Cognitive Load Theory PDF 2017

SEPTEMBER 2017 Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation Why cognitive load theory? Cognitive load theory emerged from the work of educational...

SEPTEMBER 2017 Cognitive load theory: Research that teachers really need to understand Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation Why cognitive load theory? Cognitive load theory emerged from the work of educational psychologist John Sweller and colleagues in the 1980s and To improve student performance, teachers need to understand 1990s (see especially Sweller 1988, 1999). They assert: the evidence base that informs and helps improve their practice. An area of research with significant implications for teaching The implications of working memory limitations on practice is cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory was instructional design can hardly be overestimated … recently described by British educationalist Dylan Wiliam as ‘the Anything beyond the simplest cognitive activities appear to single most important thing for teachers to know’ (Wiliam 2017). overwhelm working memory. Prima facie, any instructional Grounded in a robust evidence base, cognitive load theory design that flouts or merely ignores working memory provides theoretical and empirical support for explicit models limitations inevitably is deficient. of instruction. Research in cognitive load theory demonstrates (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, pp. 252-253) that instructional techniques are most effective when they Cognitive load theory is based on a number of widely are designed to accord with how human brains learn and accepted theories about how human brains process and store use knowledge. information (Gerjets, Scheiter & Cierniak 2009, p. 44). These This paper describes the research on cognitive load theory and assumptions include: that human memory can be divided into what it means for more effective teaching practice. The first working memory and long-term memory; that information is part of the paper explains how human brains learn according stored in the long-term memory in the form of schemas; and to cognitive load theory, and outlines the evidence base for the that processing new information results in ‘cognitive load’ theory. The second part of the paper examines the implications on working memory which can affect learning outcomes of cognitive load theory for teaching practice, and describes some (Anderson 1977; Atkinson & Shiffrin 1968; Baddeley 1983). recommendations that are directly transferable to the classroom. How the human brain learns What is cognitive load theory? In order to understand cognitive load theory, it is necessary Cognitive load theory is built upon two commonly accepted to understand how working memory and long-term memory ideas. The first is that there is a limit to how much new process and store information. information the human brain can process at one time. The Working memory is the memory system where small amounts second is that there are no known limits to how much stored of information are stored for a very short duration (Peterson & information can be processed at one time. The aim of cognitive Peterson 1959)1. Working memory roughly equates with what load research is therefore to develop instructional techniques we are conscious of at any one time. Clark, Kirschner and Sweller and recommendations that fit within the characteristics of call it ‘the limited mental “space” in which we think’ (2012, p. 8). working memory, in order to maximise learning. Research suggests that an average person can only hold about Cognitive load theory supports explicit models of instruction, four chunks of information in their working memory at one time because such models tend to accord with how human brains (Cowan 2001), although there is evidence to indicate differences learn most effectively (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark 2006). Explicit in working memory capacity between individuals (see, for instruction involves teachers clearly showing students what to example, Barrett, Tugade & Engel 2004). do and how to do it, rather than having students discover or Long-term memory is the memory system where large amounts construct information for themselves (see Centre for Education of information are stored semi-permanently (Atkinson & Shiffrin Statistics and Evaluation 2014, pp. 8-12). Hattie summarises 1968; Tulving 1972). Clark, Kirschner and Sweller call long-term explicit instruction as an approach in which: memory ‘that big mental warehouse of things (be they words, people, grand philosophical ideas, or skateboard tricks) we The teacher decides the learning intentions and success criteria, know’ (2012, p. 8). makes them transparent to the students, demonstrates them by modelling, evaluates if they understand what they have Cognitive load theory assumes that knowledge is stored in long- been told by checking for understanding, and retelling them term memory in the form of ‘schemas'2. A schema organises what they have been told by tying it all together with closure. elements of information according to how they will be used. (Hattie 2009, p. 206) According to schema theory, skilled performance is developed through building ever greater numbers of increasingly complex schemas by combining elements of lower level schemas into higher level schemas. There is no limit to how complex schemas can become. An important process in schema construction is automation, whereby information can be processed automatically with minimal conscious effort. Automaticity occurs after extensive practice (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, p. 256). 1 The term ‘working memory’ is occasionally used synonymously with ‘short-term memory’, although some theorists consider these two forms of memory to be distinct. See Cowan (2008) for an overview of the distinctions and similarities between various key theories of short-term memory and working memory. 2 Schema theory was introduced into psychology and education by Frederic Bartlett (1932) and Jean Piaget (1928), and further developed by educational psychologist Richard Anderson (1977, 1978). 