Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T10:49:05.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Current Issues and Open Questions in Cognitive Load Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Roland Brünken ,
Jan L. Plass  and
Roxana Moreno
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Saarland University
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Get access

Summary

The previous chapters have outlined the theoretical background, basic assumptions, and some key applications of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) in its current state of development. The fundamental idea underlying CLT is that instructional design decisions should be informed by the architecture of the human cognitive system. CLT can therefore be described as a cognitive theory of instructional design. CLT has been very influential in educational research since the 1980s. It has inspired a growing number of research studies aimed at deriving empirically based guidelines for instructional design. Moreover, at its present stage of development, CLT is arguably one of the most influential instructional design theories.

However, the extant research on cognitive load raises questions about the assumptions underlying CLT, some of which have not been consistently supported by the empirical data, suggesting the need to update the theory by incorporating recent empirical findings on cognition and learning (Schnotz & Kirschner, 2007). The first goal of this chapter is to summarize the theoretical developments of CLT and highlight some of its strengths and limitations.

An additional contribution of CLT research includes efforts to develop practical, valid, and reliable measures of its main construct: cognitive load. However, as suggested in Chapter 9, the existing body of cognitive load research fails to exhibit methodological consistency regarding cognitive load measurement and lacks appropriate methods to measure other relevant constructs, such as the different load types proposed by the theory (DeLeeuw & Mayer, 2008).

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 253 - 272
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, J. (1958). Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies and incentives. In Atkinson, J. (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 288–305). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannert, M. (2006). Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Schnotz, W., & Leutner, D. (2001). Mentale Modelle und Effekte der Präsentations- und Abrufkodalität beim Lernen mit Multimedia [Mental models and the effect of presentation and retrieval code while learning with multimedia]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie [German Journal of Educational Psychology], 15, 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison on three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Höffler, T.N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animations versus static pictures: A metaanalysis. Learning & Instruction, 17, 722–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, interference, and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53 (3), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirshner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leutner, D. (1992). Adaptive Lehrsysteme. Instruktionspsychologische Grundlagen und experimentelle Analysen [Adaptive learning systems]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.) (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In PytlikZillig, L., Bodvarsson, M., & Bruning, R. (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don't work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: The case for guiding student teachers' observations with metacognitive prompts. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (in press). Cognitive load theory: More food for thought. Instructional Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9122-9.CrossRef
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Learning from multimedia presentations: Facilitation function of animations and spatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 481–485.CrossRef
Paas, F., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 86, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F. G. W. C., Renkl,. A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Darabi, A. (2005). A motivational perspective on the relation between mental effort and performance: Optimizing learner involvement in instruction. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31–61.CrossRef
Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., Milne, C., Jordan, T., Kalyuga, S., Kim, M., et al. (2009). Design factors for effective science simulations: Representation of information. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 1(1), 16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rummer, R., Fürstenberg, A., & Schweppe, J. (2008). Lernen mit Texten und Bildern: Der Anteil akustisch-sensorischer Information am Zustandekommen des Modalitätseffekts [The modality effect in learning with texts and pictures: On the impact of the auditory recency effect]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 22, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 164–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Lernen mit Multimedia: Die kognitiven Grundlagen des Modalitätseffekts [Learning with multimedia: The cognitive foundations of the modality effect]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 98–108.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., Boeckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., Jänen, I., & Brünken, R. (2007). The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of graphical help for coherence formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., Schütze, M., & Brünken, R. (2009). Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: An aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Learning and Instruction, 19, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2008). Guiding students attention during example study by showing the model's eye movement. In Zumbach, J., Schwarz, N., Seufert, T., & Kester, L. (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence (pp. 189–196). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26.Google Scholar
Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts – Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53, 3, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×