Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 147–177

Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions

Article

Abstract

Traditionally, Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has focused on instructional methods to decrease extraneous cognitive load so that available cognitive resources can be fully devoted to learning. This article strengthens the cognitive base of CLT by linking cognitive processes to the processes used by biological evolution. The article discusses recent developments in CLT related to the current view in instructional design that real-life tasks should be the driving force for complex learning. First, the complexity, or intrinsic cognitive load, of such tasks is often high so that new methods are needed to manage cognitive load. Second, complex learning is a lengthy process requiring learners’ motivational states and levels of expertise development to be taken into account. Third, this perspective requires more advanced methods to measure expertise and cognitive load so that instruction can be flexibly adapted to individual learners’ needs. Experimental studies are reviewed to illustrate these recent developments. Guidelines for future research are provided.

Key words

cognitive architecture biological evolution complex learning cognitive load instructional design expertise adaptive instruction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load: Recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learn. Instruct. 12: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blessing, S. B., and Anderson, J. R. (1996). How people learn to skip steps. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn., Memory, Cognit. 22: 576–598.Google Scholar
  3. Britton, B. K., and Glynn, S. M. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., and Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2001). Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency. Comput. Hum. Behav. 17: 575–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson, R., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. J. Educ. Psychol. 95: 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Croock, M. B. M., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. (1998). High vs. low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort. Comput. Hum. Behav. 14: 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ericsson, K. A., and Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychol. Rev. 102: 211–245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerjets, P., and Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educ. Psychol. 38: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goettl, B. P., and Shute, V. J. (1996). Analysis of part-task training using the backward-transfer technique. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 2: 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hummel, H. G. K., and Nadolski, R. J. (2002). Cueing for schema construction: Designing problem-solving multimedia practicals. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 27: 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educ. Psychol. 38: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Hum. Factors 40: 1–17.Google Scholar
  14. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 92: 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., and Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. J. Educat. Psychol. 93: 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalyuga, S., and Sweller, J. (in press). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to optimize the efficiency of e-learning. Educ. Technol., Res. Dev.Google Scholar
  17. Kalyuga, S., and Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. J. Educ. Psychol. 96: 558–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instruct. Sci. 32: 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer simulated problem solving. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 75: 71–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (in press). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a complex troubleshooting skill. Contemp. Educ. Psychol.Google Scholar
  21. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Comput. Hum. Behav. 17: 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirschner, P. A. (ed.). (2002). Cognitive load theory. Learn. Instruct. 12(special issue): 1–154.Google Scholar
  23. Leahy, W., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 17: 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leutner, D. (2000). Double-fading support: A training approach to complex software systems. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 16: 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., and Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learn. Instruct. 12: 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mayer, R. E., and Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38: 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKeough, A., Marini, A., and Lupart, J. L. (eds.). (1995). Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., and Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognit. Instruct. 14: 1–43.Google Scholar
  30. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instructional design. Educ. Technol., Res. Dev. 50: 43–59.Google Scholar
  31. Mousavi, S., Low, R., and Sweller, J. (1995) Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J. Educ. Psychol. 87: 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (in press). Optimizing the number of steps in learning tasks for complex skills. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.Google Scholar
  33. Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Hummel, H. G. K. (2001). A model for optimizing step size of learning tasks in competency-based multimedia practicals. Educ. Technol., Res. Dev. 49: 87–103.Google Scholar
  34. Paas, F., Camp, G., and Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. J. Educ. Psychol. 93: 181–186.Google Scholar
  35. Paas, F., Renkl, A., and Sweller, J. (eds.). (2003a). Cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38(special issue): 1–71.Google Scholar
  36. Paas, F., Renkl, A., and Sweller, J. (eds.). (2004). Cognitive load theory. Instruct. Sci. 32(1–2; special issue): 1–182.Google Scholar
  37. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., and van Gerven, P. (2003b). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ. Psychol. 38: 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paas, F., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Hum. Factors 35: 737–743.Google Scholar
  39. Paas, F., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994a). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive load approach. J. Educ. Psychol. 86: 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paas, F., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994b). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 6: 51–71.Google Scholar
  41. Peck, A. C., and Detweiler, M. C. (2000). Training concurrent multistep procedural tasks. Hum. Factors 42: 379–389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learn. Instruct. 12: 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quilici, J. L., and Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. J. Educ. Psychol. 88: 144–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In Reigeluth, C. M. (ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. 2, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 424–453.Google Scholar
  45. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognit. Sci. 21: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Renkl, A., and Atkinson, R. K. (2001, August). The effects of gradually increasing problem-solving demands in cognitive skill acquisition. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Fribourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  47. Renkl, A., and Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educ. Psychol. 38: 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., and Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving problems: Fading worked-out solution steps helps learning. In Gleitman, L., and Joshi, A. K. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 393–398.Google Scholar
  49. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., and Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. J. Exp. Educ. 70: 293–315.Google Scholar
  50. Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., Broers, N. J., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Mental effort and performance as determinants for the dynamic selection of learning tasks in air traffic control training. Instruct. Sci. 32(1–2): 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (in press). A comparison of approaches to learning task selection in the training of complex cognitive skills. Comput. Hum. Behav.Google Scholar
  52. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., and Sears, D. (in press). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In Mestre, J. (ed.), Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
  53. Stark, R., Mandl, H., Gruber, H., and Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learn. Instruct. 12: 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In Ross, B. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 43, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 215–266.Google Scholar
  55. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instruct. Sci. 32(1/2): 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognit. Instruct. 12: 185–233.Google Scholar
  57. Sweller, J., Mawer, R., and Ward, M. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 112: 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 10: 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tabbers, H., Martens, R., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 74: 71–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 3: 257–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tuovinen, J., and Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., and Jochems, W. (2002). External representations of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learn. Instruct. 12: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Hendriks, M., and Schmidt, H. G. (2003). The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British J. Educ. Psychol. 73: 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Schmidt, H. G. (2000). Cognitive load theory and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills in the elderly: Towards an integrative framework. Educ. Gerontol. 26: 503–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learn. Instruct. 12: 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology 41: 167–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. van Gog, T., Paas, F., and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instruct. Sci. 32(1/2): 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 6: 265–287.Google Scholar
  69. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  70. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2000). The end of software training? J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 16: 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., and de Croock, M. B. M. (2002a). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educ. Technol., Res. Dev. 50(2): 39–64.Google Scholar
  72. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and de Croock, M. B. M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 8: 365–394.Google Scholar
  73. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., and Jelsma, O. (1997). The transfer paradox: Effects of contextual interference on retention and transfer performance of a complex cognitive skill. Percept. Motor Skills 84: 784–786.Google Scholar
  74. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., and Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educ. Psychol. 38: 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. (2003). Powerful learning and the many faces of instructional design: Toward a framework for the design of powerful learning environments. In de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L., Entwistle, N., and van Merriënboer, J. (eds.), Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions of Powerful Learning Environments, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
  76. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., and Paas, F. (2002b). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learn. Instruct. 12: 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Williams, T. R., and Butterfield, E. C. (1992). Advance organizers: A review of the research. J. Tech. Writing Commun. 22: 259–272.Google Scholar
  78. Yeung, A., Jin, P., and Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 23: 1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer
    • 1
    • 3
  • John Sweller
    • 2
  1. 1.Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of New South WalesAustralia
  3. 3.Educational Technology Expertise CenterOpen University of The NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations