Abstract
Cognitive load theory (CLT) posits the classic view that cognitive load (CL) has three-components: intrinsic, extraneous and germane. Prior research has shown that subjective ratings are valid measures of different CL subtypes. To a lesser degree, how the validity of these subjective ratings depends on learner characteristics has not been studied. In this research, we explored the extent to which the validity of a specific set of subjective measures depends upon learners’ prior knowledge. Specifically, we developed an eight-item survey to measure the three aforementioned subtypes of CL perceived by participants in a testing environment. In the first experiment (N = 45) participants categorized the eight items into different groups based on similarity of themes. Most of the participants sorted the items consistent with a threefold construct of the CLT. Interviews with a subgroup (N = 13) of participants provided verbal evidence corroborating their understanding of the items that was consistent with the classic view of the CLT. In the second experiment (N = 139) participants completed the survey twice after taking a conceptual test in a pre/post setting. A principal component analysis (PCA) revealed a two-component structure for the survey when the content knowledge level of the participants was initially lower, but a three-component structure when the content knowledge of the participants was improved to a higher level. The results seem to suggest that low prior knowledge participants failed to differentiate the items targeting the intrinsic load from those measuring the extraneous load. In the third experiment (N = 40) participants completed the CL survey after taking a test consisting of problems imposing different levels of intrinsic and extraneous load. The results reveals that how participants rated on the CL survey was consistent with how each CL subtype was manipulated. Thus, the CL survey developed is decently effective measuring different types of CL. We suggest instructors to use this instrument after participants have established certain level of relevant knowledge.
Highlights
Cognitive load theory (CLT) attends to the limited working memory capacity (Cowan, 2001) for instruction and learning
Students’ argument clearly aligns well with how CLT defines intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) in terms of element interactivity which is reflected in the complexity (Sweller, 2010)
When students have relatively low content knowledge, they fail to differentiate ICL from extraneous cognitive load (ECL), which suggests even information related to learning can be confusing to students
Summary
Cognitive load theory (CLT) attends to the limited working memory capacity (Cowan, 2001) for instruction and learning. Working memory is limited in capacity and duration when processing novel information, especially without deliberate rehearsal (Baddeley, 1992; Cowan, 2001) This is in contrast to the long-term memory, which is an unlimited, permanent repository for organized knowledge that governs our cognitive processes (Sweller, 2010). Cognitive load is defined as the working memory load experienced when performing a specific task (Kalyuga, 2011; Sweller et al, 2011; van Merriënboer and Sweller, 2005) This places a requirement on instruction to avoid overloading the working memory during learning. The second CL subtype is the intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) which is related to the working memory resources allocated to dealing with the learning objectives (Sweller, 1994). This comes from Occam’s razor argument which says the simpler model is usually the right one. Jiang and Kalyuga (2020) have provided evidence supporting a two-component model over a threecomponent model using subjectively rated CL surveys
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
