Measuring cognitive load in embodied learning settings

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue AUG, 2017, Pages

  Skulmowski, Alexander ^a   Rey, Günter Daniel ^a  

^a CHEMNITZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; Cognitive load theory; Embodied cognition; Learning; Measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026846838     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01191     Document Type: Short Survey

References (82)

1. Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., Ginns, P., Howard, S. J., Leahy, W., and Paas, F. (2015). Giving learning a helping hand: finger tracing of temperature graphs on an iPad. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 427-443. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9315-5
2. Alban, M. W., and Kelley, C. M. (2013). Embodiment meets metamemory: weight as a cue for metacognitive judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 39, 1628-1634. doi: 10.1037/a0032420
3. Antonenko, P., Paas, F., Grabner, R., and van Gog, T. (2010). Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 425-438. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9130-y
4. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science 255, 556-559. doi: 10.1126/science.1736359
5. Barsalou, L. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Lang. Cogn. Process. 18, 513-562. doi: 10.1080/01690960344000026
6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 637-660. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99532147
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59, 617-645. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
8. Brucker, B., Ehlis, A. C., Häußinger, F. B., Fallgatter, A. J., and Gerjets, P. (2015). Watching corresponding gestures facilitates learning with animations by activating human mirror-neurons: an fNIRS study. Learn. Instr. 36, 27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.003
9. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38, 53-61. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_7
10. Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Exp. Psychol. 49, 109-119. doi: 10.1027//1618-3169.49.2.109
11. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., and Paas, F. (2014). Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks. Learn. Instr. 34, 11-21. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.005
12. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., and Paas, F. (2015a). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: three potential moderators of effectiveness. Comput. Educ. 85, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.022
13. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., and Paas, F. (2015b). "The potential of embodied cognition to improve STEAM instructional dynamic visualizations, " in Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education, eds X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, and J. M. Spector (New York, NY: Springer), 113-136. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_7
14. Choi, H. H., van Merriënboer, J. J., and Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 225-244. doi: 10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6
15. Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 345-351. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3
16. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 181-204. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477
17. Clark, A. (2015). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press
18. Dall'Alba, G., and Barnacle, R. (2005). Embodied knowing in online environments. Educ. Philos. Theory 37, 719-744. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00153.x
19. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr. Sci. 38, 105-134. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
20. Debener, S., Minow, F., Emkes, R., Gandras, K., and Vos, M. (2012). How about taking a low-cost, small, and wireless EEG for a walk? Psychophysiology 49, 1617-1621. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01471.x
21. Dubé, A. K., and McEwen, R. N. (2015). Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learn. Instr. 40, 89-98. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002
22. Dunlosky, J., and Metcalfe, J. (2009). Metacognition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
23. Ehinger, B. V., Fischer, P., Gert, A. L., Kaufhold, L., Weber, F., Pipa, G., et al. (2014). Kinesthetic and vestibular information modulate alpha activity during spatial navigation: a mobile EEG study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:71. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00071
24. Eysink, T. H., de Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., and Wouters, P. (2009). Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: an analysis across instructional approaches. Am. Educ. Res. J. 46, 1107-1149. doi: 10.3102/0002831209340235
25. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0199271941.001.0001
26. Gallagher, S., and Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: learning through full-body engagement. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 391-404. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9327-1
27. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 1, 586-596. doi: 10.1002/wcs.55
28. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., and Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol. 96, 424-436. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424
29. Gramann, K., Ferris, D. P., Gwin, J., and Makeig, S. (2014). Imaging natural cognition in action. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 91, 22-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.09.003
30. Hart, S. G., and Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv. Psychol. 52, 139-183. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
31. Hutto, D. D., Kirchhoff, M. D., and Abrahamson, D. (2015). The enactive roots of STEM: rethinking educational design in mathematics. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 371-389. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9326-2
32. Jiang, X., Zheng, B., Bednarik, R., and Atkins, M. S. (2015). Pupil responses to continuous aiming movements. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 83, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.006
33. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., and Koziupa, T. (2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: two science studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 86-104. doi: 10.1037/a0034008
34. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D. A., and Savio-Ramos, C. (2016). Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: centripetal force. Front. Psychol. 7:1819. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01819
35. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educ. Psychol. Rev. 23, 1-19. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420
36. Kaspar, K., and Vennekötter, A. (2015). Embodied information in cognitive tasks: haptic weight sensations affect task performance and processing style. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 11, 64-76. doi: 10.5709/acp-0172-0
37. Kirschner, P. A., Ayres, P., and Chandler, P. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research: the good, the bad and the ugly. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 99-105. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.025
38. Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P., van Gog, T., and van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav. Res. Methods 45, 1058-1072. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
39. Leppink, J., and van Merriënboer, J. J. (2015). The beast of aggregating cognitive load measures in technology-based learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 230-245
40. Lindblom, J. (2015). Embodied Social Cognition. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20315-7
41. Lindgren, R., and Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educ. Res. 42, 445-452. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13511661
42. Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., and Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Comput. Educ. 95, 174-187. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001
