Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 109-119

  Brünken, Roland ^a   Steinbacher, Susan ^a   Plass, Jan L ^b   Leutner, Detlev ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERFURT   (Germany)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; Dual task; Learning with multimedia

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; METHODOLOGY; TASK PERFORMANCE; TEACHING;

ADULT; COGNITION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TEACHING;

EID: 0036357082     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Asymetrix (1997). Toolbook instructor II [Computer Program, PC]. Bellevue, WA: Asymetrix Learning Systems.
2. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 4789). New York: Academic Press.
4. Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Brünken, R., & Leutner, D. (2000). Neue Medien als Gegenstand empirischer pädagogischer Analyse: Stand der Forschung und Perspektiven. New Media as a topic of empirical educational analysis: State of the art and perspectives] In D. Leutner & R. Brünken. (Eds.), Neue Medien in Unterricht, Aus- und Weiterbildung. Aktuelle Ergebnisse empirischer pädagogischer Forschung (pp. 7-16). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
6. Brünken, R. & Leutner, D. (2001). Aufmerksamkeitsverteilung oder Aufmerksamkeitsfokussierung? Empirische Ergebnisse zur Split-Attention- Hypothese" beim Lernen mit Multimedia. [Split attention or focusing of attention? Empirical results on the split-attention hypothesis in multimedia learning]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 29, 357-366.
7. Brünken, R., & Leutner, D. (2002). Cognitive load and the modality effect in multimedia learning. Submitted for publication.
8. Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Schnotz, W., & Leutner, D. (2001). Mentale Modelle und Effekte der Präsentations- und Abrufkodalität beim Lernen mit Multimedia. [Mental models and the effect of presentation and retrieval codality in multimedia learning] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 15-27.
9. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
10. Donk, M., & Sanders, A. F. (1989). Resources and dualtask performance: Resource allocation versus task integration. Acta Psychologica, 72, 221-232.
11. ERTSLab (1999). [Computer program for MS-DOS]. Frankfurt a.M., Germany: BeriSoft.
12. Heuer, H. (1996). Doppeltätigkeiten. [Dual Tasks] In D. Neumann & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Aufmerksamkeit (pp. 163-218). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
13. Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.
14. Klauer, K. J. (1987). Kriteriumsorientierte Tests. [Criterion referenced tests] Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
15. Klauer, K. C., Oberauer, K., Rossnagel, C., & Musch, J. (1996). Mentale Bilder und Mentale Modelle [Mental images and mental models]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 204, 41-54.
16. Logie, R., Baddeley, A. D., Mane, A., Donchin, E., & Sheptak, R. (1989). Working memory in the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Acta Psychologica, 71, 87.
17. Macromedia (2000). Authorware 5 [Computer program, PC]. San Francisco: Macromedia Inc.
18. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
19. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing Systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
21. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638-643.
22. Microsoft (1996). Windows 95 operating system [Computer Software, PC]. Redmond, WA: Author.
23. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.) (1999). Models of working memory. Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
25. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
26. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334.
27. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743.
29. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Text- und Bildverstehen [Influence of the type of visualization on the construction of mental models during picture and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie 46(3), 217-236.
30. Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16, 245-265.
31. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
32. Verwey, W. B., & Veltman, H. A. (1996). Detecting short periods of elevated workload: A comparison of nine workload assessment techniques. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 270-285.
33. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). London: Academic Press.
34. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-376.