Delayed cognitive load assessments after learning exceed the average of during-learning assessments only when complexity decreases across the learning material¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In the decreasing complexity condition, the delayed ICL assessment after learning was significantly higher than the average of ICL assessments during learning (ηp² = 0.40). → Krieglstein 2025 q3 i? In the increasing complexity condition, the average ICL during learning did not differ from the delayed ICL after learning. → 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 · i3 · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA in the main study (N=100, between-subjects complexity sequence) comparing average during-learning ICL with delayed post-learning ICL. The interaction was significant: "F(1, 98) = 19.01, p > 0.001, ηp2 = 0.16". In the decreasing condition the delayed assessment was significantly higher than the during-learning average (F(1, 46) = 30.32, ηp² = 0.40); in the increasing condition no significant time effect emerged (F(1, 52) = 0.50, p = 0.484).

"A mixed ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between ICL assessments and complexity sequence, F(1, 98) = 19.01, p > 0.001, ηp2 = 0.16."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Delayed post-learning assessments of ICL, ECL, and GCL do not differ between increasing and decreasing complexity sequences — related
• The first impression of complexity best predicts the overall post-learning cognitive load assessment, indicating a primacy effect in learning contexts — related
• The delayed-higher-than-immediate difference for cognitive load ratings replicates regardless of whether problem complexity increases or decreases across the sequence (Experiment 2) — reports the opposite
• A single delayed cognitive load rating after a problem sequence is significantly higher than the average of immediate ratings for both mental effort and perceived difficulty (Experiment 1) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Delayed cognitive load ratings appear to be based more on the more complex problems in the series than on a recency effect — related
• GCL ratings move opposite to the hypothesised pattern, decreasing in the increasing-complexity condition and increasing in the decreasing-complexity condition — related
• ICL ratings track the manipulated complexity sequence: increasing across units in the increasing condition and decreasing in the decreasing condition — related
• Delayed ratings of affective variables (interest and motivation) do not differ from the average of immediate ratings, unlike cognitive load ratings — 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