The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load

Marlina Hülsmann; Cornelia Stiller; Matthias Wilde

doi:doi:10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load

Marlina Hülsmann, Cornelia Stiller, Matthias Wilde^*

Published in Science Journal of Education (Volume 12, Issue 1)

Received: 12 January 2024 Accepted: 24 January 2024 Published: 21 February 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Experimentation provides a suitable way for students to gain an understanding of scientific inquiry since it is one of its main methods to develop scientific knowledge. However, it is assumed that experimentation can lead to cognitive overload when students experience little support during experimentation, which, in turn, might hinder effective learning. Extraneous cognitive load describes the load caused by inefficient instructional designs such as unguided problem-solving or the way information is presented and thus can be influenced by appropriate instructions. In order to prevent students from cognitive overload and assist them during experimentation, they can be provided with incremental scaffolds, which are sequential written solution instructions. The present study investigates the extent to which the use of incremental scaffolds affects learners’ cognitive load during experimentation in biology classes. The students in the Incremental Scaffolds Group (IncrS; n = 54) used incremental scaffolds in two self-conducted experiments while students of the No-Incremental Scaffolds Group (No-IncrS; n = 74) experimented openly without such a support. Both groups were provided with a pre-structured researcher protocol including the steps of experimentation and received the same lessons. Extraneous cognitive load was assessed after both experiments using a self-developed questionnaire consisting of two items. These were designed to assess how cognitive load was affected by the learning materials. The findings only revealed a significant main effect of time between the two conducted experiments, but no significant interaction effect with the treatment. Consequently, the results show that repeated experimentation reduces cognitive load during experimentation, regardless of the provision of incremental scaffolds. The positive effects of incremental scaffolds, thus possibly also concerning cognitive load, are assumed to occur only after multiple applications; hence, they might need to be applied more frequently and regularly to really become practiced. Two sessions of experimenting with incremental scaffolds seem to be insufficient for providing learners with substantial support, as students may need more time to fully adjust to utilizing the incremental scaffolds. Furthermore, a brief reflection phase on the use of incremental scaffolds at the end of each lesson in which they were used appears to be helpful. If incremental scaffolds can free up working memory, it may also be useful to consider the relation between incremental scaffolds, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition.

Published in	Science Journal of Education (Volume 12, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
Page(s)	1-10
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Cognitive Load, Learning Support, Incremental Scaffolds, Experimentation, Problem-Solving Tasks, Biology Lessons