2  Learning to read is a good example of schema construction and automation. Children begin to learn to read by constructing schemas for squiggles on a page – letters. These simple schemas for letters are used to construct higher order schemas when they are combined into words. The schemas for words, in turn, are combined into higher order schemas for phrases and sentences. This process of ever more complex schema construction eventually allows readers to scan a page filled with squiggles and deduce meaning from it. With extensive practice, readers can derive meaning from print with minimal conscious effort (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, pp. 255-258)3. If working memory is overloaded, there is a greater risk that the content being taught will not be understood by the learner, will Schemas provide a number of important functions that are be misinterpreted or confused, will not be effectively encoded relevant to learning. First, they provide a system for organising in long-term memory, and that learning will be slowed down and storing knowledge. Second, and crucially for cognitive load (Martin 2016, p. 8). The automation of schemas reduces the theory, they reduce working memory load. This is because, burden on working memory because when information can although there are a limited number of elements that can be be accessed automatically, the working memory is freed up to held in working memory at one time, a schema constitutes only process new information (Laberge & Samuels 1974). a single element in working memory. In this way, a high level schema – with potentially infinite informational complexity – can effectively bypass the limits of working memory (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, p. 255). The limitations of working memory can be overcome by schema construction and automation. For example, try to remember the following combination of letters: y-m-r-e-o-m.In this case each letter constitutes one item, so you are being required to remember six items at once. Now try to remember the following combination of letters: m-e-m-o-r-y. In this case you are still required to remember the very same six items. However, because you have a schema in your long-term memory for the word ‘memory’, you are able to chunk the letters into just one item. Now your working memory is freed up to remember other items. Types of cognitive load Load type Source Effect on learning Example Intrinsic load The inherent complexity of Necessary to learning (but Learning how to solve the mathematical equation the material and the prior potentially harmful if too a / b = c, solve for a knowledge of the learner high, because it can cause cognitive overload) Learning this equation might have a high intrinsic load for a novice maths student, but would have a low intrinsic load for an expert mathematician Extraneous load Poorly designed instruction Harmful because it does not The student is required to figure out how to solve the equation themselves, that does not facilitate contribute to learning with minimal guidance from the teacher schema construction and automation This imposes a high cognitive load, but does little to encourage schema construction because the student’s attention is focused on solving the problem rather than on learning the technique Germane load Well designed instruction Helpful because it directly The student is explicitly taught how to solve the problem and given lots of that directly facilitates contributes to learning worked examples demonstrating how to do it schema construction and automation This imposes a lower cognitive load on the student, enabling them to learn and remember how to solve the problem when faced with it again 3 For a review of the research on effective reading instruction in the early years of school, see Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2017). There has not been a substantial amount of research on how cognitive load theory can be used specifically to inform literacy instruction; an exception is Torcasio & Sweller 2010. 3 Types of cognitive load A combination of high intrinsic and high extraneous cognitive load may be fatal to learning because working Cognitive load theory identifies three different types of memory may be substantially exceeded … [I]t may be cognitive load: intrinsic, extraneous and germane load (see essential to design instruction in a manner that reduces Sweller 2010; Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998). The three extraneous cognitive load. types of cognitive load are generally assumed to be additive (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, pp. 263-264) – that is, intrinsic load + extraneous load + germane load = total cognitive load4. Cognitive overload occurs when the total Theorists of cognitive load have identified a number of cognitive load exceeds the working memory capacity of the instructional approaches that work to reduce extraneous learner (Gerjets, Scheiter & Cierniak 2009, p. 45). cognitive load in order to increase the efficacy of instruction (van Merrienboer and Sweller 2005, p. 151). Some of these will Intrinsic be described in the final section of the paper. Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the inherent difficulty of the subject matter being learnt (Sweller 1994, 2010; Sweller & Germane Chandler 1994). In simple terms, intrinsic load can be described Germane cognitive load refers to the load imposed on the as the ‘necessary’ type of cognitive load. Two factors influence working memory by the process of learning – that is, the intrinsic cognitive load: the complexity of the material, and the process of transferring information into the long-term memory prior knowledge of the learner (Sweller, van Merrienboer & through schema construction (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas Paas 1998). This means that subject matter that is difficult for 1998, p. 259). For this reason, germane cognitive load can be a novice may be very easy for an expert. For example, the task understood in simple terms as the ‘good’ type of cognitive load. of learning to write the letters of the alphabet is likely to have a Theorists of cognitive load assert that instructional material has high intrinsic load for a child in the first year of school, but the maximum effectiveness when it reduces extraneous load (which same task would have a much lower intrinsic load for a child in is not relevant to learning) and increases germane load (which the second or third year of school. is directly