Role of dual task design when measuring cognitive load during multimedia learning
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.
KeywordsMultimedia learning Cognitive load Dual task methodology Modality effect
This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG BA2044/5-1).
- Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Interdisciplinary perspectives inspiring a new generation of cognitive load research [Special issue]. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction [Special issue]. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 369–375.Google Scholar
- Wickens, C. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 3–34). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar