Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load

In the paper

“exam performance was positively correlated with the factor supposed to represent germane cognitive load during the lecture (r ¼ .140,p ¼ .084),although this correlation was not statistically significant at the conventional a ¼ .05level.”

In the paper

“The factor correlations are similar to those reported by Leppink, Paas et al. (2013): negative between the factors supposed to represent extraneous and germane cognitive load, positive between the factors supposed to represent intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, and around zero between the factors supposed to intrinsic and germane cognitive load.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leppink, Paas et al., 2013

In the paper

“In both contexts, the items supposed to represent germane cognitive load loaded on the first factor, the items supposed to represent intrinsic cognitive load loaded on the second factor, and the items supposed to represent extraneous cognitive load loaded on the third factor.”

In the paper

“exam performance was negatively correlated with the factors supposed to represent intrinsic (r ¼ À.210, p ¼ .010)and extraneous (r ¼ À.320, p < .001)cognitive load during the lecture.”

In the paper

“The two versions yield similar factor loadings and internal consistency values.”

In the paper

“None of Tables 10e12 indicate statistically significant interaction effects between format and time or between first and second format.”

In the paper

“Expanding BS ANOVA to three-way to account for counterbalanced training context to our model did not contribute to the explanation of posttest performance; counterbalanced training context had only a small and not statistically significant effect on posttest performance, F(1, 72) ¼ .891,p ¼ .348,h 2 ¼ .012”

In the paper

“Posttest performance was somewhat skewed to the left (skewness ¼ À1.195), with a mean score (M) of 4.49 and a standard deviation (SD) 2.34.”

In the paper

“Although participants who studied a worked example in the second task (i.e., problemeexample or exampleeexample) scored on average .472points (range: 0e6) higher than participants who solved a problem autonomously in the second task, this difference was not statistically significant, F(1, 70) ¼ .805,p ¼ .373,h 2 ¼ .011,and the effect size indicates that we are talking about a small effect at best.”

In the paper

“Finally, as was the case for posttest performance, including counterbalanced training context in the analysis did not contribute to the explanation of any of the factor scores; all h 2 -values were in the range of .005and .014(comparable to the h 2 -value of .012 in the case of posttest performance) and p-values ranged from .309 to .542.”

In the paper

“Table 8 indicates that the three factors yielded comparable Cronbach's alpha values for training and posttest, only a somewhat lower Cronbach's alpha value for the factor supposed to represent extraneous cognitive load for the training which may reflect a restriction of range effect.”

In the paper

“It is therefore of little surprise that the sum of correct responses (i.e., an integer on the scale of 0e6) yielded a very high Cronbach's alpha (a ¼ .950)with all item p-values (i.e., percentage of correct response) in the range of .70e.78 and corrected itemetotal correlations of .695and higher.”

In the paper

“Table 9 indicates that the correlations between posttest performance and the three factors supposed to represent intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load are similar for the two measurement occasions and (especially for the first two factors) close to zero.”

In the paper

“The effect of the first task, however, was statistically significant, F(1, 70) ¼ 7.245, p ¼ .009,h 2 ¼ .094,and the effect size indicates a medium to somewhat larger effect; participants who studied a worked example in the first task performed much better on the posttest (1.417 points on the 0e6 scale) than participants who solved a problem autonomously in the first task.”

In the paper

“All students managed to complete all six questions within the fifteen minutes they were given for the posttest.”

In the paper

“In line with the study by Van Gog et al. (2011), we found that exampleeexample and exampleeproblem pairs led to better posttest performance than problemeproblem and probleme example pairs (H4a), and that the second format did not influence posttest performance significantly (H4b).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Gog et al. (2011) source

In the paper

“Only first format in Table 12 is statistically significant, and the h 2 -value of .170indicates a large effect.”

In the paper

“The problemeproblem condition performed worst (M ¼ 3.50, SD ¼ 2.78), followed by the problemeexample condition (M ¼ 4.11, SD ¼ 2.52), followed by the exampleeproblem condition (M ¼ 5.06, SD ¼ 1.83), and the exampleeexample condition performed best (M ¼ 5.39, SD ¼ 1.65).”

In the paper

“Firstly, the correlation between germane cognitive load and subsequent task performance in the randomized experiment was lower than expected and not statistically significant.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leppink, Paas et al., 2013

In the paper

“If germane cognitive load pertains to the working memory resources allocated to dealing with intrinsic cognitive load, as suggested recently by Sweller (2010) and Kalyuga (2011), it may be difficult to distinguish between germane cognitive load and intrinsic cognitive load.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sweller, 2010 source
• Not checked yetcites Kalyuga, 2011 source

In the paper

“Intrinsic cognitive load is determined by the intrinsic nature of the information to be learned, more specifically, by the number of interacting information elements that the learning task or the learning material comprises (Sweller, 1994;Sweller et al., 2011).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sweller, 1994
• Not checked yetcites Sweller et al., 2011

In the paper

“Although this new psychometric instrument (Leppink, Paas et al. 2013) revealed a robust three-factor structure, for a number of reasons it is not yet clear whether these three factors indeed represent the three types of cognitive load.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leppink, Paas et al., 2013

In the paper

“If the three factors indeed represent the three types of cognitive load e or stable constructs related to these types of cognitive load e one would expect these factors to come to the surface in other contexts as well.”

In the paper

“Cognitive load theory states that intrinsic cognitive load should be optimized in instructional design by selecting materials that match the learner's prior knowledge or proficiency, while extraneous cognitive load should be minimized, and learners should be challenged to engage in processes that evoke germane cognitive load (in the old conceptualization of cognitive load theory) or the use of (in”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sweller et al., 1998 source
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites Van Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005, 2010

In the paper

“Subjective rating scales like Paas' (1992) nine-point unidimensional mental effort rating scale have been used intensively for measuring the overall cognitive load experienced by learners (for reviews : Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003;Van Gog & Paas, 2008).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003 source
• Not checked yetcites Van Gog & Paas, 2008

In the paper

“Since Leppink, Paas et al. (2013) demonstrated that varying the order in which the items are asked does not significantly influence factor loadings or internal consistency values, we decided to present the ten items in the order presented in Table 1; note that the item order was the same for both questionnaires.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leppink, Paas et al., 2013

In the paper

“Working memory has a limited capacity of seven plus or minus two elements (or chunks) of information when merely holding information (Miller, 1956) and even fewer (circa four) when processing information (Cowan, 2001).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Miller, 1956 source
• Not checked yetcites Cowan, 2001 source

In the paper

“Mental effort has been defined by Paas et al., as “the cognitive capacity that is actually allocated to accommodate the demands imposed by the task; thus, it can be considered to reflect the actual cognitive load” (Paas, Tuovinen et al., 2003, p. 64; see also Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994b).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Paas, Tuovinen et al., 2003 source

In the paper

“If intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load were indeed independent and additive types of cognitive load as Sweller et al. (1998) suggest, then one would expect correlations between these types of cognitive load to be (around) zero.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sweller et al., 1998 source

In the paper

“While measuring overall experienced cognitive load by subjective or objective techniques can be informative e especially in relation to measures of learning outcomes (Van Gog & Paas, 2008) e it is less specific than measurement of different types of cognitive load separately when it comes to informing the design of instruction.”

In the paper

“Recently, a psychometric instrument was developed that took an alternative approach to the formulation of the questions for measuring different types of cognitive load (Leppink, Paas, Van der Vleuten, Van Gog, & Van Merriënboer, 2013), which may solve the problem of not being able to distinguish between different types of cognitive load at least to a certain extent.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Leppink, Paas, Van der Vleuten, Van Gog, & Van Merriënboer, 2013

In the paper

“The information presented in worked examples is redundant for more knowledgeable learners, who are able to solve the problem without instructional guidance, and processing redundant information contributes to extraneous cognitive load (i.e., redundancy effect; Chandler & Sweller, 1991).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Chandler & Sweller, 1991 source

In the paper

“Furthermore, the total sample size of the language classes (n ¼ 108) was too small for confirmatory factor analysis, while following the rule of thumb that a number of participants as large as ten times the number of items (i.e., ten) in the instrument, the group was large enough for exploratory factor analysis.”

In the paper

“The use of multiple indicators for each of the separate types of cognitive load might yield a more precise measurement and might enable researchers to separate the types of cognitive load more clearly than the use of a single indicator for each scale.”

