Extending Cognitive Load Theory to Incorporate Working Memory Resource Depletion: Evidence from the Spacing Effect

Intervention Study

Abstract

Depletion of limited working memory resources may occur following extensive mental effort resulting in decreased performance compared to conditions requiring less extensive mental effort. This “depletion effect” can be incorporated into cognitive load theory that is concerned with using the properties of human cognitive architecture, especially working memory, when designing instruction. Two experiments were carried out on the spacing effect that occurs when learning that is spaced by temporal gaps between learning episodes is superior to identical, massed learning with no gaps between learning episodes. Using primary school students learning mathematics, it was found that students obtained lower scores on a working memory capacity test (Experiments 1 and 2) and higher ratings of cognitive load (Experiment 2) after massed than after spaced practice. The reduction in working memory capacity may be attributed to working memory resource depletion following the relatively prolonged mental effort associated with massed compared to spaced practice. An expansion of cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion along with instructional design implications, including the spacing effect, is discussed.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Human cognitive architecture Working memory resource depletion Spacing effect 

References

  1. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Conlin, J. A., Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, J. W. (2005). Children’s working memory: investigating performance limitations in complex span tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: a deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). New York: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Oxford: Dover.Google Scholar
  6. Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geary, D. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597–621). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. Geary, D., & Berch, D. (2016). Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 217–249). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Healey, M. K., Hasher, L., & Danilova, E. (2011). The stability of working memory: do previous tasks influence complex span? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Spacing in a simulated undergraduate classroom: long-term benefits for factual and higher-level learning. Learning and Instruction, 36, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014). Understanding the distributed practice effect: strong effects on weak theoretical grounds. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paas, F., & van 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. K., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned, and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sweller, J. (2016a). Cognitive load theory, evolutionary educational psychology, and instructional design. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 291–306). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sweller, J. (2016b). Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: a reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9243-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyler, J. M., & Burns, K. C. (2008). After depletion: the replenishment of the self’s regulatory resources. Self and Identity, 7, 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701799997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Center for Advanced Research in Education (CIAE)Universidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Department of Psychology, Education, and Child StudiesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Early Start Research InstituteUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations