Applying Cognitive Load Theory in Teacher Education :  An Experimental Validation of the Scale by Leppink et al.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract: The study investigated the validation of a rating scale to measure cognitive load in science teacher education. The rating scale was used to measure three types of cognitive load in a new learning context with 81 undergraduate students enrolled in a science education program, randomly assigned to three experimental groups: problem-solving, example-based learning, and control groups. The preservice teachers' cognitive load was measured using a rating scale during an intervention to diagnose students' misconceptions in physics. The study also assessed the effect of instructional design on cognitive load. The results showed that the three types of cognitive load can be reliably measured in science teacher education and that instructional designs that create germane cognitive load contribute to the development of preservice teachers' diagnostic competencies. Conversely, designs that create irrelevant cognitive load are detrimental to this development. These findings suggest the importance of considering cognitive load in science teacher education for effective instructional design.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

lavaan: AnRPackage for Structural Equation Modeling

Yves Rosseel (2012)

0 comments Cited 4858 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance

Gordon Cheung, Roger B. Rensvold (2002)

0 comments Cited 2173 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The weirdest people in the world?

Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, Ara Norenzayan (2010)

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.