The impact of goal specificity and goal type on learning outcome and cognitive load

Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought

“…Though this is an effective way of solving problems, it also requires keeping many elements (start goal, end goal, intermediate goals, operators) in working memory. To remedy this, students can be offered ''goal free problems'', ''worked out problems'' or ''completion problems'' instead of traditional problems (Atkinson et al 2000;Ayres 1993;Renkl et al 2009Renkl et al , 1998Rourke and Sweller 2009;Sweller et al 1998;Wirth et al 2009). A third source of extraneous load may arise when the instructional design uses only one of the subsystems of working memory.…”

Assessment and Theory in Complex Problem Solving - A Continuing Contradiction?

“…Additionally, testees could be asked why they preferred one operator to another adding a qualitative notion to the assessment. (5) Control and associated processes in the instance space may be measured by extrapolation and interpolation tasks (Wirth & Klieme, 2003) like "What happens if this button is pressed" or "Will applying this measure approach the desired goal state?" At the end of the CPS process, (6) updating, the final problem representation in rule and model space can be assessed formatively (Funke, 2001).…”

“…Thus, learning requires modifying internal schemata (i.e., structural knowledge), whereas CPS requires transforming some specific aspects of a problem solver's external environment in order to reach an externally represented goal state (i.e., instance knowledge). Wirth et al (2009) and Künsting, Wirth, and Paas (2011) showed that this goal specificity effect (internal vs. external goals) affected learning and complex problem solving performance mediated by strategy and cognitive load. From this, one could conclude that presenting well-defined goals will help separating CPS from learning, but Kröner et al (2005) argue that even when trying to reach a given and well-defined goal state problem solvers may yet learn important aspects of a problem's structure (i.e., structural knowledge), that is, they modify their internal schemata and not only their external environment.…”

“…In fact, partly conflicting results on CPS may lie in a lack of a clear distinction between CPS and learning. Wirth, Künsting, and Leutner (2009) conceptually distinguish learning goals and complex problem solving goals. That is, learning goals are usually ill-defined internal mental states of a learner's knowledge, whereas goals in complex problems used in research are often well-defined and represented in the external environment.…”

“…This conclusion would be premature, but it shows the confusion and confounding of concepts when it comes to a conceptually clear understanding of CPS, which is largely caused by the lack of theoretical embedment in measures of CPS. That is, from a theoretical perspective, learning goals should be excluded in the assessment of CPS by presenting only well-defined goals going along with Wirth et al (2009).…”