relevant to learning). Gerjets, Scheiter and Cierniak Many theorists agree that intrinsic cognitive load can be altered explain that germane load is ‘caused by a supportive instructional by instructional techniques that make complex material easier to design and is helpful for effective learning’ (2009, p. 45). learn. One way to lower the intrinsic cognitive load of material is the ‘simple-to-complex’ approach, where the elements of the The combination of decreasing extraneous cognitive load material are introduced to the learner in a simple-to-complex and at the same time increasing germane cognitive load order so that the learner does not initially experience the full involves redirecting attention: Learners’ attention must be complexity of the material (van Merrienboer, Kirschner & Kester withdrawn from processes that are not relevant to learning 2003). A second method is the ‘part-whole’ approach, where and directed towards processes that are relevant to learning the individual elements of the material are introduced to the and, in particular, toward the construction and mindful learner first, before the integrated task is introduced (Bannert abstraction of schemas. 2002; Pollock, Chandler & Sweller 2002). A third approach is to (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, p. 264) introduce the material in its full complexity from the beginning, Theorists of cognitive load generally consider intrinsic, but then to direct the attention of the learner to the individual extraneous and germane load to be additive (Paas, Renkl & interacting elements (van Merrienboer, Kester & Paas 2006). Sweller 2003, p. 2). For this reason, the approach of decreasing Van Merrienboer and Sweller (2005) state that both simple- extraneous cognitive load while increasing germane cognitive to-complex and part-whole approaches work to reduce the load will only be effective if the total cognitive load remains cognitive load of learners by introducing single, simple elements within the limits of working memory (Sweller, van Merrienboer at the beginning, and gradually increasing complexity. & Paas 1998, p. 264). Extraneous Extraneous cognitive load relates to how the subject matter is taught. According to van Merrienboer and Sweller, ‘Extraneous cognitive load … is load that is not necessary for learning (i.e. schema construction and automation) and that can be altered by instructional interventions’ (2005, p. 150). In simple terms, extraneous load is the ‘bad’ type of cognitive load, because it does not directly contribute to learning. Cognitive load theorists consider that instructional design will be most effective when it minimises extraneous load in order to free up the capacity of working memory. 4 In response to discussions regarding problems of defining and measuring the different types of load (for example, Schnotz & Kürschner 2007), some cognitive load theorists have recently suggested a reformulation of the idea that there are three separate and additive forms of load. This reformulation suggests a return to a dual framework in which intrinsic and extraneous load are defined as the two primary types of cognitive load and are considered additive. Germane load is re-defined in terms of intrinsic load – it refers to the working memory resources devoted to dealing with intrinsic load, and is not considered additive (Sweller 2010; see also Kalyuga 2011). For clarity, however, the three types of load are considered separate and additive in this literature review. 4 What is the evidence base for cognitive activity (for example, Murata 2005; Smith & Jonides 1997) or eye activity (for example, Schultheis & Jameson 2004; load theory? van Gerven et al. 2004). Another approach is to use dual- Cognitive load theory is supported by a significant number of task techniques, in which a secondary task is introduced in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This large body of evidence addition to the main learning task, and impaired performance indicates that instruction tends to be more effective when it in the secondary task is taken to indicate higher cognitive is designed according to how human brains process and store load (for example, Brünken, Plass & Leutner 2003; Chandler information. & Sweller 1996). The majority of studies that attempt to measure cognitive load use subjective techniques such as rating The ‘worked example effect’ is one instructional approach scales, in which participants are asked to indicate the level of recommended by cognitive load research that is supported cognitive load experienced (for example, Paas 1992; Paas, van by a substantial number of RCTs5. The worked example effect Merrienboer & Adam 1994). was first demonstrated in the 1980s (Cooper & Sweller 1987; Sweller & Cooper 1985). In one early study, Cooper and Sweller Questions around cognitive load research (1987) designed a series of experiments in which high-school maths students were required to learn how to solve a range of The broad assumptions of cognitive load theory – that the simple algebra problems. They found that students who were capacity of working memory is limited, and that learning is most taught using lots of worked examples learnt more quickly than effective when it is designed to accommodate these limitations students who were required to solve the problems themselves. – is generally not contested. It is worth noting, however, that a Further, they found that the students taught using worked number of scholars have raised questions regarding some of the examples were not only better able to solve similar problems specific assumptions of the theory. These questions generally on subsequent tests, but were also better able to solve ‘transfer fall into three categories: problems with the definitions of problems’ in which the same algebraic rules they had learned cognitive load, concerns about the methodological rigour of the needed to be applied in different contexts. The effect has research, and issues with its external generalisability. since been replicated in a large number of RCTs (for example, In regard to the definitions of cognitive load theory, an Bokosmaty, Sweller & Kalyuga 2015; Carroll 1994; Kyun, important question is whether the three different types of Kalyuga & Sweller 2013; Paas 1992; Paas & van Merrienboer cognitive load – intrinsic, extraneous and germane – can be 1994; Pillay 1994; Quilici & Mayer 1996; Tuovinen & Sweller clearly distinguished (de Jong 2010; Moreno 2010; Schnotz & 1999). In a meta-analysis of studies on the effectiveness of Kürschner 2007). A second concern is whether the three types worked examples, Crissman (2006) found an effect size of 0.52. of cognitive load can indeed simply be added to determine the The majority of studies in cognitive load research do not total cognitive load experienced by the learner (de Jong 2010; attempt to directly measure cognitive load itself, but rather Moreno 2010; Park 2010), as has been claimed by cognitive aim to measure the effectiveness of instructional techniques load theorists (for example, Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas designed to accord with the limitations of working memory. 