In Search of Gender Effects on Human Cognitive Load: Possible implications for the Future of Cognitive Load Theory? Andy Bevilacqua Bevilacqua Research Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama USA Advanced Cognitive Concepts LLC, Huntsville, Alabama USA
[email protected] Genomary Krigbaum Grand Canyon University, Phoenix Arizona, USA
[email protected]
Fred Paas Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Early Start Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Australia
[email protected]
Paper Presented at the
10th
November 20-22, 2017 Annual Cognitive Load Theory Conference, Wollongong, Australia
Theoretical Background Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) (Sweller, 1988) Evolutionary Upgrade to CLT (Paas & Sweller, 2012)
The current studies examine a gap identified in the CLT literature, i.e., The effects of the learning environment on cognitive load
Embodied Cognition Collective Working Memory Effect
Human Movement Effect
Load induced from the physical learning environment
Distributed Cognition (Choi, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 2014)
Current Studies
Experiment Background In a pilot study to see if movement from the physical learning environment entering through the far peripheral visual field would increase cognitive load a significant difference was found in the load levels exhibited by males and females with and without continuous movement on The experiment was re-run adding intermittent movement and although the results were not statistically significant there was a crossover interaction between the independent variables gender and movement A third experiment with a modified experimental setup produced similar results Descriptive statistics show trends that are interesting based on the age and sex of the participants
Sex and Gender It is generally agreed that: Sex refers to genetic differences Gender refers to psychological differences For this study we asked participants if they were male or female. All participants responded with (what appeared to be) their biological sex. No attempt was made to differentiate between true biological sex and the sex that the participant identified with psychologically. It is not the purpose of this study to argue this controversy, therefore when we refer to gender throughout this paper we are referring to the biological (genetic) sex of the individual
Research Questions (Paraphrased) Does non-biological movement in the (near &) far periphery of the human visual field have an effect on cognitive load levels? If cognitive load levels change is that change gender/sex dependent? A practical question here for the educational community is: Does movement outside of the attention of the learner, in the learning environment, have a measureable effect on cognitive load levels?
Experiment 1(2015): Test Sample and Process SAMPLE: 50 Individuals tested, 39 data sets retained after data cleaning 22 Males and 17 Females Ages 26 - 77 Recruited in Alabama and Ohio (USA) US Defense Industry employees whose day-to-day jobs involved the use of a computer with a mouse and display PROCESS: 1) Provide a cognitive task to induce intrinsic load Experiment Group
Control Group
2) Add a visual stimulus from the environment (outside of attention) 3) Compare time on task 2) Don’t Add a visual stimulus from the learning environment
Experiment Design*
Limitation: No chin rest used
Task (center) display contains the cognitive task Load (side) displays either display movement or no movement Difficulty of the Cognitive task can be increased/decreased by adding more numbers or more digits Stop/start using the mouse. Time on task is automatically measured and displayed/saved to Excel
*Experiment approved by the Grand Canyon University IRB
Experiment 1: Results
Continuous non-biological movement appears to reduce cognitive load levels significantly for males but not females.
Experiment 2 The experiment was re-done using the same test setup and procedure Added intermittent movement to determine if the continuous nature of the movement in the first experiment created a habituation effect in WM More data points –a priori power study (80% power) = 126 data points
3 x 2 ANOVA Results Experiment 2
No statistically Significant Results
Experiment 2: 3 x 2 ANOVA Results
Disordinal Interaction
Descriptive Statistics Peripheral View of Movement TotalTime
Meantime
500
25
400
20
Male
300
Male
15 TotalTime
200
Meantime
10 5
100
0
0 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0
2.5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Female
Female
Center View of Movement LOGmeantime
TotalTime
1.2
250
1
200
0.8
150
0.6
LOGmeantime
0.4 0.2
Male
0 0
0.5
1
50
Female 1.5
2
TotalTime
100
2.5
Male
0 0
0.5
1
Female 1.5
2
2.5
Limitations Experiment 1: Only 50 data points. Not enough power.
Experiment 2: No chin rest so there was no positive control on the location of the movement in the far periphery Movement still showed only 46% power in a post hoc analysis More difficult cognitive test was not homogeneous
ToTEL-X Appliance
Moves with the test subject’s head Programmable for different kinds of movement or pictures
ToTEL-X Prototype FRONT
REAR
Test Procedure 50 test subjects consisting of 25 males and 25 females randomly selected from a population of workers in the aerospace industry in Huntsville, Alabama USA Each subject (control and experiment) wore the hat during the test Cognitive test consisted of arranging 15 x 7 digit randomlyarranged numbers on the right side of the computer display
Experiment 3
No statistically Significant Results
Results
Disordinal Interaction
Descriptive Statistics TotalTime 180 160 140 120 100 TotalTime
80 60 40 20 0 0
0.5
1
Male
1.5
2
Female
LOG10Meantime
2.5 2.5 2 1.5
LOG10Meantime
1 0.5 0 0
0.5
1
Male
1.5
2
Female
2.5
Changing CLT: Sex and Gender Differences •
In 2012 Paas & Sweller upgraded CLT to include research from Evolutionary Educational Psychology (David Geary, U of M)
•
Evolutionary Educational Psychology (EEP) and the rest of the scientific literature is full of research that shows differences in the way males and females process information in the eyes, working memory and the brain. This research suggests both sex and gender differences in Humans. Question: Will this carry over into CLT?
•
Preliminary results from Bevilacqua, Paas & Krigbaum (2016) indicated a sex/gender difference in how movement through the far periphery effects cognitive load levels in males and females. HOWEVER: Limitations of the experiment(s) may have skewed the results
•
New appliance to display movement removes the need for a chin rest. Makes experimentation much easier. Although the descriptive data shows tends towards differences between males and females the data is inconclusive
•
Continued experimentation may provide additional support for both gender and sex differences that should be considered by the CLT community
Future Experiments Some data on occupation vs movement still not analyzed Continue to refine the ToTEL-X Test appliance – make a version attached to noise canceling headphones to remove possible interference from the aural channel Increase the difficulty of the cognitive test. An experiment to provide concurrent validation of ToTEL-X with the NASA-TLX instrument showed a negative correlation. Only when the difficulty of the cognitive test was increased was a positive correlation found To date, only randomly bouncing balls have been tested as the source of non-biological movement. Other forms of non-biological movement should be tested. It has also been suggested that biological movement be tested for comparison purposes
Why do These Particular Experiments? Does movement in the classroom have an effect on cognitive load? Can we find a form of movement that allows us to manipulate Cognitive Load Levels? Lower cognitive Load equates to lower mental fatigue levels – can we promote increased safety and efficiency in a wide variety of tasks through induced movement?
Thank you for your attention! QUESTIONS?
