Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Interdisciplinary Perspectives Inspiring a New Generation of Cognitive Load Research

  • Paul Ayres
  • Fred PaasEmail author
Review Article

Abstract

This special issue consists of six theoretical papers and an introduction. Each paper describes a current advance to the applications and focus of cognitive load theory (CLT). Four of the papers use an interdisciplinary approach outside of educational psychology by combining CLT with elements of evolutionary biology, mirror neuron research, cognitive brain science, and the philosophy of science. The remaining two papers use an intradisciplinary approach within educational psychology by applying CLT to self-regulation and heuristic learning. This paper introduces CLT, overviews each contribution, and summarizes the main themes.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Interdisciplinary 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly acknowledge the contributions of Robert Atkinson, Richard Catrambone, Peter Gerjets, Harry O’Neil, Alexander Renkl, Remy Rikers, Katharina Scheiter, Wolfgang Schnotz, Dominique Sluijsmans, Mike Spector, John Sweller, Tamara van Gog, and Pieter Wouters, who acted as reviewers on this special issue.

References

  1. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.Google Scholar
  2. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007a). Making instructional animations more effective: A cognitive load approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695–700. doi: 10.1002/acp.1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007b). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 811–820. doi: 10.1002/acp.1351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ayres, P., & van Gog, T. (2008). State of the art research into cognitive load theory. Computers in Human Behavior, in press.Google Scholar
  6. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2008). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01003922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geary, D. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geary, D. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
  10. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2008). The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9096-1.
  11. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypertext environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 73–92. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9068-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Corbalan, G. (2007). Designing support to facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1047–1054. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirschner, F., Paas, F. & Kirschner, P. A. (2008). A Cognitive-load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2.
  16. Maertens, M., & Pollmann, S. (2005). FMRI reveals a common neural substrate of illusory and real contours in V1 after perceptual learning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1553–1564. doi: 10.1162/089892905774597209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 256–265. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–284. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–246). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Renkl, A., Hilbert, T. & Schworm, S. (2008). Example-based learning in heuristic domains: A cognitive load theory account. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4.
  23. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers & Education, 46, 426–445. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive bases of human creativity. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9091-6.
  28. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Ecological Psychology, 4, 434–458.Google Scholar
  30. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–295. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 57, 247–262. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Gog, T., Paas, F. Marcus, N., Ayres, P. & Sweller, J. (2008). The mirror-neuron system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3.
  33. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on Cognitive Load Theory and it’s Design Implications for E-Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13. doi: 10.1007/BF02504793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum/Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2008). Towards a synthesis of cognitive load theory, Four-component instructional design, and self-directed learning. Educational Psychology Review. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9092-5.
  36. Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G.A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies (CELSTEC)Open University of the NetherlandsHeerlenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations