Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning

  • Reflection on the Field
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the traditional framework of cognitive load theory, it is assumed that the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge structures (or schemas) is the only instructional goal, and therefore, the theory is applicable to any instructional task. Accordingly, the basic concepts of intrinsic (productive) and extraneous (unproductive) types of cognitive load were defined based on the relevance (or irrelevance) of the corresponding cognitive processes that impose the load to achieving this universal instructional goal, and the instructional methods advocated by this theory are aimed at enhancing the acquisition of domain-specific schemas. The paper suggests considering this goal within the whole variety of possible specific goals of different learner activities that could be involved in complex learning. This would result in narrowing down of boundaries of cognitive load theory and have implications for distinguishing types of cognitive load, sequencing different goals and instructional tasks, considering the role of learner expertise, and other aspects of complex learning. One of the consequences of this reconceptualization is abandoning the rigid explicit instruction versus minimal guidance dichotomy and replacing it with a more flexible approach based on differentiating specific goals of various learner activities in complex learning. In particular, it may allow reconciling seemingly contradictory results from studies of the effectiveness of worked examples in cognitive load theory (supporting the initial fully guided explicit instruction for novice learners) and studies within the frameworks of productive failure and invention learning that have reportedly demonstrated that minimally guided tasks provided prior to explicit instruction might benefit novice learners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: instructional principles from the worked example research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., & Camos, V. (2004). Time constraints and resource sharing in adults’ working memory spans. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 570–585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(3), 61–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capon, N., & Kuhn, D. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning? Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grave, W. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2001). Effects of problem-based discussion on studying a subsequent text: a randomized trial among first year medical students. Instructional Science, 29(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T. (2005). The guided discovery principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 215–228). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. C. (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 Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Grüny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015). Inventing a solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 72–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-Y., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2015). When should guidance be presented during physics instruction? Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3, 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2006). Assessment of learners’ organised knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: how many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2015). Instructional guidance: a cognitive load perspective. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., & Paas, F. (2010). Facilitating flexible problem solving: a cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 175–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39, 561–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Rummel, N. (2012). Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 645–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (2009). To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens: what about direct instruction? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (pp. 291–310). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., & McLaughlin, E. A. (2014). The knowledge-learning-instruction (KLI) dependency: how the domain-specific and domain-general interact in STEM learning. In M. McDaniel, R. Frey, S. Fitzpatrick, & H. L. Roediger (Eds.), Integrating cognitive science with innovative teaching in STEM disciplines (pp. 53–73). St. Louis, Missouri: Washington University Libraries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The knowledge-learning-instruction (KLI) framework: bridging the science-practice chasm to enhance robust student learning. Cognitive Science, 36, 757–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42, 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., & Anderson, J. R. (2013). Student learning: what has instruction got to do with it? Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 3.1–3.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don't know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Jr., Lorch, E. P., Calderhead, W. J., Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., & Freer, B. D. (2010). Learning the control of variables strategy in higher and lower achieving classrooms: contributions of explicit instruction and experimentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16, 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: a study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2014). Towards an instructionally-oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roll, I., Holmes, N. G., Day, J., & Bonn, D. (2012). Evaluating metacognitive scaffolding in guided invention activities. Instructional Science, 40, 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salden, R. J. C. M., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Personalised adaptive task selection in air traffic control: effects on training efficiency and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 16, 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salden, R. J. C. M., Aleven, V., Schwonke, R., & Renkl, A. (2010). The expertise reversal effect and worked examples in tutored problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., van der Molen, H. T., te Winkel, W. W. R., & Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2009). Constructivist, problem-based learning does work: a meta-analysis of curricular comparisons involving a single medical school. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: the hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D., Lindgren, R., & Lewis, S. (2009). Constructivist in an age of non-constructivist assessments. In S. Tobias & T. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: success of failure? (pp. 34–61). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: the effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, B. M., & Schwartz, N. H. (2007). Navigational spatial displays: the role of metacognition as cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 17, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: a reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: instructional design principles for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnia, L., Loyens, S. M. M., van Gog, T., Derous, E., & Schmidt, H. G. (2014). Is there a role for direct instruction in problem-based learning? Comparing student-constructed versus integrated model answers. Learning and Instruction, 34, 22–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

    Slava Kalyuga & Anne-Marie Singh

Authors
  1. Slava Kalyuga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne-Marie Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Slava Kalyuga.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalyuga, S., Singh, AM. Rethinking the Boundaries of Cognitive Load Theory in Complex Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 28, 831–852 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation