因因效应对不同复杂性学习材料认知负荷报告的扭曲影响

IF 10.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL
Felix Krieglstein, Maik Beege, Lukas Wesenberg, Günter Daniel Rey, Sascha Schneider
{"title":"因因效应对不同复杂性学习材料认知负荷报告的扭曲影响","authors":"Felix Krieglstein, Maik Beege, Lukas Wesenberg, Günter Daniel Rey, Sascha Schneider","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In research practice, it is common to measure cognitive load after learning using self-report scales. This approach can be considered risky because it is unclear on what basis learners assess cognitive load, particularly when the learning material contains varying levels of complexity. This raises questions that have yet to be answered by educational psychology research: Does measuring cognitive load during and after learning lead to comparable assessments of cognitive load depending on the sequence of complexity? Do learners rely on their first or last impression of complexity of a learning material when reporting the cognitive load of the entire learning material after learning? To address these issues, three learning units were created, differing in terms of intrinsic cognitive load (low, medium, or high complexity) as verified by a pre-study (<i>N</i> = 67). In the main-study (<i>N</i> = 100), the three learning units were studied in two sequences (increasing vs. decreasing complexity) and learners were asked to report cognitive load after each learning unit and after learning as an overall assessment. The results demonstrated that the first impression of complexity is the most accurate predictor of the overall cognitive load associated with the learning material, indicating a primacy effect. This finding contrasts with previous studies on problem-solving tasks, which have identified the most complex task as the primary determinant of the overall assessment. This study suggests that, during learning, the assessment of the overall cognitive load is influenced primarily by the timing of measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Distorting Influence of Primacy Effects on Reporting Cognitive Load in Learning Materials of Varying Complexity\",\"authors\":\"Felix Krieglstein, Maik Beege, Lukas Wesenberg, Günter Daniel Rey, Sascha Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In research practice, it is common to measure cognitive load after learning using self-report scales. This approach can be considered risky because it is unclear on what basis learners assess cognitive load, particularly when the learning material contains varying levels of complexity. This raises questions that have yet to be answered by educational psychology research: Does measuring cognitive load during and after learning lead to comparable assessments of cognitive load depending on the sequence of complexity? Do learners rely on their first or last impression of complexity of a learning material when reporting the cognitive load of the entire learning material after learning? To address these issues, three learning units were created, differing in terms of intrinsic cognitive load (low, medium, or high complexity) as verified by a pre-study (<i>N</i> = 67). In the main-study (<i>N</i> = 100), the three learning units were studied in two sequences (increasing vs. decreasing complexity) and learners were asked to report cognitive load after each learning unit and after learning as an overall assessment. The results demonstrated that the first impression of complexity is the most accurate predictor of the overall cognitive load associated with the learning material, indicating a primacy effect. This finding contrasts with previous studies on problem-solving tasks, which have identified the most complex task as the primary determinant of the overall assessment. This study suggests that, during learning, the assessment of the overall cognitive load is influenced primarily by the timing of measurement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在研究实践中,通常使用自我报告量表来测量学习后的认知负荷。这种方法可能被认为是有风险的,因为不清楚学习者评估认知负荷的基础,特别是当学习材料包含不同程度的复杂性时。这就提出了教育心理学研究尚未回答的问题:在学习期间和之后测量认知负荷是否会导致根据复杂性顺序对认知负荷进行可比评估?学习者在学习后报告整个学习材料的认知负荷时,是依赖他们对学习材料复杂性的第一印象还是最后印象?为了解决这些问题,我们创建了三个学习单元,它们在内在认知负荷(低、中、高复杂性)方面有所不同,并经预研究验证(N = 67)。在主研究(N = 100)中,三个学习单元以两种顺序(增加和减少复杂性)进行研究,并要求学习者在每个学习单元后和学习后报告认知负荷,作为整体评估。结果表明,复杂性的第一印象最准确地预测了与学习材料相关的整体认知负荷,表明了首因效应。这一发现与之前关于解决问题任务的研究形成了对比,后者将最复杂的任务确定为整体评估的主要决定因素。本研究表明,在学习过程中,总体认知负荷的评估主要受测量时间的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Distorting Influence of Primacy Effects on Reporting Cognitive Load in Learning Materials of Varying Complexity

In research practice, it is common to measure cognitive load after learning using self-report scales. This approach can be considered risky because it is unclear on what basis learners assess cognitive load, particularly when the learning material contains varying levels of complexity. This raises questions that have yet to be answered by educational psychology research: Does measuring cognitive load during and after learning lead to comparable assessments of cognitive load depending on the sequence of complexity? Do learners rely on their first or last impression of complexity of a learning material when reporting the cognitive load of the entire learning material after learning? To address these issues, three learning units were created, differing in terms of intrinsic cognitive load (low, medium, or high complexity) as verified by a pre-study (N = 67). In the main-study (N = 100), the three learning units were studied in two sequences (increasing vs. decreasing complexity) and learners were asked to report cognitive load after each learning unit and after learning as an overall assessment. The results demonstrated that the first impression of complexity is the most accurate predictor of the overall cognitive load associated with the learning material, indicating a primacy effect. This finding contrasts with previous studies on problem-solving tasks, which have identified the most complex task as the primary determinant of the overall assessment. This study suggests that, during learning, the assessment of the overall cognitive load is influenced primarily by the timing of measurement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Psychology Review
Educational Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
3.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信