Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 503–529 | Cite as

Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures

Intervention Study
First Online:

Abstract

Recent studies about learning and instruction use cognitive load measurement to pay attention to the human cognitive resources and to the consumption of these resources during the learning process. In order to validate different measures of cognitive load for different cognitive load factors, the present study compares three different methods of objective cognitive load measurement and one subjective method. An experimental three-group design (N = 78) was used, with exposure to seductive details (extraneous cognitive load factor), mental animation tasks (germane cognitive load factor), or the basic learning instruction (control group). Cognitive load was measured by the rhythm method (Park and Brünken 2015), the index of cognitive activity (ICA) (Marshall 2007), and the subjective ratings of mental effort and task difficulty (Paas 1992). Eye-tracking data were used to analyze the attention allocation and as an indicator for cognitive activity. The results show a significantly higher cognitive load for the mental animation group in contrast to the control and the seductive detail group, indicated by rhythm method and subjective ratings, as well as a higher cognitive activity, indicated by eye tracking. Furthermore, the mental animation group shows significantly higher comprehension performance in contrast to the seductive detail group and significantly higher transfer performance in contrast to the control group. The ICA values showed no significant differences in cognitive load. The results provide evidence for the benefits of combining eye-tracking analysis and the results of cognitive load ratings or secondary task performance for a direct and continuous cognitive load assessment and for a differentiating access to the single cognitive load factors.

Keywords

Cognitive load measurement Rhythm method Eye tracking Index of cognitive activity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01PL12057). The authors wish to thank the editor Fred Paas and all anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Q610001003).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden—on some issues with the conceptualization and operationalization of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20, 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2004). How instruction guides attention in multimedia learning. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 Biannual Workshop 2002 (pp. 113–125). Waxmann: Erfurt, Germany.Google Scholar
  5. Brünken, R., Moreno, R., & Plass, J. (2010a). Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 253–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brünken, R., Seufert, T., & Paas, F. (2010b). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 181–202). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi, H. H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R. E., & Clark, V. P. (2010). From neo-behaviorism to neuroscience: perspectives on the origins and future contributions of cognitive load research. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 203–229). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane cognitive load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demberg, V., Sayeed, A., Mahr, A., & Müller, C. (2013). Measuring linguistically-induced cognitive load during driving using the ConTRe task. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutoUI), Oct 2013 (pp. 176–183). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harmann, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  14. Folker, S., Ritter, H., & Sichelschmidt, L. (2005). Processing and integrating multimodal material—the influence of color coding. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 690–695). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garner, R., Brown, R., Sanders, S., & Menke, D. J. (1992). “Seductive details” and learning from text. In K. A. Renninger (Ed.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 239–254). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Goetz, E., & Sadoski, M. (1995). ‘Commentary: The perils of seduction: Distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions?’: reply. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 518–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gopher, D., & Braune, R. (1984). On the psychophysics of workload: why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors, 26, 519–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: more evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172–190.Google Scholar
  20. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1084–1102.Google Scholar
  23. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition And Instruction, 21, 325–360.Google Scholar
  24. Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efficiency: applications in learning and problem solving. Educational Psychologist, 45, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van De Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking—a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  27. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, S., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: how experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 310–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitiv load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2016). Learner characteristics and information processing in multimedia learning: a moderated mediation of the seductive details effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laeng, B., Ørbo, M., Holmlund, T., & Miozzo, M. (2011). Pupillary stroop effects. Cognitive Processing, 12, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavioral Research Methods, 45, 1058–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Van Merrienboer, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Magner, U. I. E., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marshall, S. (2007). Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 78, B165–B175.Google Scholar
  38. Marshall, S., Pleydell-Pearce, C., & Dickson, B. (2003). Integrating psychophysiological measures of cognitive workload and eye movements to detect strategy shifts. HICSS ‘03 Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–6). Big Island, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  39. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  41. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Unique contributions of eye-tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McInerney, D. M., & Sinclair, K. E. (1991). Cross cultural model testing: inventory of school motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: historical development and relation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 481–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oberauer, K., Süß, H. M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity—facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paas, F., & Van Merrienboer, J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. M. (2003a). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003b). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Park, B. (2010). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory. Dissertation, Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes. http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2010/3478/.
  54. Park, B., & Brünken, R. (2015). The rhythm method: a new method for measuring cognitive load—an experimental dual task study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 232–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 125–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Park, B., Knörzer, L., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2015a). Emotional design and positive emotions in multimedia learning: an eye-tracking study on the use of antropomorphisms. Computers & Education, 86, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015b). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Park, B., Korbach, A., & Brünken, R. (2015c). Do learner characteristics moderate the seductive-details-effect? A cognitive-load-study using eye-tracking. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18, 24–36.Google Scholar
  60. Park, B., Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2016). The role of spatial ability when fostering mental animation in multimedia learning: an ATI-study. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C. C., Cave, K. R., & Well, A. D. (2007). Eye movements during information processing tasks: individual differences and cultural effects. Vision Research, 47, 2714–2726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Research Review, 32, 133–144.Google Scholar
  66. Rey, G. D. (2014). Seductive details and attention distraction—an eye tracker experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmeck, A., Opfermann, M., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Leutner, D. (2015). Measuring cognitive load with subjective rating scales during problem solving: differences between immediate and delayed ratings. Instructional Science, 43, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schwalm, M. (2009). Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within an automotive context. Dissertation, Saarbrücken: Universität des Saarlandes. http://scidok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2009/2082/
  71. Schwalm, M., Keinath, A., & Zimmer, H. D. (2008). Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within a simulated driving task. In D. De Waard, F. Flemisch, B. Lorenz, H. Oberheid, & K. Brookhuis (Eds.), Human factors for assistance and automation (pp. 75–88). Masstricht: Shaker.Google Scholar
  72. Smith, A. & Ayres, P. (2014). The Impact of persistent pain on working memory and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 245–264.Google Scholar
  73. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sweller, S. (2010). Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2):123–138Google Scholar
  75. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. G., & Paas, F. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature, 381(6582), 520–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Underwood, G., Hubbard, A., & Wilkinson, H. (1990). Eye fixation predict reading comprehension: The relationships between reading skill, reading speed, and visual inspection. Language And Speech, 33, 69–81.Google Scholar
  79. Van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kestner, L., & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: Evidence in favor of repeated measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 833–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Xie, B., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple tasks environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Korbach
    • 1
  • Roland Brünken
    • 1
  • Babette Park
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations