This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 01 November 2014, At: 23:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Investigating the Use of IntegratedInstructions to Reduce the CognitiveLoad Associated with Doing PracticalWork in Secondary School ScienceCarolyn Yvonne Haslam a & Richard Joseph Hamilton aa The University of Auckland , Auckland, New ZealandPublished online: 23 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Carolyn Yvonne Haslam & Richard Joseph Hamilton (2010) Investigating theUse of Integrated Instructions to Reduce the Cognitive Load Associated with Doing Practical Workin Secondary School Science, International Journal of Science Education, 32:13, 1715-1737, DOI:10.1080/09500690903183741

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903183741

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 32, No. 13, 1 September 2010, pp. 1715–1737

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/10/131715–23© 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09500690903183741

RESEARCH REPORT

Investigating the Use of Integrated Instructions to Reduce the Cognitive Load Associated with Doing Practical Work in Secondary School Science

Carolyn Yvonne Haslam* and Richard Joseph HamiltonThe University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandTaylor and FrancisTSED_A_418547.sgm10.1080/09500690903183741International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis0000000002009Mrs. CarolynHaslamc.haslam@auckland.ac.nz

This study investigated the effects of integrated illustrations on understanding instructions forpractical work in science. Ninety-six secondary school students who were unfamiliar with thetarget content knowledge and practical equipment took part. The students were divided into twoconditions: (1) modified instructions containing integrated text and illustrations, and (2) conven-tional instructions containing text only. Modified instructions produced significantly higher levelsof performance on task, lower time to completion and perceived cognitive load and task difficulty,higher relative efficiency score, and higher post-test scores than the conventional instructions.When learners are inexperienced and the information is complex, the results suggest that physicallyintegrating mutually referring sources of information reduces cognitive load, and therefore makespractical work instructions easier to understand.

Keywords: Learning; Practical work; Secondary school; Cognitive Load Theory

Introduction

Hodson (1996) describes the goals of science education as being divided intolearning science (content), learning about science (the nature of science) and doingscience (engaging in and developing skills for problem-solving and inquiry). Sciencecurricula in many countries reflect an emphasis on the “doing science”, i.e. practicalwork (Watson, 2000). Research has found that practical work can improve studentachievement in science (Gardner & Gauld, 1990; Lock, 1992), facilitate the

*Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601,Auckland, New Zealand. Email: c.haslam@auckland.ac.nz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1716 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

development of students’ problem-solving skills (Hodson, 1993) and help studentsconfront misconceptions and promote conceptual change (Gunstone & Champagne,1990).

Research has also found that female students are less interested, participate lessenthusiastically and fall behind male students in skills development resulting frompractical work, especially in the physical sciences (Whyte, 1986). Tobin, Kahle, andFraser (1990) suggest that this is due to male students acting as if they have priorityrights on science equipment. Consequently, gender differences with respect to skillin handling scientific equipment become evident from an early age (Murphy, 2000).

One avenue for better understanding why many students experience difficulty indeveloping skills through practical work is to investigate the cognitive load inherentin most practical work instructional settings. Sweller, van Merrienboer, and Paas(1998) suggest that cognitive overload can reduce motivation in what is traditionallya motivating activity in science. The aim of the present study is to improve second-ary school students’ understanding about practical work instructions through themodification of task instructions in order to reduce cognitive load. The targetpractical task involves integrating information from two different mediums (writteninstructions and electrical equipment). In addition, the study looked at the moderat-ing influence of gender on understanding in a practical context in science.

Cognitive Load

Current views of the cognitive processing system suggest it is made up of a workingmemory and a long-term memory (Baddeley, 1992). Working memory is whereconscious processing of new information occurs; this requires mental effort. Work-ing memory is very limited in both capacity to process new information and theduration it is held (Sweller, 2005). In certain circumstances (i.e. novices with littleprior knowledge) it can easily be overloaded if the amount and complexity ofinformation exceed working memory capacity (i.e. cognitive overload) (Halford,Mayberry, & Bain, 1986; Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller & Chandler, 1994).When cognitive overload occurs, understanding and learning are negatively affected.Instructions presented in novel practical work contexts often consist of a largenumber of independent chunks of information that need to be processed simulta-neously in order for understanding to occur (Pollock, Chandler, & Sweller, 2002).This is referred to as high element interactivity (Chandler & Sweller, 1991); hence,cognitive overload is likely to occur (Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996).

In contrast to working memory, long-term memory has what appears to be limit-less capacity for the storage of information. This information is stored in schemaswhich are hierarchically organised domain-specific elements linked together; so, theyact as single elements in working memory (Paas et al., 2003; Sweller, 2005). There-fore, the use and development of schemas are instrumental in reducing cognitiveload while processing new information (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller,2003). Retrieval of existing knowledge (schemas) from long-term memory isessential to understanding new information and has important implications for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1717

understanding instructions (Marcus et al., 1996). As individuals move from being anovice to an expert within a field, there is an increase in both the richness of theinformation held in schemas relating to that field (Chase & Simon, 1973), and howquickly and automatically the schemas can be retrieved (Sweller, 1994).

