Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Load Theory for Test Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices

Abstract

This chapter examines the practical applicability of cognitive load theory (CLT) to the design of tests for assessing student learning, with the purpose of addressing the recent accessibility and universal design guidelines for fairness in testing. The first section provides an overview of CLT, beginning with a discussion of the cognitive forebears of the theory, an examination of five principles of CLT and its primary assumptions, and an explanation of the three categories of cognitive load as they relate to test design. The final section focuses specifically on current methods of measuring cognitive demand with an emphasis on their potential application to the measurement of cognitive load during testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Assocation, & National Center for Measurement in Education. (2016). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asghar, I., & Winsler, A. (2000). Bartlett’s schema theory and modern accounts of learning and remembering. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 271–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review, 101, 353–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beddow, P. A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Accessibility rating matrix. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., & Frey, J. R. (2011). Accessibility theory: Guiding the science and practice of test item design with the test-taker in mind. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students (pp. 163–182). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning : Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(01), 87–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1913). In H. Suzzalo (Ed.), Interest and effort in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2010). Research and strategies for adapting formative assessments for students with special needs. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 159–180). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves, M. E., Slater, W. H., Roen, D., Redd-Boyd, T., Duin, A. H., Furniss, D. W., & Hazeltine, P. (1988). Some characteristics of memorable expository writing: Effects of revisions by writers with different backgrounds. Research in the Teaching of English, 242–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves, M. F., Prenn, M. C., Earle, J., Thompson, M., Johnson, V., & Slater, W. H. (1991). Commentary: Improving instructional text: Some lessons learned. Reading Research Quarterly, 110–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). How seductive details do their damage: A cognitive theory of interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettler, R. J., Rodriguez, M. C., Bolt, D., Elliott, S. N., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 210–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimziing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of information. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010a). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010b). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Accessible Hope, LLC, Nashville, TN, USA

    Peter A. Beddow

Authors
  1. Peter A. Beddow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Stephen N. Elliott

  2. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA

    Ryan J. Kettler

  3. Accessible Hope, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    Peter A. Beddow

  4. Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Alexander Kurz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Beddow, P.A. (2018). Cognitive Load Theory for Test Design. In: Elliott, S., Kettler, R., Beddow, P., Kurz, A. (eds) Handbook of Accessible Instruction and Testing Practices. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation