Advertisement

Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 1–19 | Cite as

Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?

  • Slava Kalyuga
Article

Abstract

Cognitive load theory has been traditionally described as involving three separate and additive types of load. Germane load is considered as a learning-relevant load complementing extraneous and intrinsic load. This article argues that, in its traditional treatment, germane load is essentially indistinguishable from intrinsic load, and therefore this concept may be redundant. Contrary to extraneous and intrinsic load, germane cognitive load was added to the cognitive load framework based on theoretical considerations rather than on specific empirical results that could not be explained without this concept. The design of corresponding learning activities always required methods and techniques external to the theory. The article suggests that the dual intrinsic/extraneous framework is sufficient and non-redundant and makes boundaries of the theory transparent. The idea of germane load might have an independent role within this framework if (as recently suggested by John Sweller) it is redefined as referring to the actual working memory resources devoted to dealing with intrinsic rather than extraneous load.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Germane load Intrinsic load Working memory load 

References

  1. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelcamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden: On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20, 250–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  8. DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groβe, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groβe, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, 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
  23. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & van Gerven, P. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Vollmann, B., & Catrambone, R. (2009). The impact of learner characteristics on information utilization strategies, cognitive load experienced, and performance in hypermedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Salden, R., & Aleven, V. (2011). Effects of different ratios of worked solution steps and problem solving opportunities on cognitive load and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shea, J., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 43, 214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16, 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self- explanation effect. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie, B., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple task environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 213–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations