Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: adaptation of an instrument
Abstract
A student's capacity to learn a concept is directly related to how much cognitive load is used to comprehend the material. The central problem identified by Cognitive Load Theory is that learning is impaired when the total amount of processing requirements exceeds the limited capacity of working memory. Instruction can impose three different types of cognitive load on a student's working memory: intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load. Since working memory is a fixed size, instructional material should be designed to minimize the extraneous and intrinsic loads in order to increase the amount of memory available for the germane load. This will improve learning. To effectively design instruction to minimize cognitive load we must be able to measure the specific load components for any pedagogical intervention. This paper reports on a study that adapts a previously developed instrument to measure cognitive load. We report on the adaptation of the instrument to a new discipline, introductory computer science, and the results of measuring the cognitive load factors of specific lectures. We discuss the implications for the ability to measure specific cognitive load components and use of the tool in future studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The CS Cognitive Load Component Survey (CS CLCS) was used as the cognitive load instrument.
“We used the CS Cognitive Load Component Survey (CS CLCS) [11] as our cognitive load instrument.”
From Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment (2019) · cites this paper as [11]
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 · Cited by 2,894 · see citing works
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0014694 · Cited by 2,242 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
Element Interactivity and Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load
Sweller, J. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 · Cited by 2,020 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122 · Cited by 1,198 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Researchers have used measurements of heart rates [28], pupillary response [39], EEGs [1], and eye tracking [43, 38].”
BackgroundMethodDevelopment of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load
Leppink, J., Paas, F., van Gog, T., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001 · Cited by 520 · see citing works
Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2003.00148.x · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Subgoals, Context, and Worked Examples in Learning Computing Problem Solving
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015) · Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/2787622.2787733 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Self-citationSolving parsons problems versus fixing and writing code
Ericson, B. J., Margulieux, L. E., & Rick, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3141880.3141895 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Cognitive Load Theory in Computing Education Research: A Review
Duran, R., Zavgorodniaia, A., & Sorva, J. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3483843 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Exploring the Impact of Worked Examples in a Novice Programming Environment
Zhi, R., Price, T. W., Marwan, S., Milliken, A., Barnes, T., & Chi, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3287324.3287385 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Benefits of guided self-management of attention on learning accounting.
Sithole, S. T. M., Chandler, P., Abeysekera, I., & Paas, F. (2017) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000127 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Towards an Analysis of Program Complexity From a Cognitive Perspective
Duran, R., Sorva, J., & Leite, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3230977.3230986 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Dönmez, O., Akbulut, Y., Telli, E., Kaptan, M., Özdemir, İ. H., & Erdem, M. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-022-11035-2 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Computing Education Research Today
Fincher, S. A., Tenenberg, J., Dorn, B., Hundhausen, C., McCartney, R., & Murphy, L. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research · doi:10.1017/9781108654555.003 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-07-28
- Pages
- 131-138
- OpenAlex
- W2037482284
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 14.74
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1138378)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- cognitive load, cognitive load theory, intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous load, germane load, working memory, introductory computer science, lecture method, instructional design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
