Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load
Tóm tắt
Instructional design deals with the optimization of learning processes. To achieve this, three aspects need to be considered: (1) the learning task itself, (2) the design of the learning material, and (3) the activation of the learner’s cognitive processes during learning. Based on Cognitive Load Theory, learners also need to deal with the task itself, the design of the material, and the decision on how much to invest into learning. To link these concepts, and to help instructional designers and teachers, cognitive load during learning needs to be differentially measured. This article reviews studies using a questionnaire to measure intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load in order to provide evidence for the instruments’ prognostic validity. Six exemplary studies from different domains with different variations of the learning material were chosen to show that the theoretically expected effects on different types of load are actually reflected in the learners’ answers in the questionnaire. Major hypotheses regarding the different load types were (1) variations in difficulty are reflected in the scale on intrinsic cognitive load, (2) variations in design are reflected in the scale on extraneous cognitive load, and (3) variations in enhancing deeper learning through activation of cognitive processes are reflected in the scale on germane cognitive load. We found prognostic validity to be good. The review concludes by discussing the practical and theoretical implications, as well as pointing out the limitations and needs for further research.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review,13(3), 219–235.
Artino, A. R., Jr. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience: An abbreviated review for educational practitioners. AACE Journal,16(4), 425–439.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research,70(2), 181–214.
Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology,20(3), 287–298.
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie,23(2), 139–145.
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist,38(1), 53–61.
Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2010). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition & Instruction,8(4), 293–332.
Clarck, R.E. (1990). When teaching kills learning. research on mathemathantics. In H. Mandl, E. de Corte, N. Bennett, & H.F. Friedrich (Eds.), Analysis of complex skills and complex knowledge domains: Learning and instruction: European research in an international context: Volume II: Selection of papers from the Second European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction held in Tübingen, West Germany, in September 1987 (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S. & Newman, S.E. (1987). Cognitive apprenticeship. teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Technical Report.
Debue, N., & van de Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 1099.
Eitel, A., Kühl, T., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2014). Disfluency meets cognitive load in multimedia learning: Does harder-to-read mean better-to-understand? Applied Cognitive Psychology,28(4), 488–501.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–134). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jumbo Spiele®,. (2000). Wer wird Millionär? [Who wants to be a millionaire?]. Herscheid (DE): Jumbo Spiele GmbH.
Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review,23(1), 1–19.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,40(1), 1–17.
Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,34(2), 196–209.
Keller, J., Bless, H., Blomann, F., & Kleinböhl, D. (2011). Physiological aspects of flow experiences: Skills-demand-compatibility effects on heart rate variability and salivary cortisol. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,47(4), 849–852.
Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology,8, 1997.
Kühl, T., & Eitel, A. (2016). Effects of disfluency on cognitive and metacognitive processes and outcomes. Metacognition and Learning,11(1), 1–13.
Leppink, J., Paas, F. G. W. C., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods,45(4), 1058–1072.
Leppink, J., Paas, F. G. W. C., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction,30, 32–42.
Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005b). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology,91(2), 358–368.
Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,84(4), 429–434.
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction,12(1), 61–86.
Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–246). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2010). Learning from worked-out examples and problem solving. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 91–108). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktuller Motivation in Lern- und Leistungssituationen. Diagnostica,47(2), 57–66.
Rogers, K., Röhlig, A., Weing, M., Gugenheimer, J., Könings, B. & Klepsch, M., et al. (2014). P.I.A.N.O. In R. Dachselt, N. Graham, K. Hornbæk, & M. Nacenta (Eds.), ITS ‘14 Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (pp. 149–158).
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–70). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Text- und Bildverstehen. Experimental Psychology,46(3), 217–236.
Seufert, T. (2018). The interplay between self-regulation in learning and cognitive load. Educational Research Review,24, 116–129.
Seufert, T., Wagner, F., & Westphal, J. (2017). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science,45(2), 221–238.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction,4(4), 295–312.
Sweller, J. (2010a). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (2010b). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review,22(2), 123–138.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition & Instruction,12(3), 185.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review,10(3), 251–296.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for E-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development,53(3), 5–13.