Measuring Cognitive Load in Embodied Learning Settings

Abstract

In recent years, research on embodied cognition has inspired a number of studies on multimedia learning and instructional psychology. However, in contrast to traditional research on education and multimedia learning, studies on embodied learning (i.e., focusing on bodily action and perception in the context of education) in some cases pose new problems for the measurement of cognitive load. This review provides an overview over recent studies on embodied learning in which cognitive load was measured using surveys, behavioral data, or physiological measures. The different methods are assessed in terms of their success in finding differences of cognitive load in embodied learning scenarios. At the same time, we highlight the most important challenges for researchers aiming to include these measures into their study designs. The main issues we identified are: (1) Subjective measures must be appropriately phrased to be useful for embodied learning; (2) recent findings indicate potentials as well as problematic aspects of dual-task measures; (3) the use of physiological measures offers great potential, but may require mobile equipment in the context of embodied scenarios; (4) meta-cognitive measures can be useful extensions of cognitive load measurement for embodied learning.

Subjective cognitive load surveys lead to divergent results for interactive learning media

“…Generally speaking, the results support the claim that the language used in different surveys should match the learning task (as discussed by Skulmowski & Rey, 2017). In the context of activity‐based and interactive learning media, Skulmowski and Rey (2018) suggested a more task‐oriented approach based on Wilson and Golonka (2013) that recommends the use of task analyses.…”

“…Skulmowski and Rey (2017) reviewed recent results concerning which methods of measuring cognitive load are the most appropriate for more complex learning environments centered around (bodily) activity and suggested that these types of environments require different types of cognitive load measurement techniques than other types of learning scenarios. Most importantly, Skulmowski and Rey (2017) distinguished (inter‐)active settings from more verbally‐oriented modes of instruction and hint at the possibility that cognitive load surveys featuring items targeted at the latter forms of instruction may not be appropriate for interactive learning. Based on Skulmowski and Rey (2017), we assume that the survey by Leppink et al (2013) may be more fitting for learning materials that primarily involve verbal contents.…”

“…Most importantly, Skulmowski and Rey (2017) distinguished (inter‐)active settings from more verbally‐oriented modes of instruction and hint at the possibility that cognitive load surveys featuring items targeted at the latter forms of instruction may not be appropriate for interactive learning. Based on Skulmowski and Rey (2017), we assume that the survey by Leppink et al (2013) may be more fitting for learning materials that primarily involve verbal contents. This can be concluded from an example item of the instrument, “The instructions and/or explanations were full of unclear language.” (Leppink et al, 2013, p. 1070), with the other two extraneous load items asking similar questions.…”

“…This can be concluded from an example item of the instrument, “The instructions and/or explanations were full of unclear language.” (Leppink et al, 2013, p. 1070), with the other two extraneous load items asking similar questions. Instead of using Eysink et al's (2009) survey as discussed by Skulmowski and Rey (2017), we chose to utilize a more recent, but similar, survey by Klepsch et al (2017). Among others, this survey features items targeted at learners’ difficulties at accessing information, such as “During this task, it was exhausting to find the important information.” (Klepsch et al, 2017, p. 10).…”

“…Based on these models, we emphasize the importance of task analyses for the conceptualization of extraneous load. Before selecting a cognitive load survey, researchers should check their appropriateness for the learning task (Skulmowski & Rey, 2017). Our results demonstrate that measuring extraneous cognitive load as it manifests itself in interactive learning media requires a survey featuring question items focused on the cognitive demands that potentially arise from the interaction design (see also Skulmowski & Rey, 2017).…”