Variations in cognitive activation are reflected in the germane cognitive load scale: prompted imagination and disfluent text raise GCL¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2023: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 Learners instructed to imagine the learning content as a picture reported higher GCL than learners without that instruction. → Melina Klepsch 2020 q2 i2 Learners who received disfluent learning material reported higher GCL than learners who received fluent material. → Melina Klepsch 2020 (2)

Evidence¶

Melina Klepsch 2020¶

Melina Klepsch, Tina Seufert. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science (2020) 48:45–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09502-9

q2 · i2 · causal · r1

Between-subject experiment (N = 31) on learning about clutches, with imagination instruction varying GCL and several motivation and prior-knowledge covariates. The imagination group reported higher GCL, η2 = 0.07.

"For GCL, as expected, we found a significant main effect (F (1,51) = 3.14, p1 = 0.03, η2 = 0.07): The group that was instructed to imagine the learning content reported higher GCL than the group that was not instructed to imagine the learning content."

Melina Klepsch 2020 (2)¶

Melina Klepsch, Tina Seufert. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional Science (2020) 48:45–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09502-9

q2 · i2 · review · r2

Between-subject experiment (N = 36) on Earth's time zones, reusing data from Seufert et al. (2017), comparing fluent Arial text with disfluent Monotype Corsiva text. The disfluent group reported higher GCL, η2 = 0.09.

"For GCL, as expected, we found a significant main effect (F (1,33) = 3.36, p1 = 0.04, η2 = 0.09): Learners who received the disfluent learning material reported higher levels of GCL compared to learners who received the fluent learning material."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Medium moderated disfluency effects on reasoning: disfluent text fostered calibration and performance on screen but not on paper — related
• GCL-raising activations did not improve learning outcomes: neither prompted imagination nor disfluency produced a significant task-performance advantage — related
• The imagination effect (cognitive rehearsal of example procedures) enhances learning only for learners with prior knowledge — related
• Imagining worked examples benefits learners with adequate prior knowledge but harms performance for low-knowledge learners — related