Cognitive load has been defined as the load that performing a particular taskimposes on the cognitive processing system. The mental load imposed by the taskand the mental effort required to compute the task are important dimensions ofcognitive load and therefore can be used to assess cognitive load (Paas & vanMerrienboer, 1993; van Gog & Paas, 2008). The total cognitive load imposed onworking memory is the sum of three categories of cognitive load: intrinsic, germaneand extraneous (Sweller, 2005; Sweller et al., 1998). Intrinsic cognitive load isimposed due to the nature of the material, that is, the intellectual complexity andinterconnections between the ideas, which directly affects the number of elementsthat need to be processed simultaneously in working memory. Unless the nature ofthe material changes, this remains fixed (Chandler & Sweller, 1996). Recentresearch has looked at the ways of reducing intrinsic cognitive load by artificiallyreducing element interactivity (Pollock et al., 2002). Germane (effective) cognitiveload is the load associated with learning the material, that is, the load imposed onworking memory due to schema construction and transfer of information into long-term memory (Paas et al., 2003). Extraneous (ineffective) cognitive load is imposeddue to the presentation and design of the material. It is this latter aspect, which is thefocus of Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2005; Sweller et al., 1998). With respectto understanding instructions, Marcus et al. (1996) suggest that the cognitive loadimposed by the instructional materials is influenced by prior knowledge, the intrinsicnature of the material, and the presentation and organisation of the instructionalmaterials.

Effective Design of Instructional Material

Understanding the impact of cognitive load on student learning is critical to theeffective design of instructional materials (Sweller, 1988, 1994; Sweller et al., 1998).Often the design and development of instructional materials do not take intoaccount the limited capacity of working memory and may add to the cognitive loadalready present due to the nature of the material being presented (Sweller, 2005).Research indicates that instructional formats which impose a high extraneous(avoidable or ineffective) cognitive load on working memory can interfere withfurther cognitive processing (in situations where working memory capacity isapproaching its limits) which is critical for facilitating understanding and learning(Cerpa, Chandler, & Sweller, 1996; Mayer & Moreno, 2003; van Merrienboer &Sweller, 2005). Unfortunately, many science texts and written material containinginstructions for practical work are written without taking into account the effects ofinstructional presentation on the cognitive processing system. Instructional formats,which require learners to mentally integrate mutually referring sources of informa-tion before understanding occurs, have been found to impose high cognitive load

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1718 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

and affect understanding and learning (Chandler & Sweller, 1991, 1992; Kalyuga,Chandler, & Sweller, 1998). This is known as the split attention effect. In science,requiring novices to read instructions and make sense of these by referring to theactual scientific equipment is an example of split attention (between two differentmediums), which can cause cognitive overload and reduce the effectiveness of theinstructions. In this study, the students were required to complete a practical taskthat is often used in secondary school science to support learning in the topic of elec-tricity. It was our primary aim to increase students’ ability to understand and followthe instructions by modifying conventional instructions to eliminate the split atten-tion effect and, consequently, reduce extraneous cognitive load. A high level ofextraneous cognitive load can occur within a practical context when students areasked to manipulate scientific equipment and read related written instructions.

Influence of Illustrations on Understanding and Learning from Text

Research on the use of illustrations in text has generally found a facilitating effect onunderstanding and learning from text (Mayer, 1989). Illustrations aid in the build-ing of mental representations of text information and concepts presented in textwhich increases understanding and decreases cognitive load (Mayer, 1997; Mayer &Moreno, 2003). Formats which contain text only are often inadequate in promotingunderstanding (Mayer, 2001). Mayer (2003), within the context of his CognitiveTheory of Multimedia Learning, refers to instructional formats which integratepictures within text in order to foster understanding and meaningful learning as“multimedia instructional messages”. Mayer (1993, 1997, 2005) found that illustra-tions were most beneficial for understanding and learning if the students had littleprior knowledge of the information in the text. Finally, integrated illustrations havealso been found to reduce the cognitive load of understanding text (van der Meij &Gellevij, 1998) particularly in situations which involve split attention and novices(Kalyuga et al., 1998; Marcus et al., 1996; Mayer & Anderson, 1992; Mayer &Moreno, 1998).

Levin and Mayer (1993), Mayer and Gallini (1990), Mayer and Anderson (1991)and Mayer, Steinhoff, Bower, and Mars (1995) all used integrated illustrationswithin scientific text and found that integrated instructional materials had a positiveeffect on understanding and learning. Practical science work is particularly wellsuited to benefit from integrated illustrations (in order to reduce the cognitive load),given the need to integrate information from two different mediums, i.e. text andscience equipment.

This study looked at the effect of using integrated illustrations (multimediainstructional messages containing pictures and text) and conventional instructions(text only) on perceived difficulty and the mental effort expended, performance onprimary and secondary tasks and the difference between pre- and post-testing. Thedesign of the modified instructional materials (integrated illustrations and text) usedguidelines advocated by Mayer (2001, 2003, 2005) and Schnotz (2005), i.e., includ-ing diagrams, eliminating extraneous material (coherence effect) and situating words

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1719

and pictures close together (spatial contiguity effect). This study extends previousresearch by assessing the influence of integrated illustration and text on reducing thesplit attention between two different mediums, i.e. science equipment and writtenmaterial. Specifically the study focused on the following research questions:

1. What effect do integrated illustrations have on cognitive load within a practicalwork context where students have to split their attention between two differentmediums?

2. What effect do integrated illustrations have on student understanding in thispractical work context?

3. Does gender moderate the influence of illustrations within this context?

Method

Participants

A total of 96 secondary school science students took part in this study. None of theparticipants had studied electricity at secondary school. Fifty participants were giventhe modified instructions and 46 were given the conventional instructions (57 malesand 39 females, mean age = 14.3 years). Participants were drawn from two differentsecondary schools. The two schools are state-funded urban multicultural secondaryschools catering for Year 9–13 students. School 1 teaches science in separate genderclasses and has a decile rating of 4 (this describes the socio-economic status of theparents; 1 is low and 10 is high). School 2 has a decile rating of 3.

