E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment
The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e‐learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anatomical sciences education 2016-03, Vol.9 (2), p.186-196 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 196 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 186 |
container_title | Anatomical sciences education |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Van Nuland, Sonya E. Rogers, Kem A. |
description | The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e‐learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their impact on learning remain imprecise. As new user interfaces are introduced, it is critical to understand how functionality can influence the load placed on a student's memory resources, also known as cognitive load. To study cognitive load, a dual‐task paradigm wherein a learner performs two tasks simultaneously is often used, however, its application within educational research remains uncommon. Using previous paradigms as a guide, a dual‐task methodology was developed to assess the cognitive load imposed by two commercial anatomical e‐learning tools. Results indicate that the standard dual‐task paradigm, as described in the literature, is insensitive to the cognitive load disparities across e‐learning tool interfaces. Confounding variables included automation of responses, task performance tradeoff, and poor understanding of primary task cognitive load requirements, leading to unreliable quantitative results. By modifying the secondary task from a basic visual response to a more cognitively demanding task, such as a modified Stroop test, the automation of secondary task responses can be reduced. Furthermore, by recording baseline measures for the primary task as well as the secondary task, it is possible for task performance tradeoff to be detected. Lastly, it is imperative that the cognitive load of the primary task be designed such that it does not overwhelm the individual's ability to learn new material. Anat Sci Educ 9: 186–196. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ase.1576 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1769983539</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1092336</ericid><sourcerecordid>3967385961</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4796-f8ceb438f585269cf044f905533862f13576fdf724856527a01601978c2860d03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kFlLxDAUhYMo7uAfUAK--GD1Jmk230THfQEXBF9CbBOtdtqxadX592aYcQTBp1xyP8655yC0RmCHANBdG9wO4VLMoEWiGU-0VDA7nSVdQEshvAIIIJzOowUqUgUM6CK67CWls01VVM_bOO9smbQ2vG1jW-U4q5-roi0-HC5rm-_huxcX_21b94e49thib4vS5dh9DVxT9F3VrqA5b8vgVifvMro_6t0dnCQX18enB_sXSZZKLRKvMveUMuW54lTozEOaeg2cM6YE9YTFKD73kqaKC06lBRIvj6EyqgTkwJbR1lh30NTvnQut6Rchc2VpK1d3wRAptFaMMx3RzT_oa901VbxuRKnoCpL9CmZNHULjvBnERLYZGgJmVLGJFZtRxRHdmAh2T32XT8GfTiOwPgZiKdl03TsjoCljI4FkvP-M7Q3_NTL7t72J4YQvQuu-prxt3oyQTHLzcHVs0pvHQ3Z4c240-wbM15lM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1768905073</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Van Nuland, Sonya E. ; Rogers, Kem A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Van Nuland, Sonya E. ; Rogers, Kem A.</creatorcontrib><description>The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e‐learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their impact on learning remain imprecise. As new user interfaces are introduced, it is critical to understand how functionality can influence the load placed on a student's memory resources, also known as cognitive load. To study cognitive load, a dual‐task paradigm wherein a learner performs two tasks simultaneously is often used, however, its application within educational research remains uncommon. Using previous paradigms as a guide, a dual‐task methodology was developed to assess the cognitive load imposed by two commercial anatomical e‐learning tools. Results indicate that the standard dual‐task paradigm, as described in the literature, is insensitive to the cognitive load disparities across e‐learning tool interfaces. Confounding variables included automation of responses, task performance tradeoff, and poor understanding of primary task cognitive load requirements, leading to unreliable quantitative results. By modifying the secondary task from a basic visual response to a more cognitively demanding task, such as a modified Stroop test, the automation of secondary task responses can be reduced. Furthermore, by recording baseline measures for the primary task as well as the secondary task, it is possible for task performance tradeoff to be detected. Lastly, it is imperative that the cognitive load of the primary task be designed such that it does not overwhelm the individual's ability to learn new material. Anat Sci Educ 9: 186–196. