EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK BASED ON COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY FOR CLINICAL SKILLS TRAINING

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.225686

Abstract

Purpose: Cognitive load theory (CLT) is receiving increased recognition in medical education and it was cited as an important theoretical framework for simulation-based medical education. Simulated learning environments can place a high demand on the cognitive resources of the learners, hence, we aimed to design an instructional framework to optimise the total cognitive load imposed on the medical students during their clinical skills training in the clinical skills laboratory. Method: This study is a quasi-experimental post-test design. The sampling technique was purposive sampling, which included year 2 students at the Faculty of Medicine-Suez Canal University population. The study was conducted in the clinical skills and simulation laboratory. The intervention group received a developed instructional design framework based on CLT. The control group learned with the ordinary teaching method without any intervention. The cognitive load was measured using the Cognitive Load Inventory (CLI) immediately after the training session for both groups. Furthermore, students’ achievement in the clinical skill laboratory was compared in both groups. Findings: The total cognitive load is lower in the group that received the developed instructional design than that of the control group, and this result was statistically significant. Also, the performance of the intervention group is higher than in the control group. Implications for research and practice: The developed instructional design framework is a potentially useful guide for managing students' cognitive load in the clinical skills training session.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. (2005). Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Medical teacher, 27(1), 10-28. https://doi/abs/10.1080/01421590500046924
    |
  2. Bergman, E.M., de Bruin, A.B.H., Vorstenbosch, M.A.T.M. et al. (2015). Effects of learning content in context on knowledge acquisition and recall: a pretest-posttest control group design. BMC medical education, 15(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0416-0
    |
  3. Bjerrum AS, Hilberg O, van Gog T, Charles P, Eika B. (2013). Effects of modeling examples in complex procedural skills training: a randomised study. Medical education, 47(9), 888-898. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12199
    |
  4. Buscombe, C. (2013). Using Gagne’s theory to teach procedural skills. The clinical teacher, 10(5), 302-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12051
    |
  5. Choi, HH., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6
    |
  6. de Araujo Guerra Grangeia, T., de Jorge, B., Franci, D., Martins Santos, T., Vellutini Setubal, M. S., Schweller, M., & de Carvalho-Filho, M. A. ( (2016). Cognitive load and self-determination theories applied to e-learning: impact on students' participation and academic performance. PloS one, 11(3), e0152462. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152462
    |
  7. De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional science, 38(2), 105-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
    |
  8. Fraser K, Ma I, Teteris E, Baxter H, Wright B, McLaughlin K. (2012). Emotion, cognitive load and learning outcomes during simulation training. Medical education, 46(11), 1055-1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04355.x
    |
  9. Fraser KL, Ayres P, Sweller J. (2015). Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simulation in Healthcare, 10(5), 295-307. https://doi.org/10.1097/sih.0000000000000097
    |
  10. Gradl-Dietsch, G., Lübke, C., Horst, K. et al. (2016). Peyton’s four-step approach for teaching complex spinal manipulation techniques–a prospective randomized trial. BMC medical education, 16(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0804-0
    |
  11. Hadie, S. N. H., Hassan, A., Ismail, Z.I.M., et al. (2018). Empowering students’ minds through a cognitive load theory-based lecture model: A metacognitive approach. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(4), 398-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1252685
    |
  12. Haji FA, Rojas D, Childs R, de Ribaupierre S, Dubrowski A. (2015). Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity. Medical education, 49(8), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12773
    |
  13. Herrmann-Werner A, Nikendei C, Keifenheim K, Bosse HM, Lund F, Wagner R, Celebi N, Zipfel S, Weyrich P. (2013). “Best practice” skills lab training vs. a “see one, do one” approach in undergraduate medical education: an RCT on students’ long-term ability to perform procedural clinical skills. PloS one, 8(9), e76354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076354
    |
  14. Hosseinsabet, A. (2017). A Brief Introduction to Pendleton’s Rules and Their Application in Echocardiographic Training. Strides in Development of Medical Education, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.61666
