Cognitive Load and Situational Interest in Physics Laboratories: A Comparative Study Across Three Instructional Modalities

Understanding how an instructional approach shapes student’s cognitive resources and engagement is central to improving undergraduate physics education especially for novice learners. This study examines how three instructional modalities (Inquiry-based, Design-based, and Game-based learning) affect cognitive load and situational interest in physics laboratories for non-STEM majors. Guided by the revised Cognitive Load Theory framework, two experiments were conducted across two physics domains: mechanics and electrical circuits. In each experiment, students completed three laboratory sessions, one in each instructional modality, followed by surveys measuring cognitive load and situational interest. One-way ANOVA analyses revealed significant differences across the three modalities in both experiments. Game-based laboratories consistently yielded the lowest cognitive load and the highest situational interest, while inquiry-based and design-based labs imposed higher cognitive demands, with their relative effects varying by domain. Overall, situational interest exhibited an inverse relationship with cognitive load, suggesting that reduced cognitive demands support greater engagement. These findings emphasize the value of strategically selecting and combining instructional modalities to balance cognitive load and foster meaningful engagement in physics laboratories for novice learners.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates how three instructional modalities—design‑based, inquiry‑based, and game‑based learning—affect cognitive load and situational interest among non‑STEM undergraduate students in physics laboratory courses. Guided by the revised Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), the authors focus on intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) and extraneous cognitive load (ECL), abandoning the germane load construct to reduce conceptual overlap.

Two separate experiments were conducted, one in mechanics and one in electrical circuits. In each experiment the same cohort of students completed three laboratory sessions, each employing a different modality. The mechanics cohort consisted of 54 students who completed all three labs; the circuits cohort comprised 47 students. All participants were sophomore or junior students enrolled in an introductory physical science course for future elementary teachers at a large Midwestern land‑grant university.

After each lab, students completed two validated questionnaires. The cognitive load survey (based on Paas et al., 2003) contained five 7‑point Likert items: two measuring ICL (“I had to keep many things in mind at the same time”) and three measuring ECL (“It was difficult to find the important information due to the way it was presented”). Situational interest was assessed with a shortened version of the Hidi & Renninger (2006) scale: one representative item from each of three sub‑scales (triggered interest, maintained interest, perceived usefulness), yielding three 5‑point items. The reduction was intended to align the interest measure more closely with the intrinsic load construct, though it may compromise reliability.

The laboratory activities were carefully matched across modalities. In the mechanics inquiry lab, students performed a real‑world inclined‑plane experiment and then explored the same concepts using a PhET simulation. The design lab required students to engineer a roller‑coaster that satisfied safety and fun criteria, emphasizing iterative design, testing, and refinement. The game lab presented an interactive, point‑based game that visualized kinetic, potential, thermal, and total energy while providing immediate feedback.

In the circuits experiment, the inquiry lab involved hands‑on circuit assembly and simulation to investigate voltage‑current relationships; the design lab tasked students with creating a circuit that met specified functional goals; the game lab used a puzzle‑style game where students assembled components to achieve target voltage and current values, again with real‑time feedback.

Data were analyzed using one‑way repeated‑measures ANOVA for each domain, followed by Tukey post‑hoc tests. All three modalities yielded statistically significant differences in both ICL and ECL (p < 0.05). Game‑based labs consistently produced the lowest mean ICL (≈2.8 on a 7‑point scale) and ECL (≈2.5), and the highest situational interest scores (≈4.3 on a 5‑point scale). In mechanics, design‑based labs showed slightly higher ECL than inquiry‑based labs, whereas in circuits the two were virtually indistinguishable. These patterns suggest that the concrete, embodied nature of mechanics may make design tasks more cognitively demanding, while the abstract nature of circuits levels the playing field.

The inverse relationship between cognitive load and situational interest observed across both domains supports the notion that reducing unnecessary mental effort frees cognitive resources for affective engagement. The authors argue that game‑based learning achieves this by providing clear goals, scaffolded challenges, and rapid feedback, thereby minimizing extraneous processing and fostering “flow.” However, they caution that poorly designed games could increase load, emphasizing the need for careful alignment of difficulty, clarity, and instructional objectives.

Limitations include (1) a fixed order of modality presentation, which may introduce order effects despite the within‑subjects design; (2) the abbreviated interest scale, which limits insight into sub‑dimensional changes; and (3) a sample restricted to non‑STEM majors, limiting generalizability to other populations.

Future research directions proposed are: employing counterbalanced or Latin‑square designs to control for order; tracking the development of situational interest into longer‑term individual interest; and dissecting game design elements (e.g., narrative, feedback frequency, adaptive difficulty) to pinpoint which features most effectively lower extraneous load while boosting intrinsic motivation.

In conclusion, the study provides empirical evidence that, for novice physics learners, game‑based laboratory instruction can simultaneously lower cognitive load and heighten situational interest more effectively than traditional inquiry‑ or design‑based approaches. The findings suggest that educators might strategically integrate game elements or adopt a blended modality approach to optimize both cognitive efficiency and affective engagement in undergraduate physics labs.