What are the consequences of cognitive load theory?

Answer from top 10 papers

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has a multifaceted impact on educational practices and learning outcomes. The theory posits that learning is optimized when instructional designs align with the human cognitive architecture, particularly by managing the working memory load to facilitate the transfer of knowledge to long-term memory (Gillmor et al., 2015; Leppink, 2020). CLT has been applied to various educational settings, including Kinesiology, where it aids in minimizing the loading effect on working memory through strategies like goal-free, split attention, and redundancy effects (Leppink, 2020). Additionally, CLT's principles have been extended to collaborative learning, suggesting that the efficiency of group learning can be improved by considering collective working memory and the costs associated with transactive activities (Paas & Ayres, 2014).
Contradictorily, some research indicates that CLT may not fully account for the dynamic relationship between cognitive load and motivational beliefs, suggesting that motivational aspects are not merely precursors to cognitive processes but are outcomes influenced by cognitive load (Kirschner et al., 2018). Moreover, while CLT has been shown to enhance microlearning effectiveness in the Indian educational context by managing cognitive engagement and minimizing extraneous load (Lopez, 2024), other studies have challenged CLT's guidelines, particularly in complex domains like health science education, where the theory's utility has been questioned (Feldon et al., 2019).
In summary, CLT has been influential in shaping instructional design and understanding learning processes. It has been beneficial in various educational contexts by providing strategies to manage cognitive load and enhance learning efficiency (Leppink, 2020; Lopez, 2024). However, the theory's limitations and potential contradictions, especially concerning motivational aspects and complex learning domains, indicate a need for further research and refinement of CLT to address these challenges (Feldon et al., 2019; Kirschner et al., 2018). The effects of CLT, therefore, are significant but also complex and subject to ongoing debate and investigation.

Source Papers

Cognitive Load Theory: A Broader View on the Role of Memory in Learning and Education

According to cognitive load theory (CLT), the limitations of working memory (WM) in the learning of new tasks together with its ability to cooperate with an unlimited long-term memory (LTM) for familiar tasks enable human beings to deal effectively with complex problems and acquire highly complex knowledge and skills. With regard to WM, CLT has focused to a large extent on learning task characteristics, and to a lesser extent on learner characteristics to manage WM load and optimize learning through instructional design. With regard to LTM, explanations of human learning and cognition have mainly focused on domain-general skills, instead of domain-specific knowledge held in LTM. The contributions to this special issue provide a broader cognitive load view on the role of memory in learning and education by presenting the historical roots and conceptual development of the concept of WM, as well as the theoretical and practical implications of current debates about WM mechanisms (Cowan 2014), by presenting an updated model of cognitive load in which the physical learning environment is considered a distinct causal factor for WM load (Choi et al. 2014), by an experimental demonstration of the effects of persistent pain on the available WM resources for learning (Smith and Ayres 2014), and by using aspects of evolutionary educational psychology to argue for the primacy of domain-specific knowledge in human cognition (Tricot and Sweller 2014).

Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning

In the traditional framework of cognitive load theory, it is assumed that the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge structures (or schemas) is the only instructional goal, and therefore, the theory is applicable to any instructional task. Accordingly, the basic concepts of intrinsic (productive) and extraneous (unproductive) types of cognitive load were defined based on the relevance (or irrelevance) of the corresponding cognitive processes that impose the load to achieving this universal instructional goal, and the instructional methods advocated by this theory are aimed at enhancing the acquisition of domain-specific schemas. The paper suggests considering this goal within the whole variety of possible specific goals of different learner activities that could be involved in complex learning. This would result in narrowing down of boundaries of cognitive load theory and have implications for distinguishing types of cognitive load, sequencing different goals and instructional tasks, considering the role of learner expertise, and other aspects of complex learning. One of the consequences of this reconceptualization is abandoning the rigid explicit instruction versus minimal guidance dichotomy and replacing it with a more flexible approach based on differentiating specific goals of various learner activities in complex learning. In particular, it may allow reconciling seemingly contradictory results from studies of the effectiveness of worked examples in cognitive load theory (supporting the initial fully guided explicit instruction for novice learners) and studies within the frameworks of productive failure and invention learning that have reportedly demonstrated that minimally guided tasks provided prior to explicit instruction might benefit novice learners.

A systematized review of cognitive load theory in health sciences education and a perspective from cognitive neuroscience.

INTRODUCTION:To design instructions in health sciences education, it is highly relevant to heed the working memory and the approaches for managing cognitive load. In this article, we tried to mention the implications of cognitive load theory (CLT) for optimizing teaching-learning in health sciences education and discussing cognitive load from the perspective of cognitive neurosciences as brain-aware medical education.MATERIALS AND METHODS:We searched databases of Pubmed, Proquest, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science for relevant literature in September 1, 2018.RESULTS:The 27 articles out of a total of 46 records, along with 23 papers from snowballing and hand searching were included in this study. Main items encompassed; “Various types of cognitive loads,” “Aim of cognitive load theory,” “Strategies to managing Cognitive Load,” “Cognitive Load Theory in novice and experienced learners and “expertise reversal effect,” Medical and Health Sciences Curriculums and Cognitive Load Theory,” “Challenges of Cognitive Load Theory.”CONCLUSIONS:We discussed six important themes for CLT in health sciences education according to the literature. Mental imagery (visualization) as one of the useful techniques to optimize germane load was suggested, as it processes further gain access to neural circuits that are engaged in sensory, motor, executive, and decision-making pathways in the brain.

Open Access