Papers 4 - more interaction and CLT

Paas et al 2003:Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory
–argues that the combination of performance and cognitive load measures has been identified to constitute a reliable estimate of the mental efficiency of instructional methods
- the overview of progress on measuring cognitive load is presented over the last 15 years. Researchers are moving towards less intrusive ways of measuring loads, like questioners and biosensing. While secondary task is a reliable to, it can interfere considerably with the primary task
–authors propose a measure of instructional efficiency which represents the relation between performance and mental effort.
- 'An interesting observation is that even though researchers are continuously trying to find or develop physiological and secondary task measures of cognitive load, subjective work- load measurement techniques using rating scales remain pop- ular, because they are easy to use; do not interfere with primary task performance; are inexpensive; can detect small variations in workload (i.e., sensitivity); are reliable; and pro- vide decent convergent, construct, and discriminate validity (Gimino, 2002; Paas et al., 1994). However, we must stress that the internal consistency of these measures requires fur- ther studies'
- others inverstigated split attention, expertie and age differences impact.


Oviatt 2006
-very well presented paper with exceptional graphs
-'the study evaluated whether student performance would deteriorate as interfaces departed more from students’ existing work practice (GT > PT > DP), with lower-performing students experiencing greater cognitive load and performance degradation than high-performing students when using the same interfaces. '
-'Typical performance measures of cognitive load have included time to complete tasks, reaction time, correct solutions, memory retrieval time and correctness, time estimation, rate of physical activity and speech, spoken disfluencies, multimodal integration patterns, and other indices'
- 'Dual-task methods are especially relevant and ecologically valid when applied to field and mobile interface design, which chronically involve multitasking and divided attention.'
- think aloud protocol was used to assess whether learners were working on a low level of high-level issue

Oviatt, COulston, Lonsford 2004:When Do We Interact Multimodally? Cognitive Load and Multimodal Communication Patterns
- 'one critical objective of all mobile interface design is the need to manage multitasking, interruption, attentional distraction, fluctuations in the difficulty of natural field tasks and situations, and resulting cognitive overload [8, 18]. This is essential because mobile users need to focus on complex primary field tasks that can vary substantially in difficulty and also involve dual tasking between the field task and secondary tasks involved in controlling an interface. '
- users were using multimodal pen and word interfaces, but findlings are interesting, more multimodal interactions were found when working in a familiar area and when task was more difficult. It is possible that users maintain the working memory resources and distribute tasks to more centres when the task becomes difficult.

Sweller, Merrienboer, Paas 1998:Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
- in this paper mechanisms concerning instructional procedures are described in depth: the goal free effect, worked example affect, completion problem effect, split attention effect modality effect, redundancy effect, variability affects,