Instructional Science

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 135–141 | Cite as

Cognitive load theory: more food for thought

  • Roxana MorenoEmail author


A scientific theory is an explanation of a set of related observations, phenomena, or events based upon one or more hypotheses and verified multiple times by the evidence of detached groups of researchers. Cognitive load theory (CLT) was designed “to provide guidelines intended to assist in the presentation of information in a manner that encourages learner activities that optimize intellectual performance (Sweller et al. 1998 p. 25).” The theory proved successful in inspiring many experimental studies aimed at testing the CL effects of instructional design for over 20 years (Clark et al. 2006). On the other hand, a growing number of educational psychologists and researchers has identified many conceptual, methodological, and practical limitations of the theory (Bannert 2002; Brünken et al. 2009; Horz and Schnotz 2009; Moreno 2006; Schnotz and Kürschner 2007). The concerns voiced by de Jong (this issue) resonate with those critiques and suggest the need to reflect...


  1. Bannert, M. (2000). Effects of training wheels and self-learning materials in software training. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 16(4), 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load, recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brünken, R., Plass, J., & Moreno, R. (2009). Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. xx-xx). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brünken, R., & Seufert, T. (2009). Measuring cognitive load. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. xx-xx). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Fransisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  9. Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). Motivation, emotion, and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. De Croock, M. B. M., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). High vs low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: Effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, J. (1987). Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences. Discover, 8, 34–40.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberger (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” education research. Educational Researcher, 32, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2009). The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning & Instruction, 16, 122–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hidi, S., & Renninger, A. (2006). A four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horz, H., & Schnotz, W. (2009). Cognitive load in learning with multiple representations. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. xx–xx). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kantowitz, B. H. (1987). Mental workload. In P. A. Hancock (Ed.), Human Factors Psychology (pp. 81–121). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keller, J. M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, 26, 1–8.Google Scholar
  20. Koch, B., Münzer, S., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2009). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory: Combined variation of modality and seductive details in a self-paced multimedia instruction. Paper presented at the 3rd international cognitive load theory conference, Heerlen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Labaree, D. F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–12.Google Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Meinhardt, J., & Pekrun, R. (2003). Additional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. PytlikZillig, M. Bodvarsson, & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don’t work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno, R. (2009a). Theories of motivation and affect. In R. Moreno (Ed.), Educational psychology (pp. 326–365). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Moreno, R. (2009b). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moreno, R., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2009). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds), Cognitive load theory (pp. xx-xx). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.), Committee on scientific principles for educational research.. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Ong, A. D., & van Dulmen, H. M. (2007). Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Percept. Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.Google Scholar
  37. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T. & Brünken, R. (2009). Testing the additivity hypothesis of cognitive load theory: Combined variation of modality and seductive details in self-paced multimedia instruction.Google Scholar
  38. Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thrash, T., & Elliott, A. (2001). Delimiting and integrating achievement motive and goal constructs. In A. Efklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 3–21). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive papillary response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Merriënboer, J., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weiner, B. (2000). Interpersonal and intrapersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In R. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Wittrock, M. C., & Farley, F. (1989). Toward a blueprint for educational psychology. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley (Eds.), The future of educational psychology (pp. 193–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology ProgramUniversity of New MexicoAlbuguergueUSA

Personalised recommendations