Comparing Two Subjective Rating Scales Assessing Cognitive Load During Technology-Enhanced STEM Laboratory Courses

Cognitive load theory is considered universally applicable to all kinds of learning scenarios. However, instead a universal method for measuring cognitive that suits different contexts or target groups, there great variety assessment approaches. Particularly common are subjective rating scales, which even allow the three assumed types in differentiated way. Although these scales have been proven be effective various tasks, they might not an optimal fit demands specific complex environments such as technology-enhanced STEM laboratory courses. The aim this research was therefore examine and compare existing terms validity context identify options adaptation, if necessary. For present study, two most known differentiate between (the scale by Leppink et al. naïve Klepsch al.) were slightly adapted through structured hands-on experimentation where elements measurement data, experimental setups, tasks affect knowledge acquisition. N = 95 engineering students performed six experiments examining basic electric circuits had explore fundamental relationships physical quantities based on observed data. Immediately after experimentation, answered both scales. Various indicators validity, scales’ internal structure their relation variables group allocation participants randomly assigned conditions with contrasting spatial arrangement analyzed. given dataset, intended three-factorial could confirmed, priori-defined subscales showed insufficient consistency. A multitrait–multimethod analysis suggests convergent discriminant evidence confirmed sufficiently. contrasted expected result ratings extraneous load, solely detected one scale. As further step, new assembled overall item pool dataset. They revealed accordance seemed promising tools, although still suffer from low reliability scores.