4.2 Article

Cognitive load theory: Implications for assessment in pharmacy education

期刊

RESEARCH IN SOCIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE PHARMACY
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 1645-1649

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.12.009

关键词

Mental workload; Cognitive load; Assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of mental workload is largely associated with cognitive load theory, describing three types of load in assessment tasks. Studies show that high intrinsic and extraneous load in assessments may interfere with assessors' attention and working memory, leading to poorer quality assessment. Therefore, reducing these loads within assessment tasks is crucial for enhancing assessment quality, especially in pharmacy education.
The concept of mental workload is well studied from a learner's perspective but has yet to be better understood from the perspective of an assessor. Mental workload is largely associated with cognitive load theory, which describes three different types of load. Intrinsic load deals with the complexity of the task, extraneous load describes distractors to the task at hand, and germane load focuses on the development of schemas in working memory for future recall. Studies from medical education show that all three types of load are relevant when considering rater -based assessment (e.g. Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), or experiential training). Assessments with high intrinsic and extraneous load may interfere with assessors' attention and working memory and result in poorer quality assessment. Reducing these loads within assessment tasks should therefore be a priority for pharmacy educators. This commentary aims to provide a theoretical overview of mental workload in assessment, outline research findings from the medical education context, and propose strategies to be considered for reducing mental workload in rater-based assessments relevant to pharmacy education. Suggestions for future research are also addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据