1998, p. 263; Paas, Renkl & Sweller 2003, p. 2). These concerns Studies of this type typically consist of a control group that are important because, if the types of cognitive load cannot receives a learning intervention using conventional techniques be clearly separated, it becomes difficult to make practical (for example, using independent problem-solving to learn recommendations on how teachers can best manage ‘good’, a new skill), and a treatment group that receives a learning ‘bad’ and ‘necessary’ load in a classroom environment6. intervention using cognitive load techniques (for example, using In regard to the methodological rigour of studies, the lack of worked examples to learn a new skill). Both groups are then a direct measure of cognitive load is a key concern (Brünken, tested to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. The test Plass & Leutner 2003; de Jong 2010; Moreno 2010; Schnotz & performance of participants is taken as an indirect measure Kürschner 2007). The lack of empirical indicators to distinguish of cognitive load, with high results on post-tests considered between and measure the different types of load (intrinsic, to indicate that cognitive load was successfully managed (for extraneous and germane) is also an issue (de Jong 2010; example, Mayer et al. 2005; Stull & Mayer 2007). It is worth Gerjets, Scheiter & Cierniak 2009; Schnotz & Kürschner 2007; noting that key proponents of cognitive load theory themselves for attempts to overcome this see DeLeeuw & Mayer 2008; acknowledge the need to identify a reliable means of directly Leppink et al. 2014). measuring cognitive load, in order to develop a more empirical Finally, there are also concerns about whether cognitive load basis to support the theory (for example, Paas, Renkl & Sweller research is generalisable to realistic teaching environments. 2003, p. 4; Paas et al. 2003, p. 64). De Jong describes a range of problems with generalisability, Some studies do attempt to directly measure the cognitive including that cognitive ‘overload’ rarely occurs in realistic load imposed by different instructional techniques, with learning settings; that the very short study time used in most varying reliability (for an overview, see de Jong 2010; Paas et cognitive load studies does not reflect the kinds of tasks and al. 2003). There are a variety of methods for attempting to study time that would occur in real settings; and that study measure cognitive load. One approach is to use physiological conditions are often deliberately constructed to demonstrate techniques such as measures of heart activity (for example, particular effects that would rarely occur in real learning Fredericks et al. 2005; Paas & van Merrienboer 1994), brain situations (2010, pp. 123-125). 5 For further detail on the ‘worked example effect’ see 'Types of cognitive load' table on page 3. 6 A more recent definition of the types of load suggested by Sweller (2010) may quell these concerns. 5 What does cognitive load theory mean Andrew Martin (2016), for example, advocates a teaching model that is explicitly designed around cognitive load theory for teaching practice? and the constraints of working memory. He suggests, however, Explicit teaching that less structured approaches can also be an effective instructional method for students who are further along the The question of how people learn best has been the subject novice/expert continuum if such instruction is designed with of significant debate, which can be broadly divided into two the constraints of working memory in mind. approaches to teaching practice. On one side are those who believe that all people learn best when allowed to discover These approaches are aimed at promoting learner or construct some or all of the information themselves (for independence while managing cognitive load appropriately, example, Bruner 1961; Papert 1980; Steffe & Gale 1995). On depending on the learner’s novice/expert status … If the the other side are those who believe that learners do best instructor provides some guiding principles, prior information, when they are provided with explicit instructional guidance signposts along the way, and scaffolds and assistance where in which teachers clearly show students what to do and needed, there is less burden on working memory. how to do it (for example Klahr & Nigam 2004; Mayer 2004; (Martin 2016, p. 39) Rosenshine 1986). Cognitive load theory provides theoretical and empirical support for the latter, explicit model of There is some research to suggest that managing the cognitive instruction. Leading theorists of cognitive load argue: load of learners through explicit instruction may also contribute to higher levels of motivation and engagement – although Decades of research clearly demonstrate that for novices further research is required in this field (Martin 2016). (comprising virtually all students), direct, explicit instruction In addition to supporting explicit modes of instruction, is more effective and more efficient than partial guidance. cognitive load theory also asserts that teaching domain-specific So, when teaching new content and skills to novices, skills is more effective than teaching generic skills (Paas & teachers are more effective when they provide explicit Sweller 2012; Tricot & Sweller 2014). An example of a domain- guidance accompanied by practice and feedback, not specific skill might be that, when faced with a problem such when they require students to discover many aspects of as a / b = c, solve for a, one