References

[1]	Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
[2]	National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[3]	KMK (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland). (2005). Beschlüsse der Kultusministerkonferenz. Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Beschluss vom 16.12.2004. München: Luchterhand.
[4]	Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
[5]	Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[6]	Mayer, J. (2007). Erkenntnisgewinnung als wissenschaftliches Problemlösen. In D. Krüger & H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung (pp. 177-186). Springer-Lehrbuch. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68166-3_16
[7]	Lederman, J. S. (2009). Teaching scientific inquiry: Exploration, directed, guided, and opened-ended levels. Retrieved from http://ngl.cengage.com/assets/downloads/ngsci_pro0000000028/am_lederman_teach_sci_inq_scl22-0439a.pdf
[8]	Harlen, W. (1999). Effective teaching of science: a review of research (6. Ed.). Scottish Council for Research in Education. Edinburgh.
[9]	Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
[10]	Schmidt-Weigand, F., Franke-Braun, G. & Hänze, M. (2008). Erhöhen gestufte Lernhilfen die Effektivität von Lösungsbeispielen? Eine Studie zur kooperativen Bearbeitung von Aufgaben und in den Naturwissenschaften. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 36(4), 365-384.
[11]	Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
[12]	van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
[13]	Sweller, J., Ayres, P. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. In Cognitive Load Theory Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies (pp. 57-69). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4_5
[14]	Artino, A. R. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience: An abbreviated review for educational practitioners. Association for the Advancement of Computing In Education Journal, 16(4), 425-439.
[15]	Koenen, J. (2016). Lösungsbeispiele – eine Einführung. In J. Koenen, M. Emden & E: Sumfleth (Eds.), Chemieunterricht im Zeichen der Erkenntnisgewinnung (pp. 32-39). Münster: Waxmann.
[16]	Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
[17]	Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7
[18]	Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
[19]	van Gog, T., & Ayres, P. (2009). Editorial: State of the art research into Cognitive Load Theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 253-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.007
[20]	Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
[21]	de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179
[22]	Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
[23]	Kuhn, D., & Dean, D. (2005). Is developing scientific thinking all about learning to control variables? Psychological Science, 16(11), 866–870.
[24]	Wirth, J., Thillmann, H., Künsting, J., Fischer, H. E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Das Schülerexperiment im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht. Bedingungen der Lernförderlichkeit einer verbreiteten Lehrmethode aus instruktionspsychologischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 54(3), 361–375.
[25]	Sadeh, I., & Zion, M. (2012). Which type of inquiry project do high school biology students prefer: open or guided? Research in Science Education, 42(5), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9222-9
[26]	Hodson, D. (1998). Is this really what scientists do? Seeking a more authentic science in and beyond the school laboratory. In L. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 93–107). London: Routledge.
[27]	Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. International Journal of Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
[28]	Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does Practical Work Really Work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969.
[29]	Abrahams, I., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). Practical work: Its effectiveness in primary and secondary schools in England. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 1035-1055.
[30]	Höttecke, D., & Rieß, F. (2015). Naturwissenschaftliches Experimentieren im Lichte der jüngeren Wissenschaftsforschung – Auf der Suche nach einem authentischen Experimentbegriff der Fachdidaktik. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 21, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-015-0030-z
[31]	Abrahams, I. (2011). Practical Work in Secondary Science. A Minds-On Approach. Bloomsburry Publishing.
[32]	Gunstone, R. F. (1990). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. In: B. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical Science (pp. 67-77). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
[33]	Hammann, M. (2004). Kompetenzentwicklungsmodelle. Merkmale und ihre Bedeutung - dargestellt anhand von Kompetenzen beim Experimentieren. MNU, 57(4), 196-203.
[34]	Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
[35]	Arnold, J., Kremer, K. & Mayer, J. (2017). Scaffolding beim Forschenden Lernen. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Wirkung von Lernunterstützungen. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 23, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-016-0053-0
[36]	Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: a Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046 1520701263368
[37]	Saye, J. & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding Critical Reasoning about History and Social Issues in Multimedia-Supported Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
[38]	Puntambekar, S. (2021). Distributed Scaffolding: Scaffolding Students in Classroom Environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 451–472.
[39]	Schmidt-Weigand, F., Hänze, M. & Wodzinski, R. (2009). Complex Problem Solving and Worked Examples. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.129
[40]	Schmidt-Borcherding, F., Hänze, M., Wodzinski, R., & Rincke, K. (2013). Inquiring scaffolds in laboratory tasks: An instance of a “worked laboratory guide effect”? European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1381-1395.