Design

A pilot study in which eight secondary school female students were given eitherconventional or modified instructions in order to assess the clarity of the differentialinstructions and the time required to complete reading through the two types ofinstructions. The pilot confirmed a difference in time to complete the tasks using thetwo different sets of instructions and also gave an indication of the maximum timethat should be allowed for the two tasks. Finally, comments by the students wereused to finalise the two sets of instructions in terms of clarity.

The study consisted of two treatment groups which were given different sets ofinstructions (conventional and modified) to complete the same practical task inscience. The task was divided into two parts, A and B. The data collectedconsisted of time to completion, performance, difficulty rating scale and secondarytask performance for both parts; in addition, students completed a pre- and post-test. Given the documented gender differences in science achievement and atti-tude towards practical work, gender was included as a second fixed factor (withinstructional condition). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the twoinstructional conditions. Participants worked and were tested individually. At eachschool, groups of 18–20 participants were tested at one time in the same room (aschool science laboratory).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1720 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

Apparatus

The classroom was divided in two so that each treatment group worked in one halfof the classroom. Twelve evenly spaced work stations for each treatment group wereset up with all the equipment that was required for the practical task. At each stationwas a power pack, three bulbs, five wires and a voltmeter.

Independent Variables

Written practical instructions. The study evaluated the effects of two different sets ofwritten instructions (conventional and modified). The written instructions enabledthe participants in both groups to complete the same practical task using the sameelectrical equipment provided at each station. The practical task and the writteninstructions were divided into two separate parts. The first part (Part A) involvedinstructions for setting up a simple series circuit, and the second part (Part B)involved using a voltmeter to test the voltage over components in this circuit. Theseconventional instructions were designed in a similar format to textbook instructionsfor practical work in science, i.e. separate steps listed down the page (see Appendix1). The modified instructions contained identical text to that in the conventionalinstructions (see Appendix 2). The difference between the two sets of instructionswas that the modified instructions contained detailed colour-coded, text-integrateddiagrams, which were designed so that the participants did not need to see theelectrical equipment to understand these instructions. Initially the stations whichwould be used by participants who were assigned to the modified instructiontreatment were covered so that the participants could not see the equipment.

Gender. Gender was included as a second fixed factor. Within the modified treat-ment group, there were 30 males and 20 females while in the conventional treatmentgroup, there were 27 males and 19 females.

Dependent Variables

Cognitive load measures. Two sets of materials were developed to help with theassessment of the total cognitive load. The first, a subjective cognitive load question-naire, was given to participants immediately after the conclusion of Part A and PartB, respectively. This questionnaire asked the participants to rate the perceived diffi-culty of understanding the instructions and completing the task on a likert scale withscores ranging from 1 to 9 (1 = very-very hard; 5 = neither hard nor easy; 9 = very-very easy). This method of assessing cognitive load has been found to be reliable(Ayres, 2006). The second “cognitive load” measure employed a dual taskapproach, i.e. a secondary monitoring task. This required participants to recordwhen a random beep sounded while they were completing Part A and Part B.Accuracy in recording the beeps was measured. This was employed to measure themental effort required to complete Part A and Part B, i.e. a direct measure of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1721

cognitive load (Brünken, Plass, & Leutner, 2003). The hypothesis was that the twodifferent sets of instructions required different cognitive resources (different inducedcognitive load). Students were instructed to focus on the primary task as this was themost important. Therefore if students were able to attend to the secondary task itmeant that they had spare cognitive resources. Given the multi-medium visualnature of the target practical task (reading instructions and referring to practicalscience equipment) an auditory secondary monitoring task was employed so as notto overload the visual channel in working memory (Brünken, Plass, & Leutner,2004). This allowed for a more ecologically valid assessment of the effects of thedifferential treatments on understanding and performance of the target practicaltask.

Practical performance measures. Performance on the practical task was measured byassessing the accuracy in setting up the circuit in Part A and in measuring thevoltage in Part B via an experimenter checklist. Participants were also given a ques-tionnaire which asked them to write down any conclusion derived from workingthrough Parts A and B, e.g. the voltage reading of the power pack is the same as thevoltage reading over the two bulbs. Overall relative efficiency scores were calculatedin order to assess the relationship between mental effort (as measured by accuracy ofnoting beeps) and overall practical performance on Parts A and B. This combinationof mental effort and performance can be more useful than either component on itsown (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & van Gerven, 2003). As suggested by Paas and vanMerrienboer (1993), the relative efficiency scores were calculated by: (1) transform-ing the mental effort and performance raw scores into standardised z-scores, and (2)taking the absolute value of the performance z-score subtracted from the mentaleffort z-score and dividing this by the square root of two. Time for completion ofPart A and Part B was also measured and has also been used as a component of aperformance measure to calculate the “instructional efficiency” (Paas et al., 2003).

Pre- and post-test. A pre-test was employed to assess students’ prior knowledge anda post-test was employed as a secondary measure of how much participants learnedfrom the practical experience. The post-test was considered secondary in that theprimary focus of the research was on the effect of the differential treatments onparticipants’ understanding of instructions and performance of the practical task.Seven knowledge questions were identical across the pre- and post-tests. Examplesof knowledge questions were: “When setting up simple electrical circuits whichpower supply do you use: AC, DC, I don’t know” and “If all three bulbs in a circuithave the same voltage, the voltage reading over each bulb will be: the same, differ-ent, I don’t know”. The additional questions in the pre-test assessed whether theparticipants had any prior experience in manipulating electrical equipment andwhether they were colour-blind. The additional questions in the post-test related totime allowed for the instructional phase, and difficulty of reading the voltmeter. Theformat of the majority of the questions was multiple-choice with a choice of three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1722 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

answers with one of the choices being “I don’t know”. The participants werestrongly urged to be honest, they were instructed that this would not go towardstheir assessment in science and was only being used for this research. Students inNew Zealand schools are familiar with this type of testing format making it ecologi-cally valid. Given the format and the small number of questions within each test,traditional reliability measures were not employed. Rather, Pearson correlationswere calculated in order to assess the degree to which pre- and post-test items weresignificantly related to the total pre- and post-test performance, respectively. All pre-test items were significantly correlated with total pre-test scores (0.22 < r < 0.68)and all post-test items were significantly correlated with total post-test scores (0.21 <r < 0.54).