should multiply both sides by the what they must learn. denominator (Sweller 2016, p. 13). An example of a generic (Clark, Kirschner & Sweller 2012, p. 6, see also Kirschner, skill in mathematics might be general ‘problem-solving’ skills, Sweller & Clark 2006) such as the strategy of randomly generating moves until the It is important to note that cognitive load theorists do not correct solution is found. Cognitive load theorists suggest advocate using all aspects of explicit instruction all the time. teaching domain-specific skills is more effective because, Indeed, they recognise the need for learners to be given the while general problem-solving skills are innate to humans and opportunity to work in groups and solve problems independently therefore do not need to be explicitly taught, domain-specific – but assert this should be used as a means for practicing newly skills are not automatically acquired by learners without explicit learnt content and skills, not to discover information themselves teaching (Geary 2012; Tricot & Sweller 2014). (Clark, Kirschner & Sweller 2012, p. 6). 6 Recommendations for the classroom from cognitive load research Cognitive load theory has produced a number of recommendations regarding instructional techniques that are directly transferable to the classroom. A selection of these are described below, to illustrate how evidence-based cognitive load research can be used by teachers to improve student outcomes. The ‘worked example effect’ A ‘worked example’ is a problem that has already been solved for the learner, with every step fully explained and clearly shown. The ‘worked example effect’ is the widely replicated finding that novice learners who are given worked examples to study perform better on subsequent tests than learners who are required to solve the equivalent problems themselves (Carroll 1994; Cooper & Sweller 1987; Sweller & Cooper 1985). The reason for this, according to cognitive load theory, is that unguided problem-solving places a heavy burden on working memory, inhibiting the ability of the learner to transfer the information into their long-term memory. The learner may effectively solve the problem, but because their working memory was overloaded they may not recognise and remember the rule that would allow them to quickly solve the same problem again in the future. The ‘expertise reversal effect’ The ‘expertise reversal effect’ is an important exception to the worked example effect. According to the expertise reversal effect, the heavy use of worked examples becomes less and less effective as learners’ expertise increases, eventually becoming redundant7 or even counter-productive to learning outcomes (Leslie et al. 2012; Pachman, Sweller & Kalyuga 2013; Yeung, Jin & Sweller 1998). This means that some instructional procedures such as worked examples, which assist learning for novices because they reduce cognitive load, are not effective for teaching more expert learners. While cognitive load theory supports fully guided instruction for novice learners, it also supports the gradual incorporation of more independent problem-solving tasks as learners gain expertise. The ‘redundancy effect’ Students do not learn effectively when their limited working memory is directed to unnecessary or redundant information. The ‘redundancy effect’ occurs when learners are presented with additional information that is not directly relevant to learning, or with the same information in multiple forms. An example is a textbook which includes both text and a diagram that needlessly repeat information, or a PowerPoint presentation in which the presenter reads the text presented on the screen. Requiring learners to process redundant information inhibits learning because it overloads working memory. Cognitive load research shows that best practice is to remove redundant information from learning material (Bobis, Sweller & Cooper 1994; Chandler & Sweller 1991; Mayer et al 1996; Torcasio & Sweller 2010). Sweller argues: Most people assume that providing learners with additional information is at worst, harmless and might be beneficial. Redundancy is anything but harmless. Providing unnecessary information can be a major reason for instructional failure. (Sweller 2016, p. 8) The ‘split attention effect’ The ‘split attention effect’ occurs when learners are required to process two or more sources of information simultaneously in order to understand the material. This might occur, for example, when a diagram is used to explain a concept, but it cannot be understood without referring to a separate piece of explanatory text. In this instance the learner is required to hold both sources of information in their working memory at the same time and to mentally integrate the two. This places a high cognitive load on the working memory, interfering with the ability of the learner to transfer the relevant information to their long-term memory. The split-attention effect can be minimised or eliminated by physically integrating separate sources of information so that they do not have to be mentally integrated by the learner (Cerpa, Chandler & Sweller 1996; Owens & Sweller 2008; Tarmizi & Sweller 1988; Ward & Sweller 1990). Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas argue: Split attention occurs very commonly in instructional contexts. On the basis of dozens of experiments under a wide variety of conditions, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that it has negative consequences and should be eliminated wherever possible. (Sweller, van Merrienboer & Paas 1998, p. 281) The ‘modality effect’ The 'modality effect' is associated with the split attention effect, but offers an alternative technique to reduce cognitive load than physically integrating separate sources of information. Instead, it is also possible to decrease extraneous load on working memory by using more than one mode of communication – both visual and auditory. Evidence suggests that working memory can be subdivided into auditory and visual streams (Baddeley 1983, 2002; Baddeley & Hitch 1974), so presenting information using both auditory and visual working memory can increase working memory capacity (Penney 1989). For example, when using a diagram and text to explain a concept, the written text can be communicated in spoken form. Using both auditory and visual channels increases the capacity of working memory, and facilitates more effective learning (Jeung, Chandler & Sweller 1997; Mousavi, Low & Sweller 1995; Tindall-Ford, Chandler & Sweller 1997). 