In the paper

“Further, when referring to one very specific instructional feature or cognitive process to measure extraneous cognitive load or germane cognitive load, a conceptual problem may arise, because the expertise reversal effect illustrates that a particular instructional feature may be associated with germane cognitive load for one learner and with extraneous cognitive load for another learner (Kalyuga”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Kalyuga et al., 2001 source
• Not checked yetcites Kalyuga et al., 2003 source

In the paper

“This type of load arises from relating relevant information from long-term memory or context to the new information elements (Sweller, 2010;Sweller et al., 2011) and as such pertains to the working memory resources allocated to dealing with intrinsic cognitive load (Kalyuga, 2011;Sweller, 2010).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Sweller, 2010 source
• Not checked yetcites Sweller et al., 2011
• Not checked yetcites Kalyuga, 2011 source

In the paper

“Working memory load (or cognitive load) is therefore determined by the number of information elements that need to be processed simultaneously within a certain amount of time (Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat, Vergauwe, & Camos, 2007).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Barrouillet, Bernardin, Portrat, Vergauwe, & Camos, 2007

In the paper

“Therefore, several studies have attempted to develop instruments for measuring the three types of cognitive load separately (Ayres, 2006;Cierniak, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2009;De Leeuw & Mayer, 2008;Eysink et al., 2009;Galy, Cariou, & Mélan, 2012).A drawback of those studies is that one or more types of cognitive load were represented by one single item.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Ayres, 2006 source
• Not checked yetcites Cierniak, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2009
• Not checked yetcites De Leeuw & Mayer, 2008 source

In the paper

“It may indicate that students are able to rate this 'knowledge and understanding' factor and judge it differently between conditions.”

• Also stated in: § 4. General discussion · hedged

  “The findings of Study II may indicate that students can rate the 'knowledge and understanding' factor and judge it differently across conditions.”

In the paper

“In Study II, a randomized experiment was conducted.”

In the paper

“If the two factors that are supposed to represent intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load indeed represent these two types of cognitive load, this would imply that we have developed a psychometric instrument that can help researchers to differentiate intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load.”

In the paper

“At least, the findings do not point against such a reconceptualization.”

In the paper

“Van Gog and Kester (2012) replicated this finding regarding the immediate test and demonstrated that at a delayed test one week later, performance in an exampleeexample condition was even better than in an exampleeproblem condition.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Gog and Kester (2012)

In the paper

“While these correlations are again positive, their magnitude appears to indicate that the relation between the third factor and germane cognitive load is limited at best.”

In the paper

“This appears to indicate that the items supposed to capture intrinsic cognitive load measure one and the same latent construct, and the items supposed to capture extraneous cognitive load measure one and the same latent construct.”

In the paper

“Thirdly, the problemeexample and probleme problem conditions did not differ from each other in test performance or invested mental effort in the studying phase.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Gog et al. (2011) source

In the paper

“The finding that starting self-study of a new topic with a worked example instead of with autonomous problem solving has beneficial effects on task performance is in line with previous research on worked example effects (Cooper & Sweller, 1987;Paas, 1992;Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994a;Sweller & Cooper, 1985;Van Gog et al., 2006) and with previous research on problemeexample and example problem pa”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Cooper & Sweller, 1987 source
• Not checked yetcites Paas, 1992 source
• Not checked yetcites Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994a

In the paper

“First of all, their study was the first to compare an exampleeexample and exampleeproblem condition and to demonstrate that there was no significant difference in test performance in the exampleeexample and exampleeproblem conditions, and no significant difference in mental effort invested in the studying phase.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Gog et al. (2011) source

In the paper

“Nine students canceled their participation last minute due to changes in their educational timetable, and another one other student did not comply with the instructions and was therefore excluded from the experiment.This resulted in the following situation: problemeproblem (n ¼ 20), problemeexample (n ¼ 18), exampleeproblem (n ¼ 18), and exampleeexample (n ¼ 18).”

In the paper

“This finding is particularly interesting in the light of recent debates on instructional guidance (e.g., Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012), as it illustrates that it not only matters how much guidance is provided, but also when it is provided.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Clark, Kirschner, & Sweller, 2012

In the paper

“When solving a problem first, there may be high extraneous cognitive load and little learning from solving that problem.”

