Role of dual task design when measuring cognitive load during multimedia learning
Tóm tắt
This study assessed the role different kinds of secondary tasks play for researching the modality effect of cognitive load theory. Ninety-six university students worked with a computer-based training program for approximately 13 min and had to fulfill an additional secondary task. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, modality of information presentation (within factor) and design of secondary task (between factor) were varied. Students of both experimental groups learned with visual-only and audiovisual information presentation. The secondary task consisted of monitoring an object either displayed spatially contiguous (monitoring the screen background color, N = 46) or spatially non-contiguous (monitoring a letter color in the upper part of the screen, N = 50). Reaction times on this secondary task were used to measure cognitive load. Results show that the modality effect only appears with the spatially non-contiguous task but not with the spatially contiguous task. We interpret this effect as due to only partial utilization of working memory capacity by the combination of primary task and spatially contiguous secondary task. The results highlight the importance of an appropriate secondary task design when investigating the modality effect but also not to overgeneralize multimedia design guidelines.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Ayres, P. (2001). Systematic mathematical errors and cognitive load. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 227–248.
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Interdisciplinary perspectives inspiring a new generation of cognitive load research [Special issue]. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 1–9.
Ayres, P., & Van Gog, T. (2009). State of the art research into cognitive load theory [Special issue]. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 253–392.
Baddeley, A. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psychologist, 56(11), 851–864.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load. Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139–146.
Bleckley, M., Durso, F., Crutchfield, J., Engle, R., & Khanna, M. (2003). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict visual attention allocation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(4), 884–889.
Boynton, R. M., & Kambe, N. (1980). Chromatic difference steps of moderate size measured along theoretically critical axes. Color Research and Application, 5(1), 13–23.
Brünken, R., & Leutner, D. (2001). Aufmerksamkeitsverteilung oder Aufmerksamkeitsfokussierung? Empirische Ergebnisse zur „Split-Attention-Hypothese“beim Lernen mit Multimedia [Attention splitting or attention focussing? Empirical results concerning the „split-attention hypothesis“in learning with multimedia]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 29(4), 357–366.
Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–61.
Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 109–119.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151–170.
De Leeuw, K., & Mayer, R. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223–234.
Fisk, A. D., Derrick, W. L., & Schneider, W. (1986). A methodological assessment and evaluation of dual-task paradigms. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 5(4), 315–327.
Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–331.
Kane, M., & Engle, R. (2000). Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: Limits on long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 336–358.
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Madrid, I., Van Oostendorp, H., & Melguizo, M. (2009). The effects of the number of links and navigation support on cognitive load and learning with hypertext: The mediating role of reading order. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 66–75.
Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49–63.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.
Renkl, A., Gruber, H., Weber, S., Lerche, T., & Schweizer, K. (2003). Cognitive Load beim Lernen aus Lösungsbeispielen [Cognitive load during learning from worked-out examples]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17(2), 93–101.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). What causes the modality effect in multimedia learning? Testing a specification of the modality assumption. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 164–176.
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Lernen mit Multimedia: Die kognitiven Grundlagen des Modalitätseffekts [Multimedia learning and the cognitive basis of the modality effect]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59(2), 98–107.
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508.
Schoor, C., Bannert, M., & Jahn, V. (2011). Methodological constraints for detecting the modality effect. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1183–1196.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–167). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swets, J., Tanner, W., & Birdsall, T. (1961). Decision processes in perception. Psychological Review, 68(5), 301–340.
Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & Van Merrienboer, J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.
Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction [Special issue]. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 369–375.
Wickens, C. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 3–34). London: Taylor and Francis.
Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.
Wright, W. (1941). The sensitivity of the eye to small colour differences. The proceedings of the physical society, 53(2), 93–112.