Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Table of Contents Alerts

To receive news and publication updates for Education Research International, enter your email address in the box below.

Education Research International
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 902809, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809
Research Article

Cognitive Load of Learner Control: Extraneous or Germane Load?

Mieke Vandewaetere1,2 and Geraldine Clarebout3

1Centre for Instructional Psychology and Technology (CIP&T), KU Leuven, Dekenstraat 2, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
2ITEC-IBBT-KU Leuven Kulak, E. Sabbelaan 53, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
3Center for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine,Herestraat 49, Box 400, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Received 11 January 2013; Accepted 31 March 2013

Academic Editor: Gwo-Jen Hwang

Copyright © 2013 Mieke Vandewaetere and Geraldine Clarebout. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. Scheiter and P. Gerjets, “Learner control in hypermedia environments,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 285–307, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. G. Corbalan, L. Kester, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “Combining shared control with variability over surface features: effects on transfer test performance and task involvement,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 290–298, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. B. Kinzie and H. J. Sullivan, “Continuing motivation, learner control, and CAI,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 5–14, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. D. Williams, “Learner-control and instructional technologies,” in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, D. H. Jonassen, Ed., pp. 957–982, MacMillan, New York, NY, USA, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  5. C. L. Friend and C. L. Cole, “Learner control in computer-based instruction: a current literature review,” Educational Technology, vol. 20, pp. 47–49, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  6. D. Goforth, “Learner control = Decision making + Information: a model and meta-analysis,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 11, pp. 1–26, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  7. A. Large, “Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: a research review,” Education for Information, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 95–107, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. J. Hannafin, “Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction,” Journal of Instructional Development, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6–10, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. W. D. Milheim and J. W. Azbell, “How past research on learner control can aid in the design of interactive video materials,” in Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 459–472, New Orleans, Fla, USA, 1988.
  10. M. B. Kinzie, “Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 5–21, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. F. I. Winters, J. A. Greene, and C. M. Costich, “Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: a critical analysis,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 429–444, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. W. Eom and R. A. Reiser, “The effects of self-regulation and instructional control on performance and motivation in computer-based instruction,” International Journal of Instructional Media, vol. 27, pp. 247–260, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  13. D. S. Niederhauser, R. E. Reynolds, D. J. Salmen, and P. Skolmoski, “The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 237–255, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. I. E. Dror, “Technology enhanced learning: the good, the bad, and the ugly,” Pragmatics & Cognition, vol. 16, pp. 215–223, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  15. B. Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, Ecco, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
  16. T. de Jong, “Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought,” Instructional Science, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 105–134, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. B. P. Granger and E. L. Levine, “The perplexing role of learner control in e-learning: will learning and transfer benefit or suffer?” International Journal of Training and Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 180–197, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. F. Paas, J. E. Tuovinen, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and A. A. Darabi, “A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: optimizing learner involvement in instruction,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 25–34, 2005. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. K. E. DeLeeuw and R. E. Mayer, “A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 223–234, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. J. Sweller, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas, “Cognitive architecture and instructional design,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 251–296, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. J. J. G. van Merriënboer and D. M. A. Sluijsmans, “Toward a synthesis of cognitive load theory, four-component instructional design, and self-directed learning,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 55–66, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. J. J. G. van Merriënboer and P. Ayres, “Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 5–13, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  23. J. Sweller, “Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 123–138, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. F. Paas, T. van Gog, and J. Sweller, “Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives,” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 115–121, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. F. Kirschner, L. Kester, and G. Corbalan, “Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning, task characteristics and learning engagement: the Current State of the Art,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. F. Paas, J. E. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. W. M. Van Gerven, “Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63–71, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. F. G. W. C. Paas, “Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach,” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 429–434, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. T. van Gog and F. Paas, “Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 16–26, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. S. Yeung, “Cognitive load and learner expertise: split-attention and redundancy effects in reading comprehension tasks with vocabulary definitions,” Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 197–217, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. P. Barrouillet, S. Bernardin, and V. Camos, “Time constraints and resource sharing in Adults' working memory spans,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 133, no. 1, pp. 83–100, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. G. Cierniak, K. Scheiter, and P. Gerjets, “Explaining the split-attention effect: is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 315–324, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. Brünken, S. Steinbacher, J. L. Plass, and D. Leutner, “Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology,” Experimental Psychology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 109–119, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark, “Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching,” Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 75–86, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  34. W. De Neys, G. D'Ydewalle, W. Schaeken, and G. Vos, “A Dutch, computerized, and group administrable adaptation of the operation Span test,” Psychologica Belgica, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 177–190, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. M. D. Merrill, “First principles of instruction,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 43–59, 2002. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. W. De Neys and K. Dieussaert, “Individual differences in rational thinking time,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 27, pp. 577–582, 2005.
  37. P. R. Pintrich, D. A. F. Smith, T. Garcia, and W. J. McKeachie, A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA, 1991.
  38. E. McAuley, T. Duncan, and V. V. Tammen, “Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis,” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 48–58, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. R. W. Plant and R. M. Ryan, “Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: an investigation of internally-controlling styles,” Journal of Personality, vol. 53, pp. 435–449, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  40. A. C. Rencher, Methods of Multivariate Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, 2nd edition, 2002.
  41. B. S. Hasler, B. Kersten, and J. Sweller, “Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 713–729, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. G. A. Miller, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 81–97, 1956. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. R. W. Engle, S. W. Tuholski, J. E. Laughlin, and A. R. A. Conway, “Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 309–331, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. R. W. Engle, M. J. Kane, and S. W. Tuholski, “Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex,” in Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control, A. Miyake and P. Shah, Eds., Cambridge Press, London, UK, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  45. P. Wouters, F. Paas, and J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “Observational learning from animated models: effects of studying-practicing alternation and illusion of control on transfer,” Instructional Science, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 89–104, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. D. N. Perkins, “The fingertip effect: how information-processing technology shapes thinking,” Educational Researcher, vol. 14, pp. 11–17, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  47. M. McCrudden, G. Schraw, K. Hartley, and K. A. Kiewra, “The influence of presentation, organization, and example context on text learning,” Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 289–306, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus