Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior

Gerjets, Peter; Scheiter, Katharina; Opfermann, Maria; Hesse, Friedrich W.; Eysink, Tessa H.S.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.015

Cited by 91 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Navigating the nonlinear structure of hypermedia environments involves a high degree of learner control because not only can learners choose what information to access, but they can also decide the order and the format they prefer to process it in (e.g., as text or video; cf. Gerjets, Scheiter, Opfermann, Hesse, & Eysink, 2009). Generally, one can differentiate between two types of hypermedia structures: hierarchical and networked (DeStefano & LeFevre, 2007).…”

Section: Hypermedia Learningmentioning

confidence: 93%

How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity

Kornmann

Kammerer²,

Anjewierden

et al. 2016

Computers in Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Hypermedia Learningmentioning

confidence: 93%

How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity

Kornmann

Kammerer²,

Anjewierden

et al. 2016

Computers in Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, while subjective ratings of learning difficulty were reported as measures of germane load by DeLeeuw and Mayer (2008), Schwonke et al (2011) used subjective ratings of learning difficulty to measure extraneous cognitive load. Gerjets et al (2009) used different versions of learning difficulty scales for β β evaluating both intrinsic and extraneous load, and ratings of exerted mental effort were used for measuring levels of germane cognitive load. Gerjets et al (2004Gerjets et al ( , 2006) evaluated all three types of cognitive load using mental effort ratings based on a modified version of the NASA-TLX items (Hart and Staveland 1988).…”

Section: Empirical Evidence Related To Germane Cognitive Loadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive load theory has been traditionally described as involving three separate and additive types of load. Germane load is considered as a learning-relevant load complementing extraneous and intrinsic load. This article argues that, in its traditional treatment, germane load is essentially indistinguishable from intrinsic load, and therefore this concept may be redundant. Contrary to extraneous and intrinsic load, germane cognitive load was added to the cognitive load framework based on theoretical considerations rather than on specific empirical results that could not be explained without this concept. The design of corresponding learning activities always required methods and techniques external to the theory. The article suggests that the dual intrinsic/extraneous framework is sufficient and non-redundant and makes boundaries of the theory transparent. The idea of germane load might have an independent role within this framework if (as recently suggested by John Sweller) it is redefined as referring to the actual working memory resources devoted to dealing with intrinsic rather than extraneous load.Keywords Cognitive load theory . Germane load . Intrinsic load . Working memory load Cognitive load theory (CLT) is a learning and instruction theory that describes instructional design implications of a model of human cognitive architecture based on a permanent knowledge base in long-term memory (LTM) and a temporary conscious processor of information in working memory. Essential characteristics of working memory are its limited capacity and duration. We can consciously process no more than a few items at a time for no longer than a few seconds. If these limits are exceeded, working memory becomes overloaded and learning inhibited. CLT makes specific instructional design prescriptions for managing working memory load as a key issue for successful learning and performance (see Sweller 2003Sweller , 2004Sweller , 2008 for reviews of the major features of human cognitive architecture and their general instructional implications; Paas et al.

show abstract

“…Multiple-item rating scales, where different items aim at assessing different load types (e.g., Cierniak et al 2008;Gerjets et al 2008a;Scheiter et al 2006) are, in principle, suited to distinguish among different load types. However, they do not meet the second prerequisite that is necessary from a Popperian perspective (we will come back later to the promises and drawbacks of these scales from a structuralist perspective).…”

Section: Popper's Perspective: a Theory's Fundamental Assumptions Musmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Value of Cognitive Load Theory: A Research Agenda Based on the Structuralist View of Theories

Gerjets¹,

Scheiter

Cierniak³

2008

Educ Psychol Rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, two methodological perspectives are used to elaborate on the value of cognitive load theory (CLT) as a scientific theory. According to the more traditional critical rationalism of Karl Popper, CLT cannot be considered a scientific theory because some of its fundamental assumptions cannot be tested empirically and are thus not falsifiable. According to the structuralist view of theories introduced by Joseph D. Sneed, a theory may be considered scientific even if it comprises nontestable fundamental assumptions. Rather, the scientific value of a theory results from the holistic empirical content of the overall theory net built around fundamental assumptions and from the successful applications of this theory net to explain and predict empirical findings. This latter view is helpful to explicate some implicit methodological assumptions of CLT research and to avoid the potential circularity of CLT's fundamental assumptions. Additionally, the structuralist view of theories can be directly used to derive a research agenda for the future development of CLT.Keywords Critical rationalism . Structuralist view of theories . Theory validation . Fallibility . Cognitive load measurement . Cognitive load theory Cognitive load theory (CLT, Sweller et al. 1998) has become one of the most influential theories in the area of instructional design. It is based on the idea that the design of instructional materials should be aligned with learners' limited cognitive processing resources in a way that unnecessary cognitive load is prevented and effective higher-level cognitive processes are supported whenever possible. Following this general guideline has

show abstract

Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior

Cited by 91 publications

References 37 publications

How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity

How children navigate a multiperspective hypermedia environment: The role of spatial working memory capacity

Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?

The Scientific Value of Cognitive Load Theory: A Research Agenda Based on the Structuralist View of Theories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About