Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory

In the citing paper

“One of the most frequently used methods for measuring cognitive load is self-reporting, as becomes clear from the overview by Paas et al. (2003b).”

In the citing paper

“The more often cognitive load is measured the more accurate the view of the actual cognitive load is, certainly if it is assumed that cognitive load may vary during the learning process (Paas et al. 2003b).”

In the citing paper

“The claims by Paas et al. (2003b) are based on work by Paas et al. (1994) who presented an analysis of the reliability and sensitivity of the subjective rating method. Their data, again, come from two other studies, namely Paas (1992) and Paas and van Merrie ¨nboer (1994b).”

In the citing paper

“In their overview of cognitive load measures, Paas et al. (2003b) claim that measures of cognitive load are related to differences in instructional formats in the majority of studies. This conclusion seems not to be completely valid. Not all of the studies they mention have shown such results.”

In the citing paper

“Paas et al. (2003b, p. 66), however, claim that the uni-dimensional scale is reliable, sensitive to small differences in cognitive load, and valid (and non-intrusive).”

In the citing paper

“With regard to the assessment factors, mental load is imposed by the task or environmental demands. This task-centered dimension, considered independent of subject characteristics, is constant for a given task in a given environment”

In the citing paper

“Three different groups of techniques are used to measure cognitive load: self-ratings through questionnaires, physiological measures (e.g., heart rate variability, fMRI), and secondary tasks (for an overview see, Paas et al. 2003b).”

In the citing paper

“For example, in their overview Paas et al. (2003b, p. 69) state that in the original study by Paas (1992) it was found that worked-out examples and completion problems were superior in terms of extraneous load, but extraneous load during learning was not measured in this study; beyond that, no differences between conditions were found on invested mental effort during the learning process.”

In the citing paper

“Paas et al. (2003b) state that both instantaneous load and overall load are important for cognitive load theory, but since the theory only refers to addition of types of load and to overload; only instantaneous load should be considered for these purposes.”

In the citing paper

“Pupillary reactions are also used and are regarded as sensitive for cognitive load variations (Paas et al. 2003b; van Gog et al. 2009), but have only been used in a limited number of studies (e.g., Schultheis and Jameson 2004). There are, however, indications that the sensitivity of this measure to workload changes diminishes with age of the participants (van Gerven et al. 2004).”

In the citing paper

“These considerations show that the time aspect is not well considered when measuring cognitive load.”

In the citing paper

“According to Paas et al. (2003b) physiological measures are suited for capturing instantaneous load because they can monitor the load constantly, and overall load is often measured with questionnaire based measures. However, physiological measures are very rarely used in cognitive load research, whereas questionnaire measures of overall load prevail.”

In the citing paper

“Paas et al. (2003b), citing Xie and Salvendy (2000), distinguish between different types of load in relation to time: instantaneous load, peak load, accumulated load, average load, and overall load.”

In the citing paper

“Paas et al. (2003) and van Gog and Paas (2008) have noted that the subjective rating scale is used in many different ways than originally suggested by Paas and van Merriënboer (1994a, 1994b).”

In the citing paper

“Among other differences, researchers have used different verbal labels (i.e. ' task difficulty ' instead of ' invested mental effort ' ), used fewer categories (e.g. 5 or 7 instead of 9) and used only one measurement after all learning or test tasks, instead of an average of multiple measurements after each learning and test task.”

In the citing paper

“However, secondary task techniques have been criticised for their intrusiveness (i.e. imposing an extra cognitive load that may interfere with the primary task; Paas et al. 2003) and inability to differentiate between different types of cognitive load.”

In the citing 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).”

In the citing 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).”

In the citing paper

“The science of cognitive load quantification has been traditionally separated into physiologic measurements and psychometric measurements of this construct (Paas et al. 2003).”

In the citing paper

“It has been shown that measures of cognitive load can reveal important information about CLT beyond traditional performance metrics (Paas et al. 2003).”

In the citing paper

“This scale has been widely used in the literature and has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of overall cognitive load (Ayres 2006;Paas et al. 2003).”

In the citing paper

“and therefore the addition of Twitter to the intervention did not increase the burden on working memory [36].”