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1935-9772</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-9780</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ase.1576</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26480302</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Anatomy ; Anatomy - education ; Cognition ; Cognitive Ability ; cognitive load ; Color ; Computer-Assisted Instruction ; Curriculum ; dual-task ; e-learning ; Educational Measurement ; Educational Status ; Electronic Learning ; gross anatomy education ; Humans ; instructional design ; Interference (Learning) ; Learning ; Learning Processes ; Memory ; Neuropsychological Tests ; Reaction Time ; Science Instruction ; Stroop Color Word Test ; Students, Health Occupations - psychology ; Task Analysis ; Task Performance and Analysis ; Teaching ; undergraduate education ; Visual Stimuli</subject><ispartof>Anatomical sciences education, 2016-03, Vol.9 (2), p.186-196</ispartof><rights>2015 American Association of Anatomists</rights><rights>2015 American Association of Anatomists.</rights><rights>2016 American Association of Anatomists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4796-f8ceb438f585269cf044f905533862f13576fdf724856527a01601978c2860d03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4796-f8ceb438f585269cf044f905533862f13576fdf724856527a01601978c2860d03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fase.1576$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fase.1576$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1092336$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26480302$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van Nuland, Sonya E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Kem A.</creatorcontrib><title>E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment</title><title>Anatomical sciences education</title><addtitle>American Association of Anatomists</addtitle><description>The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e‐learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their impact on learning remain imprecise. As new user interfaces are introduced, it is critical to understand how functionality can influence the load placed on a student's memory resources, also known as cognitive load. To study cognitive load, a dual‐task paradigm wherein a learner performs two tasks simultaneously is often used, however, its application within educational research remains uncommon. Using previous paradigms as a guide, a dual‐task methodology was developed to assess the cognitive load imposed by two commercial anatomical e‐learning tools. Results indicate that the standard dual‐task paradigm, as described in the literature, is insensitive to the cognitive load disparities across e‐learning tool interfaces. Confounding variables included automation of responses, task performance tradeoff, and poor understanding of primary task cognitive load requirements, leading to unreliable quantitative results. By modifying the secondary task from a basic visual response to a more cognitively demanding task, such as a modified Stroop test, the automation of secondary task responses can be reduced. Furthermore, by recording baseline measures for the primary task as well as the secondary task, it is possible for task performance tradeoff to be detected. Lastly, it is imperative that the cognitive load of the primary task be designed such that it does not overwhelm the individual's ability to learn new material. Anat Sci Educ 9: 186–196. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.</description><subject>Anatomy</subject><subject>Anatomy - education</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cognitive Ability</subject><subject>cognitive load</subject><subject>Color</subject><subject>Computer-Assisted Instruction</subject><subject>Curriculum</subject><subject>dual-task</subject><subject>e-learning</subject><subject>Educational Measurement</subject><subject>Educational Status</subject><subject>Electronic Learning</subject><subject>gross anatomy education</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>instructional design</subject><subject>Interference (Learning)</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Learning Processes</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Science Instruction</subject><subject>Stroop Color Word Test</subject><subject>Students, Health Occupations - psychology</subject><subject>Task Analysis</subject><subject>Task Performance and Analysis</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>undergraduate education</subject><subject>Visual Stimuli</subject><issn>1935-9772</issn><issn>1935-9780</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kFlLxDAUhYMo7uAfUAK--GD1Jmk230THfQEXBF9CbBOtdtqxadX592aYcQTBp1xyP8655yC0RmCHANBdG9wO4VLMoEWiGU-0VDA7nSVdQEshvAIIIJzOowUqUgUM6CK67CWls01VVM_bOO9smbQ2vG1jW-U4q5-roi0-HC5rm-_huxcX_21b94e49thib4vS5dh9DVxT9F3VrqA5b8vgVifvMro_6t0dnCQX18enB_sXSZZKLRKvMveUMuW54lTozEOaeg2cM6YE9YTFKD73kqaKC06lBRIvj6EyqgTkwJbR1lh30NTvnQut6Rchc2VpK1d3wRAptFaMMx3RzT_oa901VbxuRKnoCpL9CmZNHULjvBnERLYZGgJmVLGJFZtRxRHdmAh2T32XT8GfTiOwPgZiKdl03TsjoCljI4FkvP-M7Q3_NTL7t72J4YQvQuu-prxt3oyQTHLzcHVs0pvHQ3Z4c240-wbM15lM</recordid><startdate>201603</startdate><enddate>201603</enddate><creator>Van Nuland, Sonya E.