Education remains a severely unpolished domain for the application of human factors principles; although human factors methods and theories thrive in their application within both the learning and training domains. Continued efforts are needed to increase educational outcomes from the human-system interaction perspective. This paper shall continue to investigate how to apply constructs and theory from within the related human factors, human-computer interaction, and usability fields to the domain of instructional design. This paper intends to place human factors, human-computer interaction, and usability measurement methods among those used to evaluate cognitive load for the benefit of instructional design, following a new quantitative model for cognitive load. This effort shall assist in increasing collaboration between the fields of human factors and education, and make a significant contribution to cognitive load theory measurement methods.
References
1.
AyresP.van GogT. (2009). State of the art research into cognitive load theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 253-257.
2.
BenishekL.E. (2014). Exploring the hows and the whos: The effects of self-regulation prompting and goal orientation on the e-learning process. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
3.
CierniakG.ScheiterK.GerjetsP. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324.
4.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology,52, 139-183.
5.
De JongT. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 105-134.
6.
HollenderN.HofmannC.DenekeM.SchmitzB. (2010). Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human–computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1278-1288.
7.
JonesS.J.FongC.J.TorresL.G.YooJ.H.DeckerM.L.RobinsonD.H. (2010). Productivity in educational psychology journals from 2003 to 2008.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 11-16.
8.
KalyugaS. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1-19.
9.
KeeblerJ.R.OsoskyS.JentschF.FincannonT. (2010, September). Gaining ground: Merging cognitive load theory with human factors principles. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 54(8), 667-671.
10.
KirschnerP.A.AyresP.ChandlerP. (2011). Contemporary cognitive load theory research: The good the bad and the ugly. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 99-105.
11.
LeppinkJ.PaasF.van der VleutenC.P.M.Van GogT.Van MerriënboerJ.J.G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods (Online), 45(4), 1058-1072
12.
MayerR. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
13.
MorenoR. (2010). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science, 38(2), 135-141.
14.
PaasF. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology,84(4), 429.
15.
PaasF.G.van GogT.SwellerJ. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2) 115-121.
16.
PaasF.G.van MerrienboerJ.J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122-133.
17.
ParkB. (2010). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory. Unpublished dissertation, University of Saarlandes.
18.
ParkB.BrünkenR. (2015). The rhythm method: A new method for measuring cognitive load – An experimental dual-task study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 232-243.
19.
SchnotzW.KürschnerC. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.
20.
SonnenfeldN.A.MeyersM. (2014). A conceptual model of transfer of training via virtual environments. Presented at the Human Factors Applied Psychology Conference, Daytona Beach, Florida.
21.
SwellerJ. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138.
Van MerriënboerJ.J.KesterL.PaasF. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied cognitive psychology, 20(3), 343-352.
24.
Van MerrienboerJ.J.SwellerJ. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.
25.
VerkoeijenP.P.J.L.TabbersH.K. (2013). Good research requires productive theories and guidelines. Medical education, 47(9), 863-865.
26.
WernaartG. (2012). Cognitive load measurement: Different instruments for different types of load? Unpublished master’s thesis, Utrecht Univeristy, Utrecht, Netherlands.
27.
WickensC.D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed., Harper-Collins, New York.