[41]	Fretz, E. B., Wu, H. K., Zhang, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2002). An Investigation of Software Scaffolds Supporting Modeling Practices. Research in Science Education, 32, 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022400817926
[42]	Wirth, J. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.91
[43]	Mogge, S. & Stäudel, L. (2008). Aufgaben mit gestuften Hilfen für den Biologie-Unterricht. Seelze: Friedrich.
[44]	Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry learning: Multilevel support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry cycle. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.2.117
[45]	Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. ETR&D, 51(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515
[46]	Hänze, M., Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Stäudel, L. (2010). Gestufte Lernhilfen. In S. Boller & R. Lau (Eds.), Individuelle Förderung durch Innere Differenzierung. Ein Praxishandbuch für Lehrerinnen und Lehrer der Sekundarstufe II (pp. 63–73). Weinheim: Beltz.
[47]	Leisen, J. (1999). Methodenhandbuch deutschsprachiger Fachunterricht DFU. Bonn: Varus.
[48]	Hänze, M., Schmidt-Weigand, F., & Blum, S. (2007). Mit gestuften Lernhilfen selbständig lernen und arbeiten. In K. Rabenstein & S. Reh (Hrsg.), Kooperatives und selbständiges Lernen von Schülern (pp. 197–208). Wiesbaden: VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90418-4_10
[49]	Stiller, C. & Wilde, M. (2023). Full-Structured or Supported by Incremental Scaffolds? Effects on Perceived Competence and Motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2269128
[50]	Mustafa, M., Ioannidis, A., Ferreira González, L., Dabrowski, T., & Großschedl, J. (2021). Fostering Learning with Incremental Scaffolds During Chemical Experimentation: A Study on Junior High School Students Working in Peer-Groups. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.30722/ijisme.29.02.002
[51]	Stiller, C. & Wilde, M. (2021). Einfluss gestufter Lernhilfen als Unterstützungsmaßnahme beim Experimentieren auf den Lernerfolg im Biologieunterricht. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(3), 743-763. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-021-01017-4
[52]	Franke-Braun, G., Schmidt-Weigand, F., Stäudel, L., & Wodzinski, R. (2008). Aufgaben mit gestuften Lernhilfen - ein besonderes Aufgabenformat zur kognitiven Aktivierung der Schülerinnen und Schüler und zur Intensivierung der sachbezogenen Kommunikation. In Kasseler Forschergruppe (Ed.), Lehren - Lernen - Literacy: Bericht 2. Lernumgebungen auf dem Prüfstand: Zwischenergebnisse aus den Forschungsprojekten (pp. 27-42). Kassel Univ. Press.
[53]	Schmidt, S., Stiller, C. & Wilde, M. (2019). Hilfen beim Experimentieren - Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Arten der Unterstützung auf den extraneous Cognitive Load. Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik, 18, 9-23. FU Berlin.
[54]	Emden, M., Koenen, J. (2016). Hilfekarten als Lernimpulse. In: J. Koenen, M. Emden & E. Sumfleth (Hrsg.), Chemieunterricht im Zeichen der Erkenntnisgewinnung (pp. 25-31). Münster: Waxmann.
[55]	Eisinga, R., Grotenhuis, M. t., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
[56]	DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications (Fifth edition). Sage.
[57]	Crandall, V. C., Crandall, V. J., & Katkovsky, W. (1965). A children's social desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020966
[58]	Camerini, A-L., & Schulz, P. J. (2018). Social Desirability Bias in Child-Report Social Well-Being: Evaluation of the Children’s Social Desirability Short Scale Using Item Response Theory and Examination of Its Impact on Self-Report Family and Peer Relationships. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1159–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9472-9
[59]	Motschenbacher, H. (2019). Non‐nativeness as a dimension of inclusion: A multimodal representational analysis of EFL textbooks.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 285–307.
[60]	van Gog, T., Kirschner, F., Kester, L. & Paas, F. (2012). Timing and Frequency of Mental Effort Measurement: Evidence in Favour of Repeated Measures. Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 26, 833-839. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2883
[61]	Leppink, J., Paas, F., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav. Res. Ther, 45, 1058–1072.
[62]	Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and Validation of Two Instruments Measuring Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane Cognitive Load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
[63]	Krell, M. (2017). Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Education, 4.
[64]	Zu, T., Hutson, J., Loschky, L. C., & Rebello, N. S. (2020). Using eye movements to measure intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 1338–1352.
[65]	Thees, M., Kapp, S., Altmeyer, K., Malone, S., Brünken, R., & Kuhn, J. (2021). Comparing two subjective rating scales assessing cognitive load During technology-enhanced STEM laboratory courses. Frontiers in Education, 6.
[66]	Kastaun, M., Meier, M., Küchemann, S., & Kuhn, J. (2021). Validation of Cognitive Load During Inquiry-Based Learning With Multimedia Scaffolds Using Subjective Measurement and Eye Movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
[67]	Feldon, D. F., Callan, G., Juth, S., & Jeong, S. (2019). Cognitive Load as Motivational Cost. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09464-6
[68]	Großmann, N. & Wilde, M. (2019). Experimentation in biology lessons: guided discovery through incremental scaffolds. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 759-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1579392
[69]	Kleinert, S., Isaak, R., Textor, A., & Wilde, M. (2021). Die Nutzung gestufter Lernhilfen zur Unterstützung des Experimentierprozesses im Biologieunterricht – eine qualitative Studie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 27, 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40573-021-00126-1