</creator><creator>Rogers, Kem A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201603</creationdate><title>E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment</title><author>Van Nuland, Sonya E. ; Rogers, Kem A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4796-f8ceb438f585269cf044f905533862f13576fdf724856527a01601978c2860d03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Anatomy</topic><topic>Anatomy - education</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cognitive Ability</topic><topic>cognitive load</topic><topic>Color</topic><topic>Computer-Assisted Instruction</topic><topic>Curriculum</topic><topic>dual-task</topic><topic>e-learning</topic><topic>Educational Measurement</topic><topic>Educational Status</topic><topic>Electronic Learning</topic><topic>gross anatomy education</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>instructional design</topic><topic>Interference (Learning)</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Learning Processes</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Science Instruction</topic><topic>Stroop Color Word Test</topic><topic>Students, Health Occupations - psychology</topic><topic>Task Analysis</topic><topic>Task Performance and Analysis</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>undergraduate education</topic><topic>Visual Stimuli</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van Nuland, Sonya E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Kem A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anatomical sciences education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van Nuland, Sonya E.</au><au>Rogers, Kem A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1092336</ericid><atitle>E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment</atitle><jtitle>Anatomical sciences education</jtitle><addtitle>American Association of Anatomists</addtitle><date>2016-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>186</spage><epage>196</epage><pages>186-196</pages><issn>1935-9772</issn><eissn>1935-9780</eissn><abstract>The rising popularity of commercial anatomy e‐learning tools has been sustained, in part, due to increased annual enrollment and a reduction in laboratory hours across educational institutions. While e‐learning tools continue to gain popularity, the research methodologies used to investigate their impact on learning remain imprecise. As new user interfaces are introduced, it is critical to understand how functionality can influence the load placed on a student's memory resources, also known as cognitive load. To study cognitive load, a dual‐task paradigm wherein a learner performs two tasks simultaneously is often used, however, its application within educational research remains uncommon. Using previous paradigms as a guide, a dual‐task methodology was developed to assess the cognitive load imposed by two commercial anatomical e‐learning tools. Results indicate that the standard dual‐task paradigm, as described in the literature, is insensitive to the cognitive load disparities across e‐learning tool interfaces. Confounding variables included automation of responses, task performance tradeoff, and poor understanding of primary task cognitive load requirements, leading to unreliable quantitative results. By modifying the secondary task from a basic visual response to a more cognitively demanding task, such as a modified Stroop test, the automation of secondary task responses can be reduced. Furthermore, by recording baseline measures for the primary task as well as the secondary task, it is possible for task performance tradeoff to be detected. Lastly, it is imperative that the cognitive load of the primary task be designed such that it does not overwhelm the individual's ability to learn new material. Anat Sci Educ 9: 186–196. © 2015 American Association of Anatomists.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26480302</pmid><doi>10.1002/ase.1576</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1935-9772 |
ispartof | Anatomical sciences education, 2016-03, Vol.9 (2), p.186-196 |
issn | 1935-9772 1935-9780 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1769983539 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Anatomy Anatomy - education Cognition Cognitive Ability cognitive load Color Computer-Assisted Instruction Curriculum dual-task e-learning Educational Measurement Educational Status Electronic Learning gross anatomy education Humans instructional design Interference (Learning) Learning Learning Processes Memory Neuropsychological Tests Reaction Time Science Instruction Stroop Color Word Test Students, Health Occupations - psychology Task Analysis Task Performance and Analysis Teaching undergraduate education Visual Stimuli |
title | E-learning, dual-task, and cognitive load: The anatomy of a failed experiment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T03%3A26%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=E-learning,%20dual-task,%20and%20cognitive%20load:%20The%20anatomy%20of%20a%20failed%20experiment&rft.jtitle=Anatomical%20sciences%20education&rft.au=Van%20Nuland,%20Sonya%20E.&rft.date=2016-03&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=186&rft.epage=196&rft.pages=186-196&rft.issn=1935-9772&rft.eissn=1935-9780&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ase.1576&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3967385961%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1768905073&rft_id=info:pmid/26480302&rft_ericid=EJ1092336&rfr_iscdi=true |