Advertisement

Cognitive Load Theory for Test Design

  • Peter A. Beddow
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the practical applicability of cognitive load theory (CLT) to the design of tests for assessing student learning, with the purpose of addressing the recent accessibility and universal design guidelines for fairness in testing. The first section provides an overview of CLT, beginning with a discussion of the cognitive forebears of the theory, an examination of five principles of CLT and its primary assumptions, and an explanation of the three categories of cognitive load as they relate to test design. The final section focuses specifically on current methods of measuring cognitive demand with an emphasis on their potential application to the measurement of cognitive load during testing.

Keywords

Cognitive load Cognitive demand Cognitive load theory Long-term memory Working memory Short-term memory Assessment 

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Assocation, & National Center for Measurement in Education. (2016). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. Asghar, I., & Winsler, A. (2000). Bartlett’s schema theory and modern accounts of learning and remembering. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 271–371.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review, 101, 353–356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 4, 829–839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beddow, P. A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Accessibility rating matrix. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt.Google Scholar
  6. Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., & Frey, J. R. (2011). Accessibility theory: Guiding the science and practice of test item design with the test-taker in mind. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students (pp. 163–182). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning : Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(01), 87–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1913). In H. Suzzalo (Ed.), Interest and effort in education. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2010). Research and strategies for adapting formative assessments for students with special needs. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 159–180). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graves, M. E., Slater, W. H., Roen, D., Redd-Boyd, T., Duin, A. H., Furniss, D. W., & Hazeltine, P. (1988). Some characteristics of memorable expository writing: Effects of revisions by writers with different backgrounds. Research in the Teaching of English, 242–265.Google Scholar
  19. Graves, M. F., Prenn, M. C., Earle, J., Thompson, M., Johnson, V., & Slater, W. H. (1991). Commentary: Improving instructional text: Some lessons learned. Reading Research Quarterly, 110–122.Google Scholar
  20. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). How seductive details do their damage: A cognitive theory of interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kettler, R. J., Rodriguez, M. C., Bolt, D., Elliott, S. N., Beddow, P. A., & Kurz, A. (2011). Modified multiple-choice items for alternate assessments: Reliability, difficulty, and differential boost. Applied Measurement in Education, 24, 210–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for information processing. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimziing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roach, A. T., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2010). Incorporating student input in developing alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Exceptional Children, 77, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., & Rodriguez, M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of information. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sweller, J. (2010a). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweller, J. (2010b). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 1–16.Google Scholar
  38. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  39. Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 93–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Beddow
    • 1
  1. 1.Accessible Hope, LLCNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations