Development and Validation of Two Instruments Measuring Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load

Melina Klepsch · Florian Schmitz · Tina Seufert

599 citations0/0 files storedFrontiers in Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Abstract

Cognitive Load Theory is one of the most powerful research frameworks in educational research. Beside theoretical discussions about the conceptual parts of cognitive load, the main challenge within this framework is that there is still no measurement instrument for the different aspects of cognitive load, namely intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Hence, the goal of this paper is to develop a differentiated measurement of cognitive load. In study 1 (N = 97) we developed and analyzed two strategies to measure cognitive load in a differentiated way: (1) Informed rating: We trained learners in differentiating the concepts of cognitive load, so that they could rate them in an informed way. They were asked then to rate 24 different learning situations or learning materials related to either high or low intrinsic, extraneous, or germane load. (2) Naïve rating: For this type of rating of cognitive load we developed a questionnaire with 2-3 items for each type of load. With this questionnaire, the same learning situations had to be rated. In the second study (N = between 65 and 95 for each task) we improved the instrument for the naïve rating. For each study, we analyzed whether the instruments are reliable and valid, for study 1, we also checked for comparability of the two measurement strategies. In study 2 we conducted a simultaneous scenario based factor analysis. The informed rating seems to be a promising strategy to assess the different aspects of cognitive load, but it seems not economic and feasible for larger studies and a standardized training would be necessary. The improved version of the naïve rating turned out to be a useful, feasible, and reliable instrument. Ongoing studies analyze the conceptual validity of this measurement with up to now promising results.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 599 citations exist upstream.

References

1988Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research 1979Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.1998Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design 2003Working memory: looking back and looking forward 2011Cognitive Load Theory 2003Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning 1994Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design 2003Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments

Cited by

2021Signaling in virtual reality influences learning outcome and cognitive load 2019Cognitive load in multimedia learning environments: A systematic review 2018The interplay between self-regulation in learning and cognitive load 2020Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load 2023Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Questionnaire to Measure Different Types of Cognitive Load

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.