7 See the ‘redundancy effect’ below. 7 Relevance of cognitive load research in Conclusion different contexts Cognitive load theory is a theory of how the human brain learns Cognitive load theory is particularly relevant to teaching novice and stores knowledge. The theory is supported by a large number learners in so-called ‘technical’ domains such as mathematics, of RCTs, and has significant implications for teaching practice. science and technology. A large number of RCTs demonstrate the Cognitive load research demonstrates that instructional methods effectiveness of the instructional approaches recommended by are most effective when designed to fit within the known limits cognitive load theory in subjects such as maths and science (for of working memory, and therefore strongly supports guided example, Bokosmaty, Sweller & Kalyuga 2015; Carlson, Chandler models of instruction. Cognitive load theory offers a range of & Sweller 2003; Owen & Sweller 1985; Sweller & Cooper, 1985; evidence-backed recommendations for educational practice, Zhu & Simon 1987). Far less research has been done on whether especially for teaching novice learners in ‘technical’ subjects such cognitive load theory is effective for teaching in less technical, or as mathematics, science and technology. more creative subject areas – such as literature, history, art and other humanities subjects (for exceptions, see Kyun, Kalyuga & Sweller 2013; Rourke & Sweller 2009; Schworm & Renkl 2007). The majority of studies on cognitive load do not consider how individual differences between learners might impact upon cognitive load (with the exception of differences in expertise)8. De Jong identifies differences in spatial ability and working memory capacity, for example, as other important considerations (2010). The literature on cognitive load theory is also silent on how other factors besides cognitive load might influence the effectiveness of learning. Roxana Moreno (2010) notes that cognitive load theory does not consider, for example, how factors such as a learner’s motivation and beliefs about their own ability might influence the effectiveness of learning. 8 An exception is a number of studies by van Gerven et al. (2002, 2004) that examine the impact of age on cognitive capacity. 8 References Cerpa, N, Chandler, P & Sweller, J 1996, ‘Some conditions under which integrated computer based training software can Anderson, R 1977, ‘The notion of schemata and the facilitate learning’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference’, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 345-367. in R Anderson, R Spiro & W Montague (eds), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, Erlbaum, Hillsdale N.J., pp. 415-431. Chandler, P & Sweller, J 1991, ‘Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction’, Cognition and Instruction, vol. 8, no. 4, Anderson, R 1978, ‘Schema-directed processes in language pp. 293-332. comprehension’, in A Lesgold, J Pellegrino, S Fokkema & R Glaser (eds), Cognitive psychology and instruction, Plenum, New Chandler & Sweller 1996, ‘Cognitive load while learning to use York, pp. 67-82. a computer program’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 151-170. Atkinson, R & Shiffrin, R 1968, ‘Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes’, in K Spence (ed), The Clark, R, Kirschner, P & Sweller, J 2012, ‘Putting students on psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction’, and theory, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp. 89-195. American Educator, Spring, pp. 6-11. Baddeley, A 1983, ‘Working memory’, Philosophical Cooper, G & Sweller, J 1987, ‘Effects of schema acquisition and Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer’, Sciences, vol. 302, no. 1110, pp. 311-324. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 347-362. Baddeley, A 2002, ‘Is working memory still working?’, European Cowan, N 2001, ‘The magical number 4 in short-term memory: Psychologist, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 85-97. A reconsideration of mental storage capacity’, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 87-114. Baddeley, A & Hitch, G 1974, ‘Working memory’, in G Bower (ed), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research Cowan, N 2008, ‘What are the differences between long-term, and theory, vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, pp. 47-89. short-term, and working memory?’, Progress in Brain Research, vol. 169, pp. 323-338. Bannert, M 2002, ‘Managing cognitive load: Recent trends in cognitive load theory’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 1, Crissman, J 2006, The design and utilization of effective pp. 139-146. worked examples: A meta-analysis, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln N.E. Barrett, L, Tudage, M & Engel, R 2004, ‘Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual process theories of the De Jong, T 2010, ‘Cognitive load theory, educational research, mind’, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 130, no. 4, pp. 553-573. and instructional design: Some food for thought’, Instructional Science, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 105-134. Bartlett, F 1932, Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DeLeeuw, K & Mayer, R 2008, ‘A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, Bobis, J, Sweller, J & Cooper, M 1994, ‘Demands imposed on extraneous, and germane load’, Journal of Educational primary school students by geometric models’, Contemporary Psychology, vol. 100, pp. 223-234. Education Psychology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 108-117. Fredericks, T, Choi, S, Hart, J, Butt, S & Mital, A 2005, ‘An Bokosmaty, S, Sweller, J & Kalyuga, S 2015, ‘Learning geometry investigation of myocardial aerobic capacity as a measure of problem solving by studying worked examples: Effects of both physical and cognitive workloads’, International Journal of learner guidance and expertise’, American Educational Research Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 1097-1107. Journal, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 307-333. Geary, D 2012, ‘Evolutionary educational