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hülsmann, M., Stiller, C., Wilde, M. (2024). The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Science Journal of Education, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hülsmann, M.; Stiller, C.; Wilde, M. The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Sci. J. Educ. 2024, 12(1), 1-10. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hülsmann M, Stiller C, Wilde M. The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Sci J Educ. 2024;12(1):1-10. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11,
  author = {Marlina Hülsmann and Cornelia Stiller and Matthias Wilde},
  title = {The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load},
  journal = {Science Journal of Education},
  volume = {12},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-10},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  abstract = {Experimentation provides a suitable way for students to gain an understanding of scientific inquiry since it is one of its main methods to develop scientific knowledge. However, it is assumed that experimentation can lead to cognitive overload when students experience little support during experimentation, which, in turn, might hinder effective learning. Extraneous cognitive load describes the load caused by inefficient instructional designs such as unguided problem-solving or the way information is presented and thus can be influenced by appropriate instructions. In order to prevent students from cognitive overload and assist them during experimentation, they can be provided with incremental scaffolds, which are sequential written solution instructions. The present study investigates the extent to which the use of incremental scaffolds affects learners’ cognitive load during experimentation in biology classes. The students in the Incremental Scaffolds Group (IncrS; n = 54) used incremental scaffolds in two self-conducted experiments while students of the No-Incremental Scaffolds Group (No-IncrS; n = 74) experimented openly without such a support. Both groups were provided with a pre-structured researcher protocol including the steps of experimentation and received the same lessons. Extraneous cognitive load was assessed after both experiments using a self-developed questionnaire consisting of two items. These were designed to assess how cognitive load was affected by the learning materials. The findings only revealed a significant main effect of time between the two conducted experiments, but no significant interaction effect with the treatment. Consequently, the results show that repeated experimentation reduces cognitive load during experimentation, regardless of the provision of incremental scaffolds. The positive effects of incremental scaffolds, thus possibly also concerning cognitive load, are assumed to occur only after multiple applications; hence, they might need to be applied more frequently and regularly to really become practiced. Two sessions of experimenting with incremental scaffolds seem to be insufficient for providing learners with substantial support, as students may need more time to fully adjust to utilizing the incremental scaffolds. Furthermore, a brief reflection phase on the use of incremental scaffolds at the end of each lesson in which they were used appears to be helpful. If incremental scaffolds can free up working memory, it may also be useful to consider the relation between incremental scaffolds, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load
AU  - Marlina Hülsmann
AU  - Cornelia Stiller
AU  - Matthias Wilde
Y1  - 2024/02/21
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
T2  - Science Journal of Education
JF  - Science Journal of Education
JO  - Science Journal of Education
SP  - 1
EP  - 10
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-0897
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
AB  - Experimentation provides a suitable way for students to gain an understanding of scientific inquiry since it is one of its main methods to develop scientific knowledge. However, it is assumed that experimentation can lead to cognitive overload when students experience little support during experimentation, which, in turn, might hinder effective learning. Extraneous cognitive load describes the load caused by inefficient instructional designs such as unguided problem-solving or the way information is presented and thus can be influenced by appropriate instructions. In order to prevent students from cognitive overload and assist them during experimentation, they can be provided with incremental scaffolds, which are sequential written solution instructions. The present study investigates the extent to which the use of incremental scaffolds affects learners’ cognitive load during experimentation in biology classes. The students in the Incremental Scaffolds Group (IncrS; n = 54) used incremental scaffolds in two self-conducted experiments while students of the No-Incremental Scaffolds Group (No-IncrS; n = 74) experimented openly without such a support. Both groups were provided with a pre-structured researcher protocol including the steps of experimentation and received the same lessons. Extraneous cognitive load was assessed after both experiments using a self-developed questionnaire consisting of two items. These were designed to assess how cognitive load was affected by the learning materials. The findings only revealed a significant main effect of time between the two conducted experiments, but no significant interaction effect with the treatment. Consequently, the results show that repeated experimentation reduces cognitive load during experimentation, regardless of the provision of incremental scaffolds. The positive effects of incremental scaffolds, thus possibly also concerning cognitive load, are assumed to occur only after multiple applications; hence, they might need to be applied more frequently and regularly to really become practiced. Two sessions of experimenting with incremental scaffolds seem to be insufficient for providing learners with substantial support, as students may need more time to fully adjust to utilizing the incremental scaffolds. Furthermore, a brief reflection phase on the use of incremental scaffolds at the end of each lesson in which they were used appears to be helpful. If incremental scaffolds can free up working memory, it may also be useful to consider the relation between incremental scaffolds, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition.