43. Martin, S. (2014). Measuring cognitive load and cognition: metrics for technology-enhanced learning. Educ. Res. Eval. 20, 592-621. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2014.997140
44. Mayer, R. E. (2005). "Cognitive theory of multimedia learning, " in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, ed. R. E. Mayer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 31-48. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
45. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., and Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: a meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 70, 29-40. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033
46. Mitra, R., McNeal, K. S., and Bondell, H. D. (2016). Pupillary response to complex interdependent tasks: a cognitive-load theory perspective. Behav. Res. Methods doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0833-y [Epub ahead of print]
47. Naismith, L. M., Cheung, J. J., Ringsted, C., and Cavalcanti, R. B. (2015). Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation-based procedural training. Med. Educ. 49, 805-814. doi: 10.1111/medu.12732
48. Ozcinar, Z. (2009). The topic of instructional design in research journals: a citation analysis for the years 1980-2008. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 25, 559-580. doi: 10.14742/ajet.1129
49. Paas, F., and Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24, 27-45. doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2
50. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., and van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38, 63-71. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8
51. Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. J. Educ. Psychol. 84, 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
52. Paas, F. G., and van Merriënboer, J. J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: an approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Hum. Fact. 35, 737-743
53. Paas, F. G., van Merriënboer, J. J., and Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Percept. Mot. Skills 79, 419-430. doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419
54. Palermo, E., Laut, J., Nov, O., Cappa, P., and Porfiri, M. (2017). Spatial memory training in a citizen science context. Comput. Hum. Behav. 73, 38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.017
55. Park, B., and Brünken, R. (2015). The rhythm method: a new method for measuring cognitive load-an experimental dual-task study. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 29, 232-243. doi: 10.1002/acp.3100
56. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., and Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. J. Comp. High. Educ. 21, 31-61. doi: 10.1007/s12528-009-9011-x
57. Post, L. S., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., and Zwaan, R. A. (2013). Effects of simultaneously observing and making gestures while studying grammar animations on cognitive load and learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 1450-1455. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.005
58. Pouw, W. T., Eielts, C., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., and Paas, F. (2016a). Does (non-) meaningful sensori-motor engagement promote learning with animated physical systems? Mind Brain Educ. 10, 91-104. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12105
59. Pouw, W. T., Mavilidi, M. F., van Gog, T., and Paas, F. (2016b). Gesturing during mental problem solving reduces eye movements, especially for individuals with lower visual working memory capacity. Cogn. Proc. 17, 269-277. doi: 10.1007/s10339-016-0757-6
60. Pouw, W. T., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., and Paas, F. (2016c). Augmenting instructional animations with a body analogy to help children learn about physical systems. Front. Psychol. 7:860. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00860
61. Ruiter, M., Loyens, S., and Paas, F. (2015). Watch your step children! Learning two-digit numbers through mirror-based observation of self-initiated body movements. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 27, 457-474. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9324-4
62. Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., and Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text? Learn. Instr. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002 [Epub ahead of print]
63. Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge
64. Skulmowski, A., Bunge, A., Kaspar, K., and Pipa, G. (2014). Forced-choice decision-making in modified trolley dilemma situations: a virtual reality and eye tracking study. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 8:426. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00426
65. Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kühnert, T., Brunnett, G., and Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: the effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Comput. Educ. 92-93, 64-75. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.011
66. Skulmowski, A., and Rey, G. D. (2017). Bodily effort enhances learning and metacognition: investigating the relation between physical effort and cognition using dual-process models of embodiment. Adv. Cogn. Psychol. 13, 3-10. doi: 10.5709/acp-0202-9
67. Song, H. S., Pusic, M., Nick, M. W., Sarpel, U., Plass, J. L., and Kalet, A. L. (2014). The cognitive impact of interactive design features for learning complex materials in medical education. Comput. Educ. 71, 198-205. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.017
68. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn. Sci. 12, 257-285. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
69. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4, 295-312. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
70. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cogn. Instr. 12, 185-233. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1203_1
71. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., and Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10, 251-296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
72. Tran, C., Smith, B., and Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: nondigital and digital approaches. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 2:16. doi: 10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8
73. Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: updating the theory? Learn. Instr. 12, 147-154. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00022-6
74. van Genuchten, E., Hooijdonk, C., Schüler, A., and Scheiter, K. (2014). The role of working memory when 'learning how' with multimedia learning material. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 28, 327-335. doi: 10.1002/acp.2998
75. van Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J., and Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology 41, 167-174. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2003.00148.x
76. van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L., and Paas, F. (2012). Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: evidence in favour of repeated measures. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 26, 833-839. doi: 10.1002/acp.2883
77. van Gog, T., and Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educ. Psychol. 43, 16-26. doi: 10.1080/00461520701756248
78. van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., and Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 21, 21-30. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3
79. Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.11.001
80. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 625-636. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
81. Wong, M., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., and Paas, F. (2015). Gender effects when learning manipulative tasks from instructional animations and static presentations. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18, 37-52
82. Young, J. Q., Irby, D. M., Barilla-LaBarca, M. L., ten Cate, O., and O'Sullivan, P. S. (2016). Measuring cognitive load: mixed results from a handover simulation for medical students. Perspect. Med. Educ. 5, 24-32. doi: 10.1007/s40037-015-0240-6