Briana B. Morrison
Brian Dorn
Mark Guzdial
ABSTRACT
A student's capacity to learn a concept is directly related to how much cognitive load is used to comprehend the material. The central problem identified by Cognitive Load Theory is that learning is impaired when the total amount of processing requirements exceeds the limited capacity of working memory. Instruction can impose three different types of cognitive load on a student's working memory: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. Since working memory is a fixed size, instructional material should be designed to minimize the extraneous and intrinsic loads in order to increase the amount of memory available for the germane load. This will improve learning. To effectively design instruction to minimize cognitive load we must be able to measure the specific load components for any pedagogical intervention. This paper reports on a study that adapts a previously developed instrument to measure cognitive load. We report on the adaptation of the instrument to a new discipline, introductory computer science, and the results of measuring the cognitive load factors of specific lectures. We discuss the implications for the ability to measure specific cognitive load components and use of the tool in future studies.
- P. D. Antonenko and D. S. Niederhauser. The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2): 140--150, 2010. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- P. Ayres. Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16 (5): 389--400, 2006. ISSN 0959-4752.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Ayres and J. Sweller. Locus of difficulty in multistage mathematics problems. The American Journal of Psychology, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. L. Ayres. Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26 (2): 227--248, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Baddeley. Working memory. Science, 255 (5044): 556--559, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., expanded edition, 2000.Google Scholar
- T. Brown. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2006.Google Scholar
- R. Brunken, J. L. Plass, and D. Leutner. Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1): 53--61, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Chandler and J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8 (4): 293--332, 1991.Google Scholar
- P. Chandler and J. Sweller. The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62 (2): 233--246, 1992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Chandler and J. Sweller. Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied cognitive psychology, 10 (2): 151--170, 1996.Google Scholar
- G. Cierniak, K. Scheiter, and P. Gerjets. Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2): 315--324, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. C. Clark and R. E. Mayer. E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. E. DeLeeuw and R. E. Mayer. A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. J. of Educational Psychology, 100 (1): 223, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Gerjets, K. Scheiter, and R. Catrambone. Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32 (1-2): 33--58, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Gerjets, K. Scheiter, and R. Catrambone. Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16 (2): 104--121, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology, 52: 139--183, 1988.Google Scholar
- L.-t. Hu and P. M. Bentler. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1): 1--55, 1999.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. L. Jackson, J. A. Gillaspy, and R. Purc-Stephenson. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14 (1): 6--23, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Leppink, F. Paas, C. P. Van der Vleuten, T. Van Gog, and J. J. Van Merriënboer. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods, 45 (4): 1058--1072, 2013.Google Scholar
- J. Leppink, F. Paas, T. van Gog, C. P. van der Vleuten, and J. J. van Merriënboer. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30: 32--42, 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. A. Miller. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review, 63 (2): 81, 1956.Google Scholar
- R. Moreno. Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional science, 32 (1-2): 99--113, 2004.Google Scholar
- J. Nunnally. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2nd edition, 1978.Google Scholar
- F. Paas, J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. Van Gerven. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38 (1): 63--71, 2003.Google Scholar
- F. G. Paas. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. J. of educational psychology, 84 (4): 429, 1992.Google Scholar
- F. G. Paas and J. J. Van Merriënboer. The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35 (4): 737--743, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. G. Paas and J. J. Van Merriënboer. Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86 (1): 122, 1994.Google Scholar
- F. G. Paas, J. J. Van Merriënboer, and J. J. Adam. Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and motor skills, 79 (1): 419--430, 1994.Google Scholar
- J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, and R. Brünken. Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
- A. Robins. Learning edge momentum. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pages 1845--1848. Springer, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. Salomon. Television is "easy" and print is "tough": The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. J. of educational psychology, 76 (4): 647, 1984.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Sweller. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12 (2): 257--285, 1988.Google Scholar
- J. Sweller. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22 (2): 123--138, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Sweller and P. Chandler. Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12 (3): 185--233, 1994.Google Scholar
- J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merriënboer, and F. G. Paas. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10 (3): 251--296, 1998.Google Scholar
- J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. Cognitive load theory, volume 1. Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
- G. Underwood, L. Jebbett, and K. Roberts. Inspecting pictures for information to verify a sentence: Eye movements in general encoding and in focused search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57 (1): 165--182, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. W. Van Gerven, F. Paas, J. J. Van Merriënboer, and H. G. Schmidt. Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41 (2): 167--174, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. W. van Gerven, F. Paas, J. J. van Merriënboer, and H. G. Schmidt. Modality and variability as factors in training the elderly. Applied cognitive psychology, 20 (3): 311--320, 2006.Google Scholar
- T. Van Gog and F. Paas. Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43 (1): 16--26, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. van Gog and F. Paas. Cognitive load measurement. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pages 599--601. Springer, 2012.Google Scholar
- T. van Gog and K. Scheiter. Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20 (2): 95--99, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. J. Van Merriënboer and J. Sweller. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17 (2): 147--177, 2005.Google Scholar
- R. R. Whelan. Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2 (1): 1--12, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: adaptation of an instrument
Recommendations
Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review
One of the most commonly cited theories in computing education research is cognitive load theory (CLT), which explains how learning is affected by the bottleneck of human working memory and how teaching may work around that limitation. The theory has ...
Using stroop task to assess cognitive load
ECCE '10: Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive ErgonomicsMotivation -- Assessment of cognitive load on user tasks is useful for characterizing user interfaces and tasks with respect to their demands on the user's mental effort.
Research approach -- We conducted a controlled experiment with 48 subjects. The ...
Complex Mobile Learning that Adapts to Learners' Cognitive Load
Mobile learning is cognitively demanding and frequently the ubiquitous nature of mobile computing means that mobile devices are used in cognitively demanding environments. This paper examines the use of mobile devices from a Learning, Usability and ...
Comments