psychology’, in K Brünken, R, Plass, J & Leutner, D 2003, ‘Direct measurement of Harris, S Graham & T Urdan (eds), APA Educational Psychology cognitive load in multimedia learning’, Educational Psychologist, Handbook, vol. 1, American Psychological Association, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 53-61. Washington D.C., pp. 597-621. Bruner, J 1961, ‘The art of discovery’, Harvard Educational Gerjets, P, Scheiter, K & Cierniak, G 2009, ‘The scientific value Review, vol. 31, pp. 21-32. of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the Carlson, R, Chandler, P & Sweller, J 2003, ‘Learning and structuralist view of theories’, Educational Psychology Review, understanding science instructional material’, Journal of vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 43-54. Educational Psychology, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 629-640. Hattie, J 2009, Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta- Carroll, W 1994, ‘Using worked examples as an instructional analyses relating to achievement, Routledge, London and New York. support in the algebra classroom’, Journal of Educational Jeung, H, Chandler, P & Sweller, J 1997, ‘The role of visual Psychology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 360-367. indicators in dual sensory mode instruction, Educational Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2014, What Psychology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 329-343. works best: Evidence-based teaching practices to help improve Kalyuga, S 2011, ‘Cognitive load theory: How many types of NSW student performance, literature review. load does it really need?’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation 2017, Effective 23, no. 1, pp. 1-19. reading instruction in the early years of school, literature review. 9 Kirschner, P, Sweller, J & Clark, R 2006, ‘Why minimal guidance Paas, F, Renkl, A & Sweller, J 2003, ‘Cognitive load theory during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure and instructional design: Recent developments’, Educational of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1-4. inquiry-based teaching’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 2, Paas, F & Sweller, J 2012, ‘An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive pp. 75-86. load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration Klahr, D & Nigam, M 2004, ‘The equivalence of learning paths to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks’, Educational in early science education: Effects of direct instruction and Psychology Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 27-45. discovery learning’, Psychological Science, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. Paas, F, Tuovinen, J, Tabbers, H & van Gerven, P 2003, 661-667. ‘Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive Kyun, S, Kalyuga, S & Sweller, J 2013, ‘The effect of worked load theory’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 63-71. examples when learning to write essays in English literature’, Paas, F & van Merrienboer, J 1994, ‘Variability of worked Journal of Experimental Education, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 385-408. examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A Laberge, D & Samuels, J 1974, ‘Toward a theory of automatic cognitive load approach’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. information processing in reading’, Cognitive Psychology, vol. 6, 86, no. 1, pp. 122-133. no. 2, pp. 293-323. Paas, F, van Merrienboer, J & Adam, J 1994, ‘Measurement of Leppink, J, Paas, F, van Gog, T, van der Vleuten, C & van cognitive load in instructional research’, Perceptual and Motor Merrienboer, J 2014, ‘Effects of pairs of problems and examples Skills, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 419-430. on task performance and different types of cognitive load’, Pachman, M, Sweller, J & Kalyuga, S 2013, ‘Levels of knowledge Learning and Instruction, vol. 30, pp. 32-42. and deliberate practice’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Leslie, K, Low, R, Jin, P & Sweller, J 2012, ‘Redundancy and Applied, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 108-119. expertise reversal effects when using educational technology to Papert, S 1980, Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful learn primary school science’, Educational Technology Research ideas, Basic Books, New York. and Development, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1-13. Park, B 2010, Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive Martin, A 2016, Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost load theory, doctoral thesis, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, motivation and engagement, British Psychological Society, viewed 3 April 2017,. Leicester UK. Penney, C 1989, ‘Modality effects and the structure of short- Mayer, R 2004, ‘Should there be a three-strikes rule against term verbal memory’, Memory and Cognition, vol. 17, no. 4, pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of pp. 389-422. instruction’, American Psychologist, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 14-19. Peterson, L & Peterson, M 1959, ‘Short-term retention of Mayer, R, Bove, W, Bryman, A, Mars, R & Tapangco, L 1996, individual verbal items’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. ‘When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal 58, no. 3, pp. 193-198. summaries of science textbook lessons’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 64-73. Piaget, J 1928 Judgement and reasoning in the child, Harcourt, New York. Mayer, R, Hegarty, M, Mayer, S & Campbell, J 2005, ‘When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations Pillay, H 1994, ‘Cognitive load and mental rotation: Structuring versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction’, Journal of orthographic projection for learning and problem solving’, Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 256-265. Instructional Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 91-113. Moreno, R 2010, ‘Cognitive load theory: More food for Pollock, E, Chandler, P & Sweller, J 2002, ‘Assimilating complex thought’, Instructional Science, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 135-141. information’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 