In the paper

“Together, the findings appear to provide some support for the assumption that intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load can be differentiated using a psychometric instrument, or at least that the factors that were supposed to represent intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load relate to intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load.”

• Also stated in: § 4. General discussion · hedged

  “Although these findings appear to provide support for the assumption that the two factors either represent or closely relate to intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, respectively, further experimentation is needed to examine the validity of this assumption.”

In the paper

“The finding that starting self-study of a new topic with a worked example instead of with autonomous problem solving has beneficial effects on task performance is in line with previous research on worked example effects (Cooper & Sweller, 1987;Paas, 1992;Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1994a;Sweller & Cooper, 1985;Van Gog et al., 2006) and with previous research on problemeexample and example problem pa”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Reisslein et al., 2006 source
• Not checked yetcites Van Gog et al., 2011 source

In the paper

“The items supposed to capture intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load could reflect an estimation of the required intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load activity rather than an indication of the actually invested effort in intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, and a similar reasoning might hold for the items supposed to capture germane cognitive load.”

In the paper

“The two constructs in question may be intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load or factors related to these two types of cognitive load.”

In the paper

“However, this finding is also in line with findings by Reisslein, Atkinson, Seeling, and Reisslein (2006), and suggests that condition matters because studying an example first allows for building a cognitive schema (i.e., germane cognitive load activity) that can subsequently be used when solving the problem (lowering the intrinsic cognitive load of the problem compared to a probleme problem”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Reisslein, Atkinson, Seeling, and Reisslein (2006)

In the paper

“Secondly, in the study by Van Gog et al. (2011), both exampleeexample and exampleeproblem resulted in better test performance than problemeexample and problemeproblem, which, moreover, was reached with lower invested mental effort in the studying phase in the exampleeexample and exampleeproblem conditions than in the problemeexample and problemeproblem conditions.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Van Gog et al. (2011) source

In the paper

“This yielded a very precise measurement of the extent to which a student is able to apply Bayes' theorem, and thus optimal statistical power for treatment effects of instructional conditions on participants' posttest performance.”

In the paper

“To account for potential context effects, we designed two problems in a different context.The two contexts were presented in counterbalanced order, meaning that about half of the participants completed their first task in one context while the others completed their first task in the other context, and vice versa.”

In the paper

“A total of eighty-four first-year bachelor students in the Social and Health Sciences were allocated randomly to the probleme problem, problemeexample, exampleeproblem, and examplee example condition.”

In the paper

“However, there is another possibility we did not really anticipate in Study I (and neither did Leppink, Paas et al. 2013): responses to the items may reflect an estimation or perception of (expected) task complexity, a reflection on (expected) sources of ineffectiveness in the instruction, and a reflection on understanding and knowledge acquisition independent of any actually invested effort in”

In the paper

“The findings presented in Table 12 provide support for the hypothesis that students in the exampleeexample and exampleeproblem condition would report higher germane cognitive load in the studying phase (H8a) and on the posttest (H8b) than students in the probleme example and problemeproblem condition (the h 2 -value of .170indicating a large effect).”

• Also stated in: § 3.3. Discussion · hedged

  “However, in this light it is perhaps even more intriguing that the findings presented in Table 12 do provide support for the hypothesis that students in the exampleeexample and exampleeproblem condition would report higher germane cognitive load in the studying phase and on the posttest than students in the problemeexample and problemeproblem condition.”

In the paper

“While the corrected itemetotal correlation of the added item is still quite high, this value is distinguishable from the values of the other items, which may reflect that the other four items do not directly capture actually invested effort in germane cognitive load activity.”

In the paper

“Although law cases and empirical research often appear to have little in common, at least one thing they do have in common: validity of a story is about a chain of evidence (Kane, 2006).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites Kane, 2006

In the paper

“Like a suspect in a criminal case should not be convicted based on only one piece of evidence e unus testis nullus testis e validity of a measurement instrument is not established in one or two (sets of) studies; it is a journey in search for a chain of evidence, and to obtain that chain of evidence some elements in the instrument may need revision or adjustment.”