Delayed post-learning assessments of ICL, ECL, and GCL do not differ between increasing and decreasing complexity sequences¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr?·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? No significant differences between sequences on delayed ICL (t(98) = 1.04, p = 0.302), ECL (t(98) = 0.74, p = 0.462), or GCL (t(98) = 0.22, p = 0.827). → Krieglstein 2025
Evidence¶
Krieglstein 2025¶
Krieglstein, F., Beege, M., Wesenberg, L., Rey, G. D., & Schneider, S. (2025). The Distorting Influence of Primacy Effects on Reporting Cognitive Load in Learning Materials of Varying Complexity. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09980-0
q3 · i? · causal · r?
Two-tailed t-tests in the main study comparing the two sequence conditions on the three delayed cognitive load assessments. No comparison reached significance; equivalence was not tested. The authors attribute this to both conditions receiving identical learning units varying only in sequence.
"There were no significant differences between the increasing and decreasing complexity conditions for ICL, t(98) = 1.04, p = 0.302, ECL, t(98) = 0.74, p = 0.462, and GCL, t(98) = 0.22, p = 0.827."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Delayed cognitive load assessments after learning exceed the average of during-learning assessments only when complexity decreases across the learning material — related
- Prior knowledge correlates negatively with delayed ICL and ECL and positively with delayed GCL, consistent with meta-analytic findings — related
- The first impression of complexity best predicts the overall post-learning cognitive load assessment, indicating a primacy effect in learning contexts — related
- ICL ratings track the manipulated complexity sequence: increasing across units in the increasing condition and decreasing in the decreasing condition — related
- ECL ratings also follow the complexity sequence, rising in the increasing condition and falling in the decreasing condition, though ECL was not manipulated — related
- Correlations among cognitive load types partially contradict theory-based assumptions of the additivity hypothesis — related
- GCL ratings move opposite to the hypothesised pattern, decreasing in the increasing-complexity condition and increasing in the decreasing-complexity condition — related
- Constantly high complexity lowers reported intrinsic cognitive load and metacognitive strategy use compared with gradually increasing complexity — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
delayed-assessments-invariant-to-sequence |
title |
Delayed post-learning assessments of ICL, ECL, and GCL do not differ between increasing and decreasing complexity sequences |
description |
Delayed post-learning assessments of ICL, ECL, and GCL do not differ between increasing and decreasing complexity sequences |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-20 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — krieglstein-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.