Load reduction instruction in science and students’ science engagement and science achievement.

Abstract

Among a sample of 2,071 Australian high school students nested within 188 science classrooms, the present study explored the role of science teachers’ “load reduction instruction” (LRI; instruction that seeks to reduce cognitive load by appropriately balancing explicit instruction with guided autonomy) in student- and classroom-level science engagement and the role of engagement in student- and classroom-level science achievement. Using doubly latent multilevel structural equation modeling, results showed that, at the student- and classroom-level, student reports of their teacher’s LRI was significantly and positively associated with self-reported engagement, and engagement was significantly and positively associated with achievement. Thus, (a) LRI was associated with greater individual student engagement, that in turn was associated with greater individual student achievement in science, and (b) beyond student-level effects, LRI was associated with greater classroom engagement that in turn was associated with greater classroom achievement. We also found that the association between LRI and achievement was mediated by engagement. Implications for educational practice in science are discussed.

Assessing Instructional Cognitive Load in the Context of Students' Psychological Challenge and Threat Orientations: A Multi-Level Latent Profile Analysis of Students and Classrooms

“…Teachers were informed they could help students with procedural aspects of the survey, but not provide assistance in answering specific questions. The data in this investigation are shared with Martin et al (2020a), who conducted a variable-centered study exploring the extent to which class participation, educational aspirations, and enjoyment of school mediated the relationship between LRI and achievement.…”

“…Alongside this experimental work it is also important to extend assessment to attend to other matters of validity—such as conducting classroom-based assessment research that has the potential to inform the ecological validity of cognitive load assessment. As one significant step in this direction, recent work has articulated a multi-factor instructional framework—load reduction instruction (LRI)—aimed at (a) reducing instructional cognitive load on learners, (b) developing a multi-factor survey instrument to assess this instructional framework, and (c) administering and assessing this instrument in the classroom context (Martin, 2016 ; Martin and Evans, 2018 , 2019 ; Martin et al, 2020a ).…”

“…In a follow-up investigation that linked the Martin and Evans ( 2018 ) data with a previous survey, results showed that LRI was associated with gains in mathematics motivation, engagement, and achievement (Evans and Martin, Submitted). In another study, Martin et al ( 2020a ) introduced and explored a brief form of the LRIS (the LRIS-Short; LRIS-S) that was designed to capture a unidimensional latent factor in keeping with the higher order LRIS factor in the Martin and Evans ( 2018 ) research. Martin et al ( 2020a ) used this LRIS-S in a multilevel study of more than 180 science classrooms, finding that the link between LRI in science and science achievement (at student- and classroom-levels) was mediated by class participation, future aspirations, and enjoyment in science.…”

“…In another study, Martin et al ( 2020a ) introduced and explored a brief form of the LRIS (the LRIS-Short; LRIS-S) that was designed to capture a unidimensional latent factor in keeping with the higher order LRIS factor in the Martin and Evans ( 2018 ) research. Martin et al ( 2020a ) used this LRIS-S in a multilevel study of more than 180 science classrooms, finding that the link between LRI in science and science achievement (at student- and classroom-levels) was mediated by class participation, future aspirations, and enjoyment in science. However, all these studies (including their construct validity aspects) have been variable-centered.…”

“…Multilevel analysts have identified the reciprocity of group and individual dynamics: the group can affect the individuals and individuals can affect the group (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002 ; Goldstein, 2003 ; Marsh et al, 2009 ). To date, most LRI research has recognized this and conducted multilevel analyses at student- and classroom-levels—indeed, demonstrating the validity of LRI at student- and classroom-levels (Martin and Evans, 2018 , Evans and Martin, Submitted; Martin et al, 2020a ). But, as noted, these studies have involved variable-centered analyses, which may mask differences between subpopulations of students and classrooms.…”