Suppr超能文献

基于模拟的程序训练中主观认知负荷测量的局限性。

Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation-based procedural training.

作者信息

Naismith Laura M, Cheung Jeffrey J H, Ringsted Charlotte, Cavalcanti Rodrigo B

机构信息

Wilson Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

HoPingKong Centre for Excellence in Education and Practice, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Med Educ. 2015 Aug;49(8):805-14. doi: 10.1111/medu.12732.

Abstract

CONTEXT

The effective implementation of cognitive load theory (CLT) to optimise the instructional design of simulation-based training requires sensitive and reliable measures of cognitive load. This mixed-methods study assessed relationships between commonly used measures of total cognitive load and the extent to which these measures reflected participants' experiences of cognitive load in simulation-based procedural skills training.

METHODS

Two groups of medical residents (n = 38) completed three questionnaires after participating in simulation-based procedural skills training sessions: the Paas Cognitive Load Scale; the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), and a cognitive load component (CLC) questionnaire we developed to assess total cognitive load as the sum of intrinsic load (how complex the task is), extraneous load (how the task is presented) and germane load (how the learner processes the task for learning). We calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients to assess agreement among these instruments. Group interviews explored residents' perceptions about how the simulation sessions contributed to their total cognitive load. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and subjected to qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Total cognitive load scores differed significantly according to the instrument used to assess them. In particular, there was poor agreement between the Paas Scale and the TLX. Quantitative and qualitative findings supported intrinsic cognitive load as synonymous with mental effort (Paas Scale), mental demand (TLX) and task difficulty and complexity (CLC questionnaire). Additional qualitative themes relating to extraneous and germane cognitive loads were not reflected in any of the questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

The Paas Scale, TLX and CLC questionnaire appear to be interchangeable as measures of intrinsic cognitive load, but not of total cognitive load. A more complete understanding of the sources of extraneous and germane cognitive loads in simulation-based training contexts is necessary to determine how best to measure and assess their effects on learning and performance outcomes.

摘要

背景

有效运用认知负荷理论(CLT)来优化基于模拟的培训的教学设计,需要对认知负荷进行灵敏且可靠的测量。这项混合方法研究评估了常用的总认知负荷测量方法之间的关系,以及这些测量方法在多大程度上反映了参与者在基于模拟的程序技能培训中的认知负荷体验。

方法

两组住院医师(n = 38)在参加基于模拟的程序技能培训课程后完成了三份问卷:帕阿斯认知负荷量表;美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数(TLX),以及我们编制的一份认知负荷成分(CLC)问卷,用于将总认知负荷评估为内在负荷(任务的复杂程度)、外在负荷(任务的呈现方式)和关联负荷(学习者为学习而处理任务的方式)之和。我们计算了皮尔逊相关系数,以评估这些工具之间的一致性。小组访谈探讨了住院医师对模拟课程如何影响其总认知负荷的看法。访谈进行了录音、转录并进行了定性内容分析。

结果

根据用于评估的工具不同,总认知负荷得分存在显著差异。特别是,帕阿斯量表和TLX之间的一致性较差。定量和定性研究结果支持将内在认知负荷视为与心理努力(帕阿斯量表)、心理需求(TLX)以及任务难度和复杂性(CLC问卷)同义。与外在和关联认知负荷相关的其他定性主题在任何一份问卷中均未得到体现。

结论

帕阿斯量表、TLX和CLC问卷似乎可以作为内在认知负荷的测量方法相互替换,但不能作为总认知负荷的测量方法。要确定如何最好地测量和评估外在和关联认知负荷对学习和绩效结果的影响,有必要更全面地了解基于模拟的培训环境中这些认知负荷的来源。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验