Theoretical Background

Subjective judgments of mental effort and load are critical for understanding learners' cognitive demands during the learning process. These constructs help researchers evaluate how learners allocate cognitive demands to meet task affordances. Moreover, subjective judgments of effort and load serve as essential metacognitive cues in self-regulated learning (SRL)influencing decisions to persist, adapt strategies, or disengage from a task (de Bruin et. al., 2020). Hence, these constructs are central to theoretical and practical educational advancements.

However, measuring these constructs across languages is challenging. Researchers often rely on literal translations of validated items, which may fail to capture constructs consistently across linguistic contexts. Automated translations (e.g., DeepL) frequently miss the cultural and idiomatic nuances embedded in different languages. For instance, German phrases like "es war anstrengend" (it was strenuous) and "ich habe mich angestrengt" (I made an effort) reflect distinct cognitive processes that are difficult to capture with direct translations (e.g., Klepsch & Seufert. 2021; Paas, 1992). As another example, East Asian learners, where effort is especially culturally valued, report higher perceived effort than Western learners, underlining the need for cultural and linguistically sensitive scales (Endres et al., 2024). Theoretical models and meta-analytic studies sometimes conflate effort (intentionally invested cognitive resources) with load (passively experienced strain), limiting research precision. To address this issue, the recently developed Mental Effort and Load–Translingual Scale (MEL-TS; Endres et al., 2024) introduced a systematic approach to translingual research into subjective cognitive demand. The MEL-TS includes parallel items validated for English, Chinese, and German, ensuring conceptual alignment while respecting linguistic and cultural nuances.

Research Question

Such translingual scales are essential for research in Switzerland as a quadrilingual country. Building on the MEL-TS, the present study aims to increase the number of languages provided using linguistic diversity and significant bilingual and trilingual populations across French, German, Italian, Spanish and Dutch. Leveraging this linguistic richness, the extended MEL-TS aims to enable cross-linguistic research on cognitive demand, deepening our understanding of how learners from varied linguistic backgrounds perceive and regulate mental effort and load.

Design and Method

Using a mixed-methods approach, we expanded the MEL-TS to validate it in five additional languages alongside its existing Chinese, English, and German versions. The new versions include Italian, French, Spanish, Russian and Dutch. The methodology addressed three facets of construct validity. Content validity was established through qualitative interviews with bilingual participants to preserve the conceptual distinctions between mental effort and load and to identify translingual differences. Within this study, we used triangulation between three languages, explicitly using the rich language background in Switzerland. We, therefore, enrich the translation phase of Endres et al. (2024) by using experts from different languages to compare the idiomatic translations between languages. Criterion validity was assessed through preregistered experiments, with ongoing data collection, to demonstrate the MEL-TS's ability to differentiate cognitive demand across tasks varying in complexity, learning-irrelevant load (extraneous load), and motivation. The experiments will be completed in February, and all the data can be presented at the SGBF.

Results and their Significance

The extended MEL-TS will provide a robust tool for assessing cognitive demand in multilingual contexts, particularly within Switzerland’s linguistically diverse regions. By incorporating a triangulated approach to translation, the scale ensures conceptual consistency across French-, German-, and Italian-speaking learners, enabling meaningful comparisons and representing a valuable resource for Swiss educational research. Additionally, we present Dutch, Spanish, and Russian versions of the scale. The MEL-TS facilitates comparable assessment across linguistic barriers and fosters deeper insights into how cultural and linguistic factors influence cognitive demand in learning.

Theoretical background

Numerous studies have established that multimedia instructions combining relevant text and picture information, are beneficial for learning. Yet some teachers hold misconceptions that hinder the use of multimedia instruction, such as the enduring myth of learning styles (Eitel et al., 2021). The belief that some individuals will learn better with visuals while others will benefit from auditory instruction is contradictory to the modality principle, which states that in multimedia materials including verbal and visual information, it is better to pair visual representations with audio rather than written text (Castro-Alonso & Sweller, 2021).

Although it has been established that learning styles are a myth (Kirschner, 2017), it remains unclear how perceived preferences for audio over written text does affect learning. Indeed, Lehmann and Seufert (2020) found that while a preference for audio text had no influence on learning, the learners who preferred written text had higher learning outcomes and declared lower extrinsic cognitive load (ECL) when they learned from a written text compared to an audio text.

An experimental study was designed to assess the following hypotheses:

H1. Following the multimedia learning principle, the highest learning outcome and lowest ECL should be found with two modalities.

H2. Following the modality principle, higher learning outcome and lower ECL should be found when learning with the text in auditory format.

H3. Based on the work from Lehmann and Seufert (2021), matching learning material text format with their preferences should improve learning and decrease ECL.

Design and Methods

To test our hypotheses, we used a 2-text modality (written, audio) x 2-picture modality (no, with) x 2-preference (listening, reading) between-subjects design with 131 participants (M_age = 30.5 years, SD_age = 9.31; 60% female).

After reading the consent form and answering to demographic questions, participants completed a preferred text modality (PAVS; Kuerschner et al., 2005) 7-points Likert scale and five prior-knowledge statements (5-25 possible points, M = 8.21m SD = 2.62). Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the four material groups (Written text – No picture, n = 33; Written text – With picture, n = 35; Audio text – No picture, n = 31; Audio text – With picture, n = 32). The materials on the topic of river sailing were adapted from the study of Désiron et al. (2021). Afterwards, participants completed a ECL scale (Leppink et al., 2013) and measures of learning outcomes (retention, local and global inference, labelling task).

Results & Discussion

There were no significant differences in prior knowledge between groups (p = .983). We conducted analyses of variance to test our hypotheses.

For H1, the results confirmed a multimedia effect with lower ECL (p = .026), as well as higher comprehension scores from both local (p = .026) and global inferences (p = .012). For H2, although all results are in direction of a modality effect, the only significant difference was for the labelling task (p = .009).

To test our third hypothesis (H3a), based on their score to the PAVS, participants were categorized as having a listening (n = 77) or a reading (n = 54) text modality preference. There was no significant interaction effect between learning preferences and text modality (H3a) or between those and picture modality (Exploratory hypothesis).

Overall, this study replicates previous findings on the multimedia effect, and partially confirmed a modality effect. Contrary to the study from Lehmann and Seufert (2020), we did not find an effect of learners’ preferences on ECL or learning outcome, be it for single or multimedia materials.

Fachdidaktische Diskurse haben die Ausbildung der Lehrpersonen für den ersten Zyklus und insbesondere für die ersten beiden Jahre (Kindergarten) seit etwa 20 Jahren in der Deutschschweiz stark mitgeprägt. Dies zeigt sich nicht nur an den Curricula der Pädagogischen Hochschulen, sondern auch an der Entwicklung und Einführung des Lehrplan 21 sowie an der Bereitstellung von Lehrmitteln für diese Bildungsstufe. Gerade Lehrmittel sind für die Ausrichtung des Unterrichts von weitgehender Bedeutung (Oelkers 2010), da sie die Komplexität der pädagogischen Arbeit reduzieren. Die Gestaltung und Ausrichtung der zyklusspezifischen Lehrmittel verdeutlichen die tiefgreifenden Veränderungen in der Bildungslandschaft: Insbesondere die Eingliederung der Kindergartenjahre in die obligatorische Schule stellt einen weitgehenden Wandel dar, welcher auch mit einer Neuausrichtung auf Schulfächer einhergeht. Die ältere Kindergartenpädagogik hat demgegenüber stark mit fächerübergreifenden Lernangeboten und mit Spieldidaktik gearbeitet (vgl. z.B. Greyerz 1944/1948; Walser 1948). Die Einführung einer Fachlichkeit und einer fachspezifischen Logik als pädagogischer Haltepunkte bedeutet demgegenüber eine veränderte Reduktion der Komplexität (Anhalt/Rucker 2016).
Dieser Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie sich Denkmuster, verstanden als kollektive, historisch gewachsene Denkweisen in der stufenspezifischen Didaktik verschoben haben. Ludwig Fleck (1980) beschreibt Denkmuster als kollektive Denkweisen, die innerhalb bestimmter sozialer Gemeinschaften entstehen und durch gemeinsamen Wissensaustausch geprägt sind. Fleck betont, dass Denkmuster nicht statisch sind, sondern sich in einem dynamischen Wechselspiel von Tradition und Innovation weiterentwickeln. Neue Ideen werden in bestehende Denkmuster integriert oder bestehende Denkmuster werden modifiziert, um neuen Herausforderungen zu begegnen.

In diesem Paper werden Lehrmittel untersucht, welche spezifisch für die ersten beiden Jahren des 1. Zyklus seit 1995 entwickelt und empfohlen wurden. Dabei werden die Publikationen der Verlage Klett, HEP, LMVZ, ProKiga und die Bestände der Mediatheken der Pädagogischen Hochschulen seit 1995 analysiert. Gleichzeitig fliessen kantonale Empfehlungen (z.B. faechernet.bkd.be.ch) in den Analysekorpus ein. Methodisch stützt sich die Analyse auf eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Krippendorff 2013) der neu erschienenen oder neu überarbeiteten Lehrmittel für den Zyklus 1 (erste zwei Jahre) sowie auf eine inhaltliche Analyse des wissenschaftlichen Diskurses zur Ausrichtung dieser Bildungsstufe.

Im Mittelpunkt stehen die Fragen:

• Welche stufenspezifischen Lehrmittel wurden von wem entwickelt?
• Welche Inhalte werden in diesen stufenspezifischen Lehrmitteln aufgenommen?
• Welche Veränderungen in den stufenspezifischen Denkmuster lassen sich aufzeigen?
• Welchen Stellenwert nehmen fächerübergreifende und spielbasierte Lernangebote ein?

Erste Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Fachdidaktiken nach 1999 eine dominante Rolle bei der Konzeption von Lehrmitteln einnehmen, was auf eine zunehmende fachliche Logik der Wissensvermittlung hinweist. Der Diskurs zum (freien) Spiel und zu Transdisziplinarität wird – nach einer Pause – um die Jahrtausendwende wieder aufgenommen, was sich in einigen spezifischen Publikationen und einigen Forschungsstossrichtungen spiegelt. Andere methodisch-didaktische Wissensstränge, wie zum Beispiel ritualisierte Zugänge, sehen sich in Lehrmitteln weniger stark repräsentiert.