View
3.004
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
This study proposes a new instrument to measure cognitive load types related to user interface and demonstrates theoretical assumptions about different load types. In reconsidering established cognitive load theory, the inadequacies of the theory are criticized in terms of the adaption of learning efficiency score and distinction of cognitive load types. Since measurement of mental effort does not cover all types of cognitive load, a new way of isolating different loads is required. Previous studies have focused on designing interface to reduce extraneous cognitive load. However, interface may have the potential to enhance germane cognitive load because learners may construct their knowledge schemata with interface layouts.
Citation preview
Cognitive Psychology SeminarThe University of Memphis
Dr. Michael M. GrantUniversity of Memphis
Dr. Jongpil CheonTexas Tech University
March 31, 2010
RECONSIDERING COGNITIVE LOAD: EXAMINING THE DIFFERENT TYPES & MEASURING THEM IF WE CAN
Michael M. Grant 2010
WBI
Learning Content
Pedagogical Plans
Isolation
Learning with WBI
Learner
Interface
Basic assumptions – limited working memory
Extraneous cognitive load an irrelevant cognitive resource caused by the layout, navigation, structure or medium of instruction.
All are additive
Germane cognitive load
Cognitive Load Theory
an inherent cognitive resource caused by the complexity of learning content.
a relevant cognitive resource caused by learners' investment on schema construction and automation.
Intrinsic cognitive load
Intrinsic cognitive load New application approaches1. Controlling the complexity of learning
contents2. Adaptive instruction with learners’
content expertise3. Fostering germane cognitive load
Extraneous cognitive load Traditional CLT research : reducing extraneous load
Schema construction & automation
Germane cognitive load
Applications of Cognitive Load Theory
Cognitive Load Theory Research
Learning efficiency score = performance score & mental effort
(E = efficiency, P = performance, ME = mental effort)
(P and ME values were standardized into z scores)
Intrinsic cognitive load
Extraneous cognitive load
No measurement to isolate each cognitive load type
Why lower mental effort is preferred?
Mental effort measurement“Please indicate how difficult the instruction/test you just took was by clicking on the appropriate degree of difficulty”
Germane cognitive load
Limitations
Learning efficiency concept
Negative Positive
WBI
Learning Content
Pedagogical Plans
Three layers of the interaction between WBI and a learner
Learner
Interface
Connection
Intrinsic cognitive load Difficulty of instruction
Extraneous cognitive load Usability
It may strengthen the theoretical foundation of cognitive load theory.
New Way to Measure Cognitive Load
Germane cognitive load Schema construction and automation
Score from pretest
Measuring Intrinsic Cognitive Load
Prior knowledge
(a) The menu in the instruction is easy to navigate.(b) I can identify easily where I am and where I should go. (c) The amount of information on each page was appropriate to
understand.(d) The information layout and locations are consistent throughout
the instruction.(e) Graphics or other elements on the pages are not distracting.
Measuring Extraneous Cognitive Load
Usability level
(a) The interface contributed to my understanding of (learning content).
(b) The interface helped me to mentally organize the structure of (learning content).
(c) As I progressed throughout the unit, the interface helped me to relate later concepts to earlier concepts.
(d) While proceeding throughout the unit, the interface helped me to remember the structure of (learning content).
(e) When I think about what I just learned, I remember the content in terms of the interface’s layout.
Measuring Germane Cognitive Load
Engagement level (Schema construction and automation)
Pilot study with 52 undergraduate students- Reliability score = .944
Participants: 40 (43 originally) undergraduates in the Journalism department
Data Collection: (a) pretest score (20 items) (b) posttest score (same 20 items) (c) engagement level of the instruction (d) usability level of the interface
Instructional Units: Introduction to Public Relations
Data Collection Procedure: Phase 1 - Pretest Phase 2 – instruction Posttest Survey on engagement & usability
Methodology
Reliability test of responses to engagement items & usability items
Engagement: Cronbach’s Alpha = .914
Usability: Cronbach’s Alpha = .767All items acceptable
Results
Significant difference (t = - 12.388, p < .001)
Results
Learning Performance02468
101214161820
10.18
15.03
PretestPosttest
Learning Performance
Intrinsic cognitive load Pretest score invertedM = 10.18 —> M = 9.83
Extraneous cognitive load Usability score invertedM = 4.21 —> M = 1.79
Results
Germane cognitive load Engagement level M = 4.02
Intrinsic cognitive load
Extraneous cognitive load
Results
Germane cognitive load
p = .294r = -.170
p < .001r = -.567
p = .539r = .100
Correlations
Intrinsic cognitive load
Extraneous cognitive load
Results
Germane cognitive load
Β = .279
Learningperformance
Β = .686
Β = .024
63.4% explained
Multiple Regression
Discussion
Lower extraneous tends toward higher germane
Prior knowledge was not related to extraneous or germane
Germane was the most significant predictor of performance
Indirect impact on performance by extraneous
Advancement of cognitive load theory
Practice of instructional design
Using an interface to promote germane engagement has potential
Extraneous and usability are puzzling
Discussion
Limitations & Future Research
Small sample size
Self-report
Pretest score represents all prior knowledge
Specific to Web-based instruction
Difficult level could be combined to help measure intrinsic load
Moving toward more sophisticated analysis
Recommended