clear opportunity to take it.

During the online class, pairs would compare their interpretations and agree on a recommendation. College students could connect the idea to campus life or a community concern. Corporate learners could use a fictional workplace situation. Partners would request clarification, examine the evidence, and explain why their recommendation follows from the talk. Shared assessment criteria would address understanding, relevant evidence, clear English, and interaction. Choice would influence the application and preparation while the learning expectations remained visible.

Agency Needs Support

Bandura (2001) connects agency with intentional action, forethought, self-regulation, and reflection. This perspective helps distinguish meaningful participation from simply choosing between options. In my redesigned task, learners would decide what context matters to them, monitor understanding, and explain their decisions. However, too many choices could create additional demands. I would begin with a few understandable options and allow an equivalent student proposal.

Teacher guidance remains important. Students need to know what successful participation involves before being asked to direct parts of it. My responsibility is to make that direction possible through preparation, clear expectations, and opportunities to ask for help.

Learning From the Next Version

The redesign would need evidence beyond completion records. I would examine whether students explain the claim accurately, use relevant evidence, and sustain the follow-up discussion. I would also ask which supports helped and where confusion remained. Stronger answers would not, by themselves, prove that segmentation caused improvement. Vocabulary support, prior knowledge, and practice could also contribute. Still, student work and feedback could guide the next revision.

This reflection has brought me back to a familiar lesson with a different way of seeing it. Teacher agency begins with questioning a routine; learner agency grows when the revised task offers purposeful decisions students can manage. Making room for learning means attending carefully to both. 

San José, Costa Rica

Friday, November 6, 2026

Blog Post # 599

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026). Reflections on cognitive load and multimedia learning [Unpublished course notes].

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), es6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125

ISTE+ASCD. (n.d.-a). How students process [Course material; excerpts reproduced in the author’s notes].

ISTE+ASCD. (n.d.-b). Multimedia that works [Course material; excerpts reproduced in the author’s notes].

Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44203

Análise de Autores e Obras Literárias Mencionadas

Click to enlarge the infographics: Diseñando el aprendizaje en línea

Continue the Conversation: Watch the Explainer Video

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you would like to revisit its central ideas from a different perspective, I invite you to watch the accompanying explainer video.

Designed to complement—not replace—the essay, the video highlights its main arguments, provides additional context, and offers a concise visual journey through the themes explored in La Buenaventura. I hope it helps you see Alarcón's story from a fresh perspective.

If you enjoy the video, feel free to explore my YouTube channel, where I share more explainers and reflections on literature, English language teaching, linguistics, mythology, culture, education, and related topics.

📺 Visit my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCflH3o-0ZoYauP8t5fcCM4Q

Thank you for reading, watching, and joining me on this ongoing journey of learning and discovery.

Choosing Digital Tools With Purpose: Agency, Trust, and Responsibility in the Online Classroom

A companion essay to “Supporting Student Agency Through Intentional Design”

From Designing Choices to Choosing Tools

A lesson can be carefully planned and still leave an important question unanswered: why are students using this particular digital tool? In my previous reflection on student agency, I examined how learners could influence the path toward a shared learning objective. This second reflection takes that discussion further. If students are to assume greater ownership of learning, the tools surrounding them deserve the same attention as the activities they complete.

The ISTE+ASCD module “Selecting the Best Tools for Online Learning” begins with an uncomfortable observation: “Most digital tool adoption decisions are made too quickly, for the wrong reasons, and without asking the questions that matter most” (ISTE+ASCD, n.d., opening section, para. 1). It is easy to recognize the temptation. A colleague recommends an application, a demonstration looks impressive, and suddenly another platform enters the classroom. Yet a promising feature does not explain what students will learn, whether everyone can participate, or what happens to their information.

Looking Honestly at Familiar Tools

The course journal invited me to examine tools already present in my teaching. About Google Forms, I wrote, “It was chosen to create graded assessments that can be later on shared with students” (Acuña Solano, 2026b, Google Forms entry, para. 1). My explanation emphasized grades and answer analytics rather than a particular language objective.

That admission deserves reflection rather than embarrassment. Collecting assessment evidence is a legitimate purpose, but collecting it efficiently does not automatically improve learning. A quiz becomes more useful when its results help students identify difficulties, revise an explanation, or decide what to practice next. The teacher's convenience and the learner's progress can support each other, provided the connection is deliberately designed.

Mishra and Koehler's (2006) technological pedagogical content knowledge framework helps explain this connection. Sound technology integration involves relationships among subject matter, teaching approaches, and technology. Knowing how to operate a form is therefore only part of the work. The more important question is how its use supports the language learning taking place.

Recognizing the Limits of What I Know

My journal also recorded an informal explanation suggesting that Google Forms collected information mainly about me as its user. That was my understanding at the time; it should not become a factual assurance to students. Google Forms stores submitted responses and can collect email addresses depending on the settings selected (Google, n.d.). Information entered into a form may itself identify a learner.

Recognizing this distinction changes the reflection. I need to separate what I have heard, what I have verified, and what remains uncertain. A conversation with someone knowledgeable can begin an inquiry, but it cannot replace examining the relevant settings, institutional arrangements, and documentation.

This is also a matter of modeling responsible learning. Teachers regularly encourage students to check claims before accepting them. We should be willing to do the same when an assumption makes our own professional routines feel comfortable. Revisiting a journal entry can demonstrate growth rather than undermine credibility.

Institutional Selection and Shared Responsibility

Cambridge One presents a different situation. As I explained, “I didn’t choose this tool; it was chosen by the university I work for” (Acuña Solano, 2026b, Cambridge One entry, para. 1). Many teachers recognize this reality. We often teach within systems selected through institutional processes over which we have limited influence. However, limited influence does not make classroom decisions irrelevant. I still determine which exercises to assign, how much practice is reasonable, how students use feedback, and how platform work connects with communication during class.

My initial understanding of data collection also needs expanding. Cambridge One's privacy notice identifies categories including identity, technical, usage, and learning data; learning data can include student work, scores, progress, grades, and feedback (Cambridge University Press & Assessment, n.d.). These categories describe possible processing across the service, rather than proving that every category applies to every learner. Institutional approval matters, but informed teaching still requires knowing enough to ask useful questions.

Fit Before Features

The course identifies four questions for evaluating a tool: its connection to learning objectives, institutional approval, reliable student access, and data practices. Its central reminder is direct: “The criteria that matter most are not about features or novelty; they are about fit” (ISTE+ASCD, n.d., “What to Evaluate When Choosing a Tool,” para. 1).

For my online classes, fit begins with the communication students need to develop. College young adults may need to explain an idea, defend a position, or collaborate on a project. Corporate working adults may need to negotiate priorities or recommend a solution. Neither group benefits simply because an activity uses a fashionable application.

Access also deserves a practical interpretation. A student may own a smartphone without finding a complex task manageable on its screen. A working adult may attend after a demanding shift or share an internet connection. Before adopting a tool, I should consider readability, navigation, accessibility, and a workable alternative when participation becomes difficult.

Returning to Unit 12: Invention or Innovation

The lesson example from my earlier essay makes these principles concrete. Unit 12, “Invention or Innovation,” includes discussion of frugal innovation and opportunities to negotiate ideas using adverbials. Originally, pairs received the same scenario, roles, prompts, and conversational progression. My earlier reflection identified the limitation: students were “almost always making linguistic choices” but “not making many learning decisions” (Acuña Solano, 2026a, “Choosing the Right Structure for My Own Teaching,” para. 2). They could decide what to say, but the route through the task had largely been settled.

The proposed choice board opened several routes: analyzing an unsuccessful innovation, recommending a solution with limited resources, designing an improvement, or debating a patent decision. Students would pursue shared language outcomes through different challenges. This remains a proposed instructional improvement, not evidence that learning gains have already been measured.

The present module adds another insight: this redesign does not require another application. Clear instructions in the existing course space and the class's familiar conferencing environment may be sufficient.

A Small Redesign With Meaningful Agency

Consider a practical version of that task. The objective remains to negotiate an innovation proposal, justify recommendations, and use at least five target adverbials accurately. Pairs select a challenge from the board or propose an equivalent challenge for approval. They explain why their choice is relevant and agree on the roles they will take.

College students could improve an aspect of campus life or design an affordable study resource. Corporate learners could address a fictional scheduling difficulty or propose a service improvement. These options recognize different experiences without assuming that every young adult has professional knowledge. Workplace examples should use invented details rather than confidential company information.

During the discussion, students question each other's suggestions and agree on a recommendation. Assessment uses shared criteria for language use, supporting reasons, interaction, and task completion. Students then identify one strength and one improvement for their next discussion. Agency enters through the challenge, roles, and reflection; rigor remains visible through common expectations.

Why This Is More Than Offering Options

A choice board can still become a menu whose limits students never influence. Allowing an equivalent proposal creates room for learners to help shape the task. Their suggestions must meet the objective, but their experiences can contribute to the design. Ryan and Deci (2000) identify autonomy, competence, and relatedness as important psychological needs.

This framework helps explain the value of a relevant challenge, clear expectations, and collaboration. It does not establish that any choice board will improve motivation. Rather, it offers a reason to examine whether students experience their participation as meaningful. The next step is to listen. Which choices helped students communicate? Which instructions caused confusion? What would they change? Their answers can inform the next version of the lesson. Shared ownership develops when student contributions influence what happens afterward.

Fewer Tools and More Attention

Under the heading “Fewer Tools, Used Well,” the course warns that unfamiliar interfaces can compete with learning for students' attention (ISTE+ASCD, n.d.). The practical lesson is persuasive: each additional platform should earn its place. However, the suggested toolbox of three to five tools is best understood as guidance, rather than a universal number that guarantees stronger learning. Different courses have different requirements. The more useful principle is to avoid unnecessary complexity and invest time in tools that serve a clear purpose.

For my students, familiarity can leave more room for language practice. Time spent resolving another login is time unavailable for negotiating an idea or receiving feedback. A familiar tool becomes educationally valuable through the quality of the activity it supports, not simply through repeated use.

Teaching With Purpose and Care

This second reflection brings agency and responsible tool selection into the same conversation. Students need meaningful opportunities to influence their learning, and teachers need sound reasons for the digital environments they require students to enter.

My journal has made both strengths and gaps visible. I can explain why I use certain tools, but some explanations need a clearer connection to learning, and some assumptions need verification. That is useful professional learning. The improvement to Unit 12 offers a manageable place to begin: keep the language objective clear, invite students to shape the challenge, use familiar tools, and examine their responses. Better online teaching can begin with a modest change in a lesson already worth teaching. The essential work is to make participation more purposeful, more accessible, and more worthy of students' trust. 

San José, Costa Rica

Friday, October 30, 2026

Blog Post #597 

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026a). Supporting student agency through intentional design: Moving from understanding agency to building it in the online classroom [Unpublished reflective essay].

Acuña Solano, J. (2026b). Reflections on selecting the best tools for online learning [Unpublished course journal].

Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.). Privacy notice. Cambridge One. Retrieved October 25, 2026, from https://www.cambridgeone.org/privacy

Google. (n.d.). View & manage form responses. Google Docs Editors Help. https://support.google.com/docs/answer/139706

ISTE+ASCD. (n.d.). Selecting the best tools for online learning [Course module]. In Designing online learning experiences. [Course excerpts supplied in the author's notes.]

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Análise de Ferramentas Digitais para Aprendizagem Online

Click to enlarge the infographic: Selección de herramientas digitales educativas

Continue the Conversation: Watch the Explainer Video

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. If you would like to revisit its central ideas from a different perspective, I invite you to watch the accompanying explainer video.

Designed to complement—not replace—the essay, the video highlights its main arguments, provides additional context, and offers a concise visual journey through the themes explored in La Buenaventura. I hope it helps you see Alarcón's story from a fresh perspective.

If you enjoy the video, feel free to explore my YouTube channel, where I share more explainers and reflections on literature, English language teaching, linguistics, mythology, culture, education, and related topics.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCflH3o-0ZoYauP8t5fcCM4Q

Thank you for reading, watching, and joining me on this ongoing journey of learning and discovery.