VL  - 12
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Marlina Hülsmann

Faculty of Biology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
Cornelia Stiller

Faculty of Educational Science, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
Matthias Wilde

Faculty of Biology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany

Contact Email

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Hülsmann, M., Stiller, C., Wilde, M. (2024). The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Science Journal of Education, 12(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Hülsmann, M.; Stiller, C.; Wilde, M. The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Sci. J. Educ. 2024, 12(1), 1-10. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Hülsmann M, Stiller C, Wilde M. The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load. Sci J Educ. 2024;12(1):1-10. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11,
  author = {Marlina Hülsmann and Cornelia Stiller and Matthias Wilde},
  title = {The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load},
  journal = {Science Journal of Education},
  volume = {12},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-10},
  doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20241201.11},
  abstract = {Experimentation provides a suitable way for students to gain an understanding of scientific inquiry since it is one of its main methods to develop scientific knowledge. However, it is assumed that experimentation can lead to cognitive overload when students experience little support during experimentation, which, in turn, might hinder effective learning. Extraneous cognitive load describes the load caused by inefficient instructional designs such as unguided problem-solving or the way information is presented and thus can be influenced by appropriate instructions. In order to prevent students from cognitive overload and assist them during experimentation, they can be provided with incremental scaffolds, which are sequential written solution instructions. The present study investigates the extent to which the use of incremental scaffolds affects learners’ cognitive load during experimentation in biology classes. The students in the Incremental Scaffolds Group (IncrS; n = 54) used incremental scaffolds in two self-conducted experiments while students of the No-Incremental Scaffolds Group (No-IncrS; n = 74) experimented openly without such a support. Both groups were provided with a pre-structured researcher protocol including the steps of experimentation and received the same lessons. Extraneous cognitive load was assessed after both experiments using a self-developed questionnaire consisting of two items. These were designed to assess how cognitive load was affected by the learning materials. The findings only revealed a significant main effect of time between the two conducted experiments, but no significant interaction effect with the treatment. Consequently, the results show that repeated experimentation reduces cognitive load during experimentation, regardless of the provision of incremental scaffolds. The positive effects of incremental scaffolds, thus possibly also concerning cognitive load, are assumed to occur only after multiple applications; hence, they might need to be applied more frequently and regularly to really become practiced. Two sessions of experimenting with incremental scaffolds seem to be insufficient for providing learners with substantial support, as students may need more time to fully adjust to utilizing the incremental scaffolds. Furthermore, a brief reflection phase on the use of incremental scaffolds at the end of each lesson in which they were used appears to be helpful. If incremental scaffolds can free up working memory, it may also be useful to consider the relation between incremental scaffolds, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Effect of Incremental Scaffolds in Experimentation on Cognitive Load
AU  - Marlina Hülsmann
AU  - Cornelia Stiller
AU  - Matthias Wilde
Y1  - 2024/02/21
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
T2  - Science Journal of Education
JF  - Science Journal of Education
JO  - Science Journal of Education
SP  - 1
EP  - 10
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2329-0897
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20241201.11
AB  - Experimentation provides a suitable way for students to gain an understanding of scientific inquiry since it is one of its main methods to develop scientific knowledge. However, it is assumed that experimentation can lead to cognitive overload when students experience little support during experimentation, which, in turn, might hinder effective learning. Extraneous cognitive load describes the load caused by inefficient instructional designs such as unguided problem-solving or the way information is presented and thus can be influenced by appropriate instructions. In order to prevent students from cognitive overload and assist them during experimentation, they can be provided with incremental scaffolds, which are sequential written solution instructions. The present study investigates the extent to which the use of incremental scaffolds affects learners’ cognitive load during experimentation in biology classes. The students in the Incremental Scaffolds Group (IncrS; n = 54) used incremental scaffolds in two self-conducted experiments while students of the No-Incremental Scaffolds Group (No-IncrS; n = 74) experimented openly without such a support. Both groups were provided with a pre-structured researcher protocol including the steps of experimentation and received the same lessons. Extraneous cognitive load was assessed after both experiments using a self-developed questionnaire consisting of two items. These were designed to assess how cognitive load was affected by the learning materials. The findings only revealed a significant main effect of time between the two conducted experiments, but no significant interaction effect with the treatment. Consequently, the results show that repeated experimentation reduces cognitive load during experimentation, regardless of the provision of incremental scaffolds. The positive effects of incremental scaffolds, thus possibly also concerning cognitive load, are assumed to occur only after multiple applications; hence, they might need to be applied more frequently and regularly to really become practiced. Two sessions of experimenting with incremental scaffolds seem to be insufficient for providing learners with substantial support, as students may need more time to fully adjust to utilizing the incremental scaffolds. Furthermore, a brief reflection phase on the use of incremental scaffolds at the end of each lesson in which they were used appears to be helpful. If incremental scaffolds can free up working memory, it may also be useful to consider the relation between incremental scaffolds, cognitive load, and knowledge acquisition.

VL  - 12
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download