Justin L Sewell1, Lauren A Maggio2, Olle Ten Cate3,4, Tamara van Gog5, John Q Young6, Patricia S O'Sullivan4. 1. a Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology , University of California San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA. 2. b Department of Medicine , Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences , Bethesda , MD , USA. 3. c Center for Research and Development of Education , University Medical Center Utrecht , Utrecht , Netherlands. 4. d Department of Medicine, Research and Development in Medical Education , University of California San Francisco , San Francisco , CA , USA. 5. e Department of Education , Utrecht University , The Netherlands. 6. f Department of Psychiatry , Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell , Hempstead , NY , USA.
Abstract
AIM: Cognitive load theory (CLT) is of increasing interest to health professions education researchers. CLT has intuitive applicability to workplace settings, yet how CLT should inform teaching, learning, and research in health professions workplaces is unclear. METHOD: To map the existing literature, we performed a scoping review of studies involving cognitive load, mental effort and/or mental workload in professional workplace settings within and outside of the health professions. We included actual and simulated workplaces and workplace tasks. RESULT: Searching eight databases, we identified 4571 citations, of which 116 met inclusion criteria. Studies were most often quantitative. Methods to measure cognitive load included psychometric, physiologic, and secondary task approaches. Few covariates of cognitive load or performance were studied. Overall cognitive load and intrinsic load were consistently negatively associated with the level of experience and performance. Studies consistently found distractions and other aspects of workplace environments as contributing to extraneous load. Studies outside the health professions documented similar findings to those within the health professions, supporting relevance of CLT to workplace learning. CONCLUSION: The authors discuss implications for workplace teaching, curricular design, learning environment, and metacognition. To advance workplace learning, the authors suggest future CLT research should address higher-level questions and integrate other learning frameworks.
AIM: Cognitive load theory (CLT) is of increasing interest to health professions education researchers. CLT has intuitive applicability to workplace settings, yet how CLT should inform teaching, learning, and research in health professions workplaces is unclear. METHOD: To map the existing literature, we performed a scoping review of studies involving cognitive load, mental effort and/or mental workload in professional workplace settings within and outside of the health professions. We included actual and simulated workplaces and workplace tasks. RESULT: Searching eight databases, we identified 4571 citations, of which 116 met inclusion criteria. Studies were most often quantitative. Methods to measure cognitive load included psychometric, physiologic, and secondary task approaches. Few covariates of cognitive load or performance were studied. Overall cognitive load and intrinsic load were consistently negatively associated with the level of experience and performance. Studies consistently found distractions and other aspects of workplace environments as contributing to extraneous load. Studies outside the health professions documented similar findings to those within the health professions, supporting relevance of CLT to workplace learning. CONCLUSION: The authors discuss implications for workplace teaching, curricular design, learning environment, and metacognition. To advance workplace learning, the authors suggest future CLT research should address higher-level questions and integrate other learning frameworks.
Authors: Sreeja Natesan; John Bailitz; Andrew King; Sara M Krzyzaniak; Sarah K Kennedy; Albert J Kim; Richard Byyny; Michael Gottlieb Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2020-07-03
Authors: Friederike Holderried; Anne Herrmann-Werner; Moritz Mahling; Martin Holderried; Reimer Riessen; Stephan Zipfel; Nora Celebi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240