Participant ability measures. Progressive Achievement Tests (PAT) were used as ameasure of student ability. These are standardised tests used in New Zealand’sprimary and secondary schools to compare participants with national norms and forlongitudinal monitoring of individual student achievement. The Kuder-RichardsonFormula 20 (KR20) method was used to measure the reliability of the PAT Mathe-matics and Reading Comprehension tests when norming the test. The KR20 valuesreported for the PAT Reading Comprehension test ranged from 0.87 to 0.94 whilefor the PAT Mathematics test values ranged from 0.90 to 0.93. With respect tovalidity, the PAT Mathematics and Reading Comprehension tests are reported tohave high content and concurrent validity (Reid & Elley, 1991; Reid, 1993). Withinthe present study, the PAT Mathematics and Reading Comprehension age percen-tile scores will be used as a standardised, baseline achievement measure, and wereintegrated into the statistical analysis as covariates.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted in four phases: a pre-testing phase, an instructionalphase, the main experimental phase and lastly a post-testing phase. The pre-testingphase consisted of a pre-test (to assess prior knowledge), and giving the participantspractice at reading values from a voltmeter. The secondary monitoring task was alsoexplained to the participants in the pre-testing phase so they were aware of the addi-tional task and how to record their times on the separate record sheet. Participantswere given practice at listening to and recording the beeps used in the secondarymonitoring task. All participants easily performed the secondary monitoring task.The instructional phase consisted of participants being given time to read and under-stand the instructions. During this phase only the participants with the conventionalinstructions could see the electrical equipment. The modified instructions weredesigned to be self-contained and intelligible on their own without the need to lookat the electrical equipment. The equipment was essentially redundant information.The main experimental phase involved participants using the instructions to completePart A and then Part B and concurrently completing a secondary monitoring task

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1723

which required them to record the exact time when beeps sounded. There was aseparate cassette tape with different random beeps recorded onto it for Part A andPart B. On a separate sheet participants recoded the time that they heard a beepsound. Participants read off the time from one of the two large digital stop watcheslocated at the front and back of the room which were easily visible to all participantsfrom where they were seated. There were eight beeps in total in Part A and 10 beepsin total in Part B. The beeps were clearly audible to all participants as the taperecorder was situated in the centre of the room and the participants worked aroundthe outside walls of the laboratory. During the experimental phase participantsrecorded their practical work results on a separate answer sheet. Immediately afterPart A and Part B, respectively, the students completed their subjective question-naires on task and instruction difficulty. There was a maximum time allowed foreach Part, 10 minutes for Part A and 15 minutes for Part B. In pilot studies this wasfound to be well in excess of the time required to complete Part A and Part B,respectively. The participants were instructed that the time it took them to completePart A and Part B was being recorded. The two digital stop watches counted downto show how much time was left during each session. When they completed Part Aand Part B, they were asked to record the time, put up their hand and a supervisorwould check and sign that this was accurately recorded. All participants eithercompleted the task or had stopped working due to task difficulty prior to timerunning out in each session. The final post-test phase consisted of the participantscompleting a post-test.

Results

The present study was primarily concerned with the effects of a modified set ofinstructions versus a conventional set of instructions on performance in practicalwork related to the area of electricity. Performance on practical work was measuredvia time taken to complete Part A and Part B of the practical work, accuracy ofsetting up an electrical circuit for Part A, and results and conclusions recorded forPart B. In addition, participants’ knowledge of electricity was assessed via a pre- andpost-test. Cognitive load, which occurred while engaging in practical work, wasassessed using results of accuracy on a secondary monitoring task, and subjectiveratings of cognitive load and perceived task difficulty. In order to control for poten-tial ability differences between participants and its influence on their performancewithin the present study, PAT Mathematics and Reading Comprehension scoreswere used as covariates in all between condition analyses. Finally, prior to evaluatingthe effects of instructional condition and gender within the present study, a prelimi-nary analysis of student performance, prior PAT achievement scores etc. by schoolwas performed in order to establish the equivalence of participants across the twoschools employed within this study. A multivariate analysis of variance found asignificant school effect between the means for PAT Mathematics (age percentiles)[School 1: M = 38.52, SD = 27.13; School 2: M = 26.57, SD =18.21; F(1,89) =5.657, p < 0.02]. No other significant school differences were found on any of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1724 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

other measures employed within this study. Given that both PAT Mathematics andReading Comprehension scores were already being included within all analyses ascovariates, no modifications or amendments to the original planned set of analyseswere warranted.

What Effect do Integrated Illustrations have on Cognitive Load within a Practical Work Context where Students have to Split their Attention between Two Different Mediums?

