Analyzing Relationships Between Causal and Assessment Factors of Cognitive Load: Associations Between Objective and Subjective Measures of Cognitive Load, Stress, Interest, and Self-Concept

Abstract

The present study is based on a theoretical framework of cognitive load that distinguishes causal factors (learner characteristics affecting cognitive load e.g., self-concept; interest; perceived stress) and assessment factors (indicators of cognitive load e.g., mental load; mental effort; task performance) of cognitive load. Various assessment approaches have been used in empirical research to measure cognitive load during task performance. The most common methods are subjective self-reported questionnaires; only occasionally objective physiological measures such as heart rates are used. However, the convergence of subjective and objective approaches has not been extensively investigated yet, leaving unclear the meaning of each kind of measure and its validity. This study adds to this body of research by analyzing the relationship between these causal and assessment (subjective and objective) factors of cognitive load. The data come from three comparable studies in which high school students (N = 309) participated in a one-day out of school molecular biology project and completed different tasks about molecular biology structures and procedures. Heart rate variability (objective cognitive load) was measured via a chest belt. Subjective cognitive load (i.e., mental load and mental effort) and causal factors including self-concept, interest, and perceived stress were self-reported by participants on questionnaires. The findings show that a) objective heart rate measures of cognitive load are related to subjective measures of self-reported mental effort but not of mental load; b) self-reported mental effort and mental load are better predictors of task performance than objective heart rate measures of cognitive load; c) self-concept, interest and perceived stress are associated with self-reported measures of mental load and mental effort, and self-concept is associated with one of the objective heart rate measures. The findings are discussed based on the theoretical framework of cognitive load and implications for the validity of each measure are proposed.

Comparing Two Subjective Rating Scales Assessing Cognitive Load During Technology-Enhanced STEM Laboratory Courses

“…Recent developments of mobile eye-tracking devices allow for collecting data in dynamic situations such as laboratory courses and might even be applied to augmented reality-based learning scenarios (Kapp et al, 2021) so that various approaches of technology-enhanced learning scenarios can be accompanied by both the subjective rating scales and the objective gaze-based measures. Nevertheless, the interpretation should consider prior research indicating that there might be no linear relationship between objective and subjective measures but that they rather cover different facets of cognitive load (Minkley et al, 2021).…”

The Validation and Further Development of the Multidimensional Cognitive Load Scale for Physical and Online Lectures (MCLS-POL)

“…Many attempts at measuring cognitive load have been proposed including objective tasks such as secondary tasks (Sweller et al, 2011c) and psychophysiological measures such as eye tracking (Zheng and Cook, 2012;Scharinger et al, 2020), and EEG (Antonenko et al, 2010;Makransky et al, 2019a;Baceviciute et al, 2020). Recently an article by Minkley, Xu, and Krell have compared subjective and objective factors of CL which found heart rate to be related to self-reported metal effort but not self-reported mental load, and self-reported mental effort and mental load predicted task performance better than heart rate measures (Minkley et al, 2021). However, the most common way to measure cognitive load is through self-report measures.…”

Validation of Cognitive Load During Inquiry-Based Learning With Multimedia Scaffolds Using Subjective Measurement and Eye Movements

“…Mental load is the term used to summarize the subject-independent CL that relates solely to the characteristics of the task (Paas and van Merriënboer, 1994;Choi et al, 2014). Therefore, mental load is equivalent to the construct of ICL (e.g., Minkley et al, 2021). In contrast, mental effort describes the loads "which refers to the amount of capacity or resources that is actually allocated by the learner to accommodate the task demands" (Choi et al, 2014, p. 228).…”

“…To test and consequently optimize instructional designs or as a control variable for, e.g., self-regulated learning processes, such as inquiry-based learning (see "Environment (E) & Task (T) as causal factor -scaffolding & inquiry learning"; Kaiser et al, 2018), the valid measurement of CL represents a central goal of educational and psychological research (among others Kirschner et al, 2006;Minkley et al, 2018;Sweller et al, 2019). Using subjective self-assessments (Cierniak et al, 2009b;Leppink et al, 2013;Klepsch et al, 2017;Krell, 2017) or objective measures as indicators of CL, such as heart rate (Paas and van Merriënboer, 1994;Minkley et al, 2021), pupil dilation (Chen and Epps, 2014;Huh et al, 2019), blink rate (Chen and Epps, 2014), or gaze behavior (Korbach et al, 2018;Zu et al, 2020), different approaches to measuring CL have been investigated. Possible relationships and convergences between subjective and objective measurement tools for identifying CL are also coming more into the focus of research (among others Minkley et al, 2021).…”

“…Using subjective self-assessments (Cierniak et al, 2009b;Leppink et al, 2013;Klepsch et al, 2017;Krell, 2017) or objective measures as indicators of CL, such as heart rate (Paas and van Merriënboer, 1994;Minkley et al, 2021), pupil dilation (Chen and Epps, 2014;Huh et al, 2019), blink rate (Chen and Epps, 2014), or gaze behavior (Korbach et al, 2018;Zu et al, 2020), different approaches to measuring CL have been investigated. Possible relationships and convergences between subjective and objective measurement tools for identifying CL are also coming more into the focus of research (among others Minkley et al, 2021). However, the use of subjective measurement instruments by self-assessment is still an established way to assess CL based on a learning task or instructional learning approach (Cierniak et al, 2009b;Leppink et al, 2013;Klepsch et al, 2017;Krell, 2017;Zu et al, 2020;Thees et al, 2021).…”