Development of an instrument measuring cognitive load during a peer-to-peer dialogue in mathematics education

Anne Jonker 1 * , Jeroen Spandaw 2, Marc de Vries 1
More Detail
1 Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, THE NETHERLANDS
2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft, THE NETHERLANDS
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp. 323-336. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18456
Published: 22 April 2026
OPEN ACCESS   49 Views   25 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Peer-to-peer dialogue can enhance students’ understanding of mathematics by stimulating active processing and articulation of knowledge. However, this type of interaction also places demands on working memory, which may hinder learning if cognitive load becomes excessive. To optimize classroom dialogue, it is important to distinguish between different types of cognitive load: intrinsic load (IL), extraneous load (EL), and germane load (GL). Existing self-report instruments do not account for the distinct cognitive demands associated with students’ roles as listeners or explainers. This study aimed to develop and validate a questionnaire to measure IL, EL, and GL separately for both listening and explaining roles during peer-to-peer dialogue in secondary mathematics classrooms. The development process involved a literature review, analysis of existing instruments, adaptation for adolescent learners, and integration of mathematical dialogue characteristics. The resulting instrument consists of 18 items, 9 for each role. To validate the instrument, two studies were conducted using peer instruction in Dutch secondary school classes (n = 65 and n = 32; ages 15-17). Principal component analysis confirmed a three-factor structure aligned with the three types of cognitive load for both roles. The results suggest that the questionnaire is a promising tool for measuring differentiated cognitive load during classroom dialogue. It may inform instructional design aimed at balancing cognitive demand and supporting effective peer interaction in mathematics education.
Keywords: cognitive load, mathematics, secondary school, peer-to-peer dialogues

CITATION

Jonker, A., Spandaw, J., & Vries, M. D. (2026). Development of an instrument measuring cognitive load during a peer-to-peer dialogue in mathematics education. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 323-336. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18456

REFERENCES

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialog. Cognitive Science, 33(3), 374-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01017.x
  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.001
  • Beilock, S. L. (2008). Math performance in stressful situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00602.x
  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
  • Brooks, B. J., & Koretsky, M. D. (2011). The influence of group discussion on students' responses and confidence during peer instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1477-1484. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed101066x
  • Chi, M. T. (2013). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Routledge.
  • Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
  • Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.020
  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
  • 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
  • DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
  • Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001
  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<351::AID-ACP589>3.0.CO;2-6
  • 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
  • Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.008
  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R, J. (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
  • Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997
  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van Gog, T., van Der Vleuten, C. P., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2014). Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 30, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001
  • Leppink, J. (2016). Cognitive load measures mainly have meaning when they are combined with learning outcome measures. Medical Education, 50(9), Article 979. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13126
  • Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058-1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
  • Lovell, O., & Caviglioli, O. (2020). Sweller’s cognitive load theory in action. John Catt Educational Ltd.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 85-139). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6
  • Mohamed, N., & Saleh, S. (2025). Brainwaves and higher-order thinking: An EEG study of cognitive engagement in mathematics tasks. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 20(4), Article em0852. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/16889
  • Ouwehand, K., Lespiau, F., Tricot, A., & Paas, F. (2025). Cognitive load theory: Emerging trends and innovations. Education Sciences, 15(4), Article 458. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15040458
  • 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
  • Park, E., & Kwon, M. (2021). Testing the digital health literacy instrument for adolescents: Cognitive interviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(3), Article e17856. https://doi.org/10.2196/17856
  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-574. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920
  • Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002437
  • Salomon, G. (1984). Television is easy and print is tough–The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647
  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C. E., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Developmental Biology, 331(2), 416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.05.104
  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5
  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre, & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 37-76). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  • Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205
  • Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020). Why does peer instruction benefit student learning? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5
  • Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
  • Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 369-395. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312031002369