The following analyses focused on accuracy of recording beeps for the secondarymonitoring task, and perception of the cognitive load imposed and task difficulty asmeasured by subjective rating scales. Three separate analyses were performed. Thefirst focused on those subjective ratings, unique to each part, which assessedperceived difficulty of completing Part A and Part B, respectively. A second analysisfocused on the identical subjective rating items in Parts A and B which assessedperceived cognitive load, and a third analysis focused on the accuracy measuresrelated to Parts A and B of concurrently completing the primary and secondarymonitoring tasks. Since these latter two sets of measures were identical within PartsA and B, they were analysed via repeated measures analyses.

Unique subjective ratings of task difficulty. A multivariate analysis of covariance founda significant treatment effect (and no significant gender or interaction effects)[F(8,77) =1.480, Wilks λ = 0.463, p < 0.001] on the unique subjective ratings.Participants in the modified treatment group perceived the task difficulty for bothPart A and Part B to be lower than those in the conventional treatment group (9 =very-very easy; 5 = neither hard nor easy; 1 = very-very hard) [Modified: Part A, M= 7.44, SD = 1.51; Part B, M = 5.98, SD = 1.88; Conventional: Part A, M = 4.87,SD = 1.46; Part B, M = 4.72, SD = 2.14].

Subjective rating of cognitive load. A multivariate analysis of covariance withrepeated measures did not find any significant main or interaction effects on thesubjective ratings which were repeated from Part A to Part B. That is, participants’assessed cognitive load did not differ for Parts A and B and was not influenced byinstructional treatment or gender. Mean performance levels for the modified andconvention treatment indicated that participants rated the difficulty of concurrentlylistening for beeps and following instructions as moderate (9 = very-very easy; 5 =neither hard nor easy; 1 = very-very hard) [Modified, M = 5.12, SD = 1.81;Conventional, M = 4.45, SD = 2.22].

Accuracy scores for recording the secondary monitoring task beeps. Accuracy in thiscontext refers to the percentage of secondary monitoring task beeps thatwere recorded correctly out of the total number of beeps that sounded while theparticipants were engaged in the task. Separate percentage accuracy scores were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1725

calculated for Part A and Part B. As there was a significant difference in the time tocompletion between the two treatments (the modified group took less time tocomplete both Part A and Part B) there were consequently less opportunities to hearand record the beeps for the participants in the modified treatment group.

A multivariate analysis of covariance with repeated measures found only a signifi-cant treatment effect for accuracy scores (no significant time of testing, gender ortreatment × gender interaction effects were found) [F(1,85) = 5.133, Wilks λ =0.943, p < 0.026] (see Table 1). There was a trend towards significance for a gender× treatment interaction [F(1,85) = 3.826, Wilks λ = 0.957, p < 0.054]. For bothaccuracy scores (Parts A and B), participants within the modified condition weremore accurate than those in the conventional condition.

In the conventional condition 39 participants in Part A and 37 in Part B out of atotal of 46 participants failed to accurately record any beeps on their sheet, whereas,in the modified condition 20 participants in Part A and 16 in Part B out of a total of50 participants failed to accurately record any beeps on their sheet.

What Effect do Integrated Illustrations have on Student Understanding in a Practical Work Context?

The measures used to assess the effect of integrated illustrations on student under-standing were: (1) time to completion for Part A and Part B, (2) performance measuresrelating to Part A and Part B, and (3) relative efficiency scores. As a secondarymeasure, post-test scores were analysed to assess learning within the present context.

Time to complete Part A and Part B. A multivariate analysis of covariance withrepeated measures found a significant main effect for time of testing, treatment and

Table 1. Accuracy of secondary monitoring task measures

Treatment groups

Modified Conventional

Cognitive load measures M SD M SD

Female beeps Aa 20.53 29.25 9.40 19.73Female beeps Bb 34.82 35.86 4.33 16.18Male beeps Aa 36.24 34.52 4.33 16.18Male beeps Bb 34.25 31.84 3.13 6.45

aPercentage of secondary monitoring task beeps correctly recorded while the subjects were engaged in Part A.bPercentage of secondary monitoring task beeps correctly recorded while the subjects were engaged in Part B.Note: The modified group consisted of 50 subjects and the conventional group consisted of 46 subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1726 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

gender [Time of Testing: F(1,85) = 76.153, Wilks λ = 0.527, p < 0.001; Treatment:F(1,85) = 4.474, Wilks λ = 0.950, p < 0.037; Gender: F(1,85) = 15.100, Wilks λ =0.849, p < 0.001] (see Table 2). No significant interactions were found. Participantstook longer to complete Part B than Part A, females took longer than males andparticipants in the conventional condition took longer than those in the modifiedcondition.

For Part A, in the conventional condition, seven females and five males wereunable to complete all aspects of the task, while for Part B, in the conventionalcondition, eight females and two males were unable to complete all aspects of thetask. All participants in the modified condition were able to complete all aspects ofall tasks. As indicated earlier, this inability to complete all tasks was due to partici-pants’ lack of understanding and task difficulty rather than participants running outof time. This result underscores the positive impact of the modified instructions onparticipants’ understanding. Finally, for all participants, time to completion wassignificantly correlated with their subjective ratings of task difficulty for both Part A(r = −.683, p > 0.001) and Part B (r = −.662, p > 0.001). That is, as rated task diffi-culty increased, so did the amount of time to complete the task.