  15. Kahwage, Salomão Georges et al. (2017). The Teaching of Clinical Skills and the Applicability of a Simplified Guide to Physical Examination in Undergraduate Medical Training. Revista Brasileira de Educação Médica, 41(4), 457-467. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v41n4rb20160110
  16. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Knowledge elaboration: A cognitive load perspective. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 402-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.003
    |
  17. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7
    |
  18. Khadjooi K, Rostami K, Ishaq S. (2011). How to use Gagne's model of instructional design in teaching psychomotor skills. Gastroenterology and Hepatology from bed to bench, 4(3), 116. PMC4017416
    |
  19. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F. et al. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
    |
  20. Klepsch, M., & Seufert, T. (2020). Understanding instructional design effects by differentiated measurement of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Instructional science, 48(1), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.u23291
    |
  21. Krautter M, Dittrich R, Safi A, Krautter J, Maatouk I, Moeltner A, Herzog W, Nikendei C. (2015). Peyton’s four-step approach: differential effects of single instructional steps on procedural and memory performance–a clarification study. Advances in medical education and practice, 6, 399. https://doi.org/10.2147/amep.s81923
    |
  22. Mariani, B., Cantrell, M., Meakim, C.H., Prieto, P., & Dreifuerst, K. (2013). Structured Debriefing and Students' Clinical Judgment Abilities in Simulation. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2011.11.009
  23. Motola I, Devine LA, Chung HS, Sullivan JE, Issenberg SB. (2013). Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82. Medical teacher, 35(10), e1511-e1530. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2013.818632
    |
  24. Naismith LM, Cheung JJ, Ringsted C, Cavalcanti RB. (2015). Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation‐based procedural training. Medical education, 49(8), 805-814. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12732
    |
  25. Naismith, L., Haji, F., Sibbald, M. et al. (2015). Practising what we preach: using cognitive load theory for workshop design and evaluation. Perspectives on medical education, 4(6), 344-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0221-9
    |
  26. 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
  27. Qutieshat, A. (2018). Using Gagne's theory and Peyton's four-step approach to teach inferior alveolar nerve block injection. Journal of Dental Research and Review, 5(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_42_18
  28. Reedy, G. B. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to inform simulation design and practice. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 11(8), 355-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2015.05.004
  29. Saw, K. G. (2017). Cognitive load theory and the use of worked examples as an instructional strategy in physics for distance learners: A preliminary study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 142-159. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340405
    |
  30. Sepp, S., Howard, S.J., Tindall-Ford, S. et al. (2019). Cognitive load theory and human movement: Towards an integrated model of working memory. Educational Psychology Review, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09461-9
    |
  31. Sewell JL, Boscardin CK, Young JQ, Ten Cate O, O'Sullivan PS. (2016). Measuring cognitive load during procedural skills training with colonoscopy as an exemplar. Med Educ, 50(6), 682-692. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12965
    |
  32. Sewell JL, Maggio LA, Ten Cate O, van Gog T, Young JQ, O'Sullivan PS. (2019). Cognitive load theory for training health professionals in the workplace: A BEME review of studies among diverse professions: BEME Guide No. 53. Medical teacher, 41(3), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2018.1505034
    |
  33. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  34. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
    |
  35. Tremblay, M.-L., Lafleur, A., Leppink, J., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2017). The simulated clinical environment: cognitive and emotional impact among undergraduates. Medical teacher, 39(2), 181-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2016.1246710
    |
  36. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_2
  37. van Merriënboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Medical education, 44(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_2
    |

Downloads

Published

2021-07-31

How to Cite

Wasfy, . N. F., Abed , R. A. R., Gouda, E. M., Ghaly, M. S. ., & El-Wazir, Y. M. . (2021). EFFECTIVENESS OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK BASED ON COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY FOR CLINICAL SKILLS TRAINING. Advanced Education, 8(18), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.225686

Issue

2021: Issue 18

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Nourhan Fawzy, Rabab Abdel Ra'oof, Enas Mohamed , Mona Sayed , Yasser Mohamed

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).