61-86. Mousavi, S, Low, R & Sweller, J 1995, ‘Reducing cognitive load Quilici, J & Mayer, R 1996, ‘Role of examples in how students by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes’, Journal of learn to categorize statistics word problems’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 319-334. Educational Psychology, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 144-161. Murata, A 2005, ‘An attempt to evaluate mental workload Rosenshine, B 1986, ‘Synthesis of research on explicit teaching’, using wavelet transform of EEG’, Human Factors, vol. 47, no. 3, Educational Leadership, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 60-69. pp. 498-508. Rourke, A & Sweller, J 2009, ‘The worked-example effect using Owen, E & Sweller, J 1985, ‘What do students learn while ill-defined problems: Learning to recognise designers’ styles’, solving mathematics problems?’, Journal of Educational Learning and Instruction, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 185-199. Psychology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 272-284. Schnotz, W & Kürschner, C 2007, ‘A reconsideration of Owens, P & Sweller, J 2008, ‘Cognitive load theory and music cognitive load theory’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 19, instruction’, Educational Psychology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 29-45. no. 4, pp. 469-508. Paas, F 1992, ‘Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 429-434. 10 Schultheis, H & Jameson, A 2004, ‘Assessing cognitive load in Tuovinen, J & Sweller, J 1999, ‘A Comparison of cognitive load adaptive hypermedia systems: Physiological and behavioural associated with discovery learning and worked examples’, methods’, in P DeBra & W Nejdl (eds), Adaptive hypermedia Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 334-341. and adaptive web-based systems, vol. 3137, Springer, Berlin, van Gerven, P, Paas, F, van Merrienboer, J & Schmidt H 2002, pp. 225-234. ‘Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples Schworm, S & Renkl, A 2007, ‘Learning argumentation skills on training efficiency’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 1, through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples’, pp. 87-105. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 285–296. van Gerven, P, Paas, F, van Merrienboer, J & Schmidt H 2004, Smith, E & Jonides, J 1997, ‘Working memory: A view from ‘Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging’, neuroimaging’, Cognitive Psychology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 5-42. Psychophysiology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 167-174. Steffe, L & Gale, J (eds) 1995, Constructivism in education, van Merrienboer, J, Kester, L & Paas, F (2006), ‘Teaching Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale N.J. complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning’, Applied Stull, A & Mayer, R 2007, ‘Learning by doing versus learning Cognitive Psychology, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 343-352. by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner- generated versus author-provided graphic organisers’, Journal of van Merrienboer, J, Kirschner, P & Kester, L 2003, ‘Taking the Educational Psychology, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 808-820. load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 5-14. Sweller, J 1988 ‘Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning’, Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 257-285. van Merrienboer, J & Sweller, J 2005, ‘Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions’, Sweller, J 1994, ‘Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and Educational Psychology Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147-177. instructional design’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 295-312. Ward, M & Sweller, J 1990, ‘Structuring effective worked examples’, Cognition and Instruction, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1-39. Sweller, J 1999, Instructional design in technical areas, ACER Press, Camberwell. Wiliam, D 2017, I've come to the conclusion Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory is the single most important thing Sweller, J 2010, ‘Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous for teachers to know , tweet, and germane cognitive load’, Educational Psychology Review, viewed 24 March 2017,. Sweller, J 2016, ‘Story of a research program’, Education Review, Yeung, A, Jin, P & Sweller, J 1998, ‘Cognitive load and learner vol. 23, pp. 1-18. expertise: Split attention and redundancy effects in reading Sweller, J & Chandler, P 1994, ‘Why some material is difficult to with explanatory notes’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, learn’, Cognition and Instruction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 185-233. vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1-21. Sweller, J & Cooper, G 1985, ‘The use of worked examples as Zhu, X & Simon, H 1987, ‘Learning mathematics from examples a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra’, Cognition and by doing’, Cognition and Instruction, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 137-166. and Instruction, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 59-89. Sweller, J, van Merrienboer, J & Paas, F 1998, ‘Cognitive architecture and instructional design’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 251-296. Tarmizi, R & Sweller, J 1988, ‘Guidance during mathematical problem solving’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 424-436. Tindall-Ford, S, Chandler, P & Sweller, J 1997, ‘When two sensory modes are better than one’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 257-287. Torcasio, S & Sweller, J 2010, ‘The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load approach’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 659-672. Tricot, A & Sweller, J 2014, ‘Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 265-283. Tulving, E 1972, ‘Episodic and semantic memory’, in E Tulving & W Donaldson (eds), Organization of memory, Academic Press, New York, pp. 381-403. 11 Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation GPO Box 33 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia 02 9561 1211 [email protected] www.cese.nsw.gov.au NSW Department of Education September 2017