Performance measures related to Part A and Part B. A multivariate analysis of covari-ance found a significant gender and treatment effect [Treatment: F(5,81) = 19.603,Wilks λ = 0.452, p < 0.001; Gender: F(5,81) = 4.610, Wilks λ = 0.778, p < 0.001].No significant interactions were found. Males were more accurate in measuring andrecording the voltmeter readings in Part B [Males: M = 5.75, SD = 2.12; Females:M = 4.64, SD = 2.73]. With respect to treatment effects, significant effects werefound on all measures. Participants in the modified treatment group were moreaccurate in setting up the circuit in Part A [Modified: M = 5.80, SD = 0.73;Conventional: M = 3.39, SD = 2.26], measuring and recording the voltmeter

Table 2. Mean performance time measures in Part A and Part B

Treatment groups

Modified Conventional

Gender/performance time measures M SD M SD

Female time Aa 248.79 109.55 441.40 164.15Female time Bb 533.00 202.50 747.75 177.39Male time Aa 177.26 109.83 376.62 154.48Male time Bb 258.84 137.53 565.62 200.51

aTime in seconds to complete Part A, highest possible score = 600 seconds.bTime in seconds to complete Part B, highest possible score = 900 seconds.Note: The modified group consisted of 50 subjects and the conventional group consisted of 46 subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1727

readings in Part B [Modified: M = 6.50, SD = 0.97; Conventional: M = 4.00, SD =2.86], and drawing conclusions in Part B [Modified: M = 2.13, SD = 1.16;Conventional: M = 1.15, SD = 1.32].

Relative efficiency scores. Mean overall performance across Parts A and B and meancognitive load (detecting beeps) across Parts A and B were combined to create arelative efficiency score (Pass & van Merrienboer, 1993). This measure is intendedto assess the relationship between mental effort (as measured by cognitive load) andperformance within particular conditions in comparison to a hypothetical baselinecondition in which each unit of mental effort is equal to a unit of performance. Thisis a widely adopted measure of “instructional efficiency” when looking at extraneouscognitive load (van Gog & Paas, 2008). Positive efficiency scores represent higherlevels of efficiency while negative scores represent lower levels of efficiency. Therelative efficiency score for the modified condition was +0.677 (SD = 0.39), whilefor the conventional condition, the score was –0.672 (SD = 0.43). This indicatesthat participants in the modified condition were significantly more efficient in termsof the effective use of their mental effort during processing of the target task thanwere participants in the conventional condition.

Pre- and post-test measures. A multivariate analysis of covariance with repeatedmeasures found a significant time of testing effect and an instructional treatmenteffect on post-test scores only. [Time of testing: F(1,85) = 81.39, Wilks λ = 0.511,p < 0.001; Treatment: F(1,85) = 10.945, Wilks λ = 0.886, p < 0.001] (seeTable 3). No significant interaction effects were found. In addition, an overallgender effect was found [F(1,85) = 10.605, p < 0.002]. Post-test scores were

Table 3. Pre- and post-test measures

Treatment groups

Modified Conventional

Pre- and post-measures M SD M SD

Female pre-testa 16.54 20.35 22.86 17.59Female post-testb 56.58 16.33 46.25 20.72Male pre-testa 33.64 27.24 34.62 19.45Male post-testb 70.97 13.07 59.62 17.79

aTested the subjects’ prior knowledge of electrical circuits and equipment used, percentage correct out of seven items.bTested the subjects’ post-treatment knowledge of electrical circuits and equipment used, percentage correct out of eight items (seven out of eight items identical to the pre-test).Note: The modified group consisted of 50 subjects and the conventional group consisted of 46 subjects.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1728 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

significantly higher than pre-test scores for both treatments and the modifiedcondition produced higher post-test scores than the conventional condition (Pre-test, Modified: M = 1.76, SD = 0.23, Conventional: M = 2.01, SD = 0.23; Post-test, Modified: M = 5.10, SD = 0.20, Conventional: M = 4.20, SD = 0.20).Finally, females also performed significantly poorer on both the pre- and post-testthan the males (see Table 3).

Discussion

Traditional practical science activities require that novice learners mentally integratemutually referring separate sources of complex information, i.e. instructions andscience equipment. This could potentially cause cognitive overload via a split atten-tion effect (cf. Sweller & Chandler, 1994) and could lead to either a lack of under-standing or reduced understanding of the presented materials (Marcus et al., 1996;Paas et al., 2003; Sweller et al., 1998).

This study compared the effects of conventional practical instructions (text only)with a modified set of instructions that consisted of integrated illustrations (diagramsand text). The modified instructions eliminated the need for participants to refer tothe actual science equipment when initially reading through the instructions andwere designed to maximise the meaningful processing of the target information (cf.Mayer, 2001, 2003). It was expected that the modified instructions would producelower levels of cognitive load and higher levels of understanding in comparison tothe conventional instructions.

Understanding within this study is described as the ability to follow instructions inorder to successfully complete the practical tasks in the time allocated. When theeffects of treatments were evaluated within a multivariate framework, all the perfor-mance measures indicated that the modified treatment was significantly superior tothe conventional treatment. Significant differences between the two treatmentgroups (modified and conventional) were found on the time to completionmeasures, the performance measures (for the primary task and secondary monitor-ing task), the post-test measure, and lastly, the relative efficiency scores. The use ofmultiple measures of cognitive load and performance allowed for a robust evaluationof the impact of integrated illustrations. The convergent results supporting thepositive impact of the modified instructions on cognitive load, understanding andlearning underscore the overwhelming superiority of modified instructions overconventional instructions.

The significant difference for time to completion between modified and conven-tional treatments was likely to be due to the fact that the annotated, integrated illus-trations used in the modified instructional materials were easier to understand andtherefore the students were able to complete Part A and Part B in a shorter time.This result is noteworthy, as despite the fact that the students in the modified grouphad not seen the equipment in the introductory phase they still completed the task ina shorter time than those in the conventional treatment group. The absence ofequipment could have slowed down completion of Part A for those in the modified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1729

treatment group as they became familiar with the equipment during completion ofPart A, however, this did not occur.

These results indicate that participants’ understanding was facilitated to a higherdegree in the modified condition compared to the conventional condition and areconsistent with the notion that the annotated, integrated illustrations made theinstructions easier to understand (Marcus et al., 1996; Mayer & Moreno, 2003) andwere successful in eliminating any split attention effect (Chandler & Sweller, 1991,1992; Kalyuga et al., 1998; Sweller, 1994).

The term “value-added” is often used to refer to the difference between the pre-and post-test scores as a measure of learning due to participation in an activity. Inthis study a pre- and post-test were used. As indicated earlier, no significant differ-ences were found between treatments on the pre-test scores. Participants in themodified treatment group, however, did attain higher value-added scores. That is agreater improvement in scores from pre- to post-test in the modified conditioncompared to the conventional condition.

Both in practical work and in science content relating to physics males have beenfound to achieve higher levels of performance (Tobin et al., 1990). A suggestedreason for the gender achievement difference in physics is that males show moreinterest and confidence in physics and their “outside school” experiences favourenhanced manipulation of physics equipment (SSCR, 1987). Gender differenceswere not a specific focus of this study. However, given the existing literature ongender differences in science performance, attitudes and achievement, we includedit as one of the fixed factors with instructional treatments. Significant gender effectswere found for the time to completion and on all performance measures. Of particu-lar importance, to the results of the present study, is the fact that no significant treat-ment × gender interactions were found on any measure. This indicates that thetreatment effects were robust and not moderated by gender.

An overall analysis in which participant performance measures were comparedbetween the two contributing schools found only one significant effect, i.e. PATMathematics. Given that both PAT prior ability measures were included as covari-ates, differences due to school effects can be eliminated as a possible explanation fordifferences found in the present study.

This study focused on practical work in physics, which is known to be a difficultconceptual area of science. Given this focus, one should be cautious of generalisingthe results of the present study to practical work in other areas of science, e.g. biology,geology or chemistry. Further investigation would be needed to ascertain whetherthese modifications to conventional instructions would be beneficial for practical workin these other areas of science, as well as in other areas of physics. In addition, partic-ipants were drawn from two schools which had similar low to moderate decile ratings.Future research should include participants from a wider range of schools. Thepresent study used many modifications between the two treatments (integrated anno-tations, numbering, highlighting and colour cues). The results of this study thereforedo not give any indication if any one of the modifications was more successful infacilitating understanding than the others. Future studies could compare different

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1730 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

modified instructions, which include the use of alternative types of diagrams or differin terms of the degree to which the diagrams are integrated within the instructions.

This study used participants with no prior knowledge in an area of practical workin science with high element interactivity and focused on manipulating the presenta-tion of instructions to reduce the cognitive load of splitting attention between twodifferent mediums. The influence of learner expertise on the efficiency of integratedinstructions may be a useful future area of research. For novices, integrated instruc-tions may be quite effective, however for experts textual instructions may be suffi-cient and integrated instructions may, in fact, inhibit learning due to a redundancyeffect (Kalyuga et al., 2003).

The modified instructions were designed to be intelligible on their own andtherefore in the initial stage of understanding the instructional materials the scien-tific equipment was not visible to eliminate extraneous material. This is consistentwith the findings of Sweller and Chandler (1994) that it was beneficial for studentsto concentrate on the written instructions in the instructional stage without thepresence of the equipment. This suggests that the presence of equipment can havea distracting effect on students and can contribute to increased cognitive load. Animplication from these results is that giving the students time to read the instruc-tions with appropriate illustrations of the equipment (prior to the presentation ofthe equipment) may facilitate understanding of and the ability to follow instruc-tions, reduce the time taken to complete practical work and increase learningresulting from this experience. Other implications for classroom settings are that incircumstances when students are required to follow instructions to complete practi-cal work then using annotated diagrams will reduce the time it takes students tocomplete the practical work and result in increased understanding. This is benefi-cial for teachers who are often pressed for time, i.e. to complete their teaching inthe time allowed.

Finally, a significant aspect of the present study which differentiates it from mostother studies in this area is that the instructional context required that participantssplit their attention between the practical task (electrical equipment) and instruc-tions for how to use this equipment. Most other investigations of the impact of splitattention on understanding and learning focus on the influence of two sources ofinformation that are presented within the same medium, e.g. text and diagram on acomputer screen. Further research with alternative multi-medium tasks is requiredin order to see if the present results can be replicated. In addition, it is clear thatassessing cognitive load via a secondary monitoring task within a multi-mediumcontext is somewhat more complicated given the multiple mediums. Additionalresearch needs to address how best to balance the validity of the secondary monitor-ing task measure with the ecological validity of the practical tasks and treatments.

References

Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load withinproblems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1731

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.Brünken, R., Plaas, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in

multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53–62.Brünken, R., Plaas, 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.

Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4,345–367.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognitionand Instruction, 8, 293–332.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction.British Journal of Education Psychology, 62, 233–246.

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.Gardner, P., & Gauld, C. (1990). Laboratory work and students’ attitudes. In E. Hegarty-

Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 75–94). London:Routledge.

Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. InE. Hegarty-Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159–182).London: Routledge.

Halford, G., Mayberry, M., & Bain, J. (1986). Capacity limitations in children’s reasoning: A dualtask approach. Child Development, 57, 616–627.

Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work inschool science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.

Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion anddistortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 115–135.

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect.Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design.Human Factors, 40, 17–41.

Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. Britton, A. Woodward,& M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lock, R. (1992). Gender and practical skill performance in science. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 29, 227–241.

Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 88(1), 49–63.

Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 81, 240–246.

Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructionalpsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 253–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? EducationalPsychologist, 32, 1–19.

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design

methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13, 125–139.Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge

handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a

dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1732 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students buildconnections between pictures and words in multimedia learning. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 93, 390–397.

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 715–726.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidencefor dual-processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,312–320.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning.Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbookdesign: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 43, 31–44.

Murphy, P. (2000). Are gender differences in achievement avoidable? In J. Sears & P. Sorensen(Eds.), Issues in science teaching (pp. 165–174). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recentdevelopments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurementas a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.

Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach tocombine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning andInstruction, 12, 61–86.

Reid, N. A. (1993). Progressive achievement tests of mathematics: Teacher’s manual. Wellington:Lithoprint.

Reid, N. A., & Elley, W. B. (1991). Progressive achievement tests of reading: Teacher’s manual.Wellington: Lithoprint.

Schnotz, W. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridgehandbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–70). New York: Cambridge University Press.

SSCR (Secondary Science Curriculum Review). (1987). Better science: For both girls and boys.London: Heinemann Educational Books/Association for Science Education for the SchoolCurriculum Development Committee.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science,12, 257–285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning andInstruction, 4, 295.

Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruc-tion, 12, 185–233.

Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructionaldesign. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

Tobin, K., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (1990). Windows into science classrooms: Problems associatedwith higher-level cognitive learning. Hampshire: Falmer.

van der Meij, H., & Gellevij, M. (1998). Screen captures in software documentation. TechnicalCommunication, 45(4), 529–543.

van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct ineducational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26.

Watson, R. (2000). The role of practical work. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice inscience teaching (pp. 57–71). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Whyte, J. (1986). Girls into science and technology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1733

Appendix 1. Conventional Instructions

Part A: Setting up a circuit with – bulbs and a power pack

Setting up the power pack

1. Turn the switch on the power pack to ON2. Turn the voltage knob to 12V3. Connect a new wire to the −ve black terminal4. Connect another new wire to the +ve red terminal

Setting up the two bulbs

1. Put the bulbs in front of the power pack with their connections on the left andright

2. Bulb 1 is the left bulb3. Bulb 2 is the right bulb

Connecting up the bulbs and the power pack

1. Take the free end of the wire from the +ve red terminal on the power pack2. Connect it to the right side of bulb 23. Connect a new wire to the left side of bulb 24. Connect this wire to the right side of bulb 15. Connect the free end of the wire from the −ve black terminal on the power

pack to the left side of bulb 16. Write down the time that you finished in your answer book and put

your hand up

Introduction

A voltmeter is connected over a component in the circuit. This means that the twowires from the voltmeter are connected one on each side of the component beingmeasured. It checks the energy going into a component and the energy going outand then the reading on the voltmeter is the energy used up.

Part B: Using a voltmeter to make voltage readings in the circuit

USE the circuit you set up in PART A

Connecting a voltmeter over the power pack

1. Put the voltmeter on the right of the power pack2. Connect one wire to the red terminal of the voltmeter3. Connect the other end of this same wire to the +ve red terminal on the power

pack

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1734 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

4. Connect a new wire to the black terminal of the voltmeter5. Connect the other end of this wire to the −ve black terminal on the power

pack6. Record the reading on the voltmeter in your answer book Part B for the

“power pack”7. Take out the two voltmeter wires from the power pack

Connecting a voltmeter over each bulb

The voltmeter should still have one wire coming from each terminal

1. Put the voltmeter in front of bulb 12. Follow the wire from the −ve black terminal on the power pack to bulb 13. Connect the wire from the black voltmeter terminal to this side of bulb 14. Connect the voltmeter wire from the red terminal to the other side of bulb 15. Record the reading on the voltmeter in your answer book Part B for “bulb 1”6. Repeat steps 1–5 for bulb 2

Connecting a voltmeter over both bulbs

1. Follow the wire from the +ve red terminal on the power pack to bulb 22. Connect the wire from the red voltmeter terminal to this side of bulb 23. Follow the wire from the −ve black terminal on the power pack to bulb 14. Connect the wire from the black voltmeter terminal to this side of bulb 15. Record the reading on the voltmeter in your answer book Part B for “over

both bulbs”6. Write down the time that you finished in your answer book and put

your hand up

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1735

Appendix 2. Modified Instructions

Part A: Setting up a circuit with – bulbs and a power pack

Photos and diagrams of the equipment

Setting up the power pack

Setting up the two bulbs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

1736 C. Y. Haslam and R. J. Hamilton

Connecting up the bulbs and the power pack

6. Write down the time that you finished in your answer book and put your hand up

Introduction

A voltmeter is connected over a component in the circuit. This means that the twowires from the voltmeter are connected one on each side of the component beingmeasured.

It checks the energy going into a component and the energy going out and then thereading on the voltmeter is the energy used up.

Part B: Using a voltmeter to make voltage readings in the circuit

USE the circuit you set up in PART A

Connecting a voltmeter over the power pack

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Cognitive Load 1737

6. Record the reading on the voltmeter in your answer book Part B for the“power pack”

7. Take out the two voltmeter wires from the power pack

The voltmeter should still have one wire coming from each terminal

Connecting a voltmeter over each bulb

5. Record the reading on the voltmeter in your answer book in Part B for “bulb 1”6. Repeat steps 1–5 for bulb 2

Connecting a voltmeter over both bulbs

5. Record the voltmeter reading in your answer book in Part B for “over both bulbs”6. Write down the time that you finished in your answer book and put your

hand up

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

23:

30 0

1 N

ovem

ber

2014