Making an Effort Versus Experiencing Load

Abstract

In cognitive load theory (CLT), the role of different types of cognitive load is still under debate. Intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) and germane cognitive load (GCL) are assumed to be highly interlinked but provide different perspectives. While ICL mirrors the externally given task affordances which learners experience passively, germane resources are invested by the learner actively. Extraneous affordances (ECL) are also experienced passively. The distinction of passively experienced load and actively invested resources was inspired by an investigation where we found differential effects of a learning strategy training, which in fact resulted in reduced passive load and increased actively invested effort. This distinction is also mirrored in the active and passive forms for effort in German language: “es war anstrengend” (it has been strenuous) vs. “ich habe mich angestrengt” (I exerted myself). In two studies, we analyzed whether we could distinguish between these active and passive aspects of load by using these phrases and how this distinction relates to the three-partite concept of CLT. In two instructional design studies, we included the active and passive items into a differentiated cognitive load questionnaire. We found the factor structure to be stable, with the passive item loading on the ICL factor and the active item loading on the GCL factor. We conclude that it is possible to distinguish between active and passive aspects of load and that further research on this topic could be constructive, especially for learning tasks where learners act in a more self-regulated way and learner characteristics are taken into account.

Comparing Two Subjective Rating Scales Assessing Cognitive Load During Technology-Enhanced STEM Laboratory Courses

“…Therefore, the scales have to be adapted concerning the item formulation as well as the scale levels and the endpoint labeling. In addition, items on passive load (mental load) and active load (mental effort), developed by Klepsch and Seufert (2021), could be added. The authors could show that the item on passive load related to the ICL factor of their scale and the item on active load related to the GCL factor.…”

“…These are the cognitive load scale (CLS; 10-item questionnaire) developed by Leppink et al (2013) and the (second version of the) naïve rating scale (NRS; 8-item questionnaire) by Klepsch et al (2017). Both scales were applied in various learning contexts (Leppink et al, 2014;Altmeyer et al, 2020;Andersen and Makransky, 2021a;Andersen and Makransky, 2021b;Becker et al, 2020;Kapp et al, 2020;Seufert, 2020, Klepsch andSeufert, 2021;Skulmowski and Rey, 2020;Thees et al, 2020), while the reliability of the subscales and the valid measurement of the three load types were confirmed multiple times (Klepsch et al, 2017;Becker et al, 2020;Klepsch and Seufert, 2020;Thees et al, 2020;Andersen and Makransky, 2021a;Andersen and Makransky, 2021b). However, their application in different contexts usually requires moderate adaptations.…”

Validation of Cognitive Load During Inquiry-Based Learning With Multimedia Scaffolds Using Subjective Measurement and Eye Movements

“…The level of prior knowledge (L), for example, has an influence on the expression of the ICL (see "Prior Knowledge"), whereas the ECL is considered to be mainly dependent on the instructional design (T). Both types of loads are perceived by the learner as rather passive (Klepsch and Seufert, 2021). The GCL, on the other hand, represents the perceived by the learner as rather active load (Seufert, 2018).…”

“…Other studies also reveal that measuring the three types of CL can pose different difficulties (DeLeeuw and Mayer, 2008;Ayres, 2018). First, it is unclear how, for example, the different CLs (ICL, GCL, and ECL) can be affected by the wording of items, since variations of the items lead to different results in performance and CL (Sweller et al, 2011;Klepsch and Seufert, 2021). Second, besides the wording, it is uncertain whether learners are able to assess their competences in relation to the differentiated items (ICL; GCL; and ECL; Sweller et al, 2011).…”

“…Second, besides the wording, it is uncertain whether learners are able to assess their competences in relation to the differentiated items (ICL; GCL; and ECL; Sweller et al, 2011). Nevertheless, approaches to measure the three types of CL via self-assessments, e.g., via the design of controlled conditions (among others Sweller et al, 2011;Klepsch and Seufert, 2021), suggest that a categorical differentiation and measurement of the individual CLs are possible. However, Thees et al (2021) also showed that relying on established subjective instruments to measure CL may lead to various difficulties.…”