Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-6knnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-29T21:09:44.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Cognitive Load Theory: Historical Development and Relation to Other Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Roxana Moreno  and
Babette Park
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Babette Park
Affiliation:
Saarland University
Jan L. Plass
Affiliation:
New York University
Roxana Moreno
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
Roland Brünken
Affiliation:
Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, Germany
Get access

Summary

The goal of this introductory chapter is to provide a historical review of the assumptions underlying Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and to place the theory into the broader context of the learning sciences. The chapter focuses on the theoretical developments that guided the research on cognitive load and learning for the past twenty years and is organized in the following way. First, we examine the nature of the cognitive load construct and compare it to similar psychological constructs. Second, we present a historical review of the development of CLT's assumptions in the following four stages: (a) extraneous cognitive load in problem solving, (b) intrinsic cognitive load and the first additivity hypothesis, (c) germane cognitive load and the second additivity hypothesis, and (d) the evolutionary interpretation of CLT. Finally, we conclude the chapter by examining the constructs and assumptions of CLT in relation to other theories in psychology and education.

THE COGNITIVE LOAD CONSTRUCT

CLT is a psychological theory because it attempts to explain psychological or behavioral phenomena resulting from instruction. Psychological theories are concerned with the possible relationships among psychological constructs or between a psychological construct and an observable phenomenon of practical consequence. A psychological construct is an attribute or skill that happens in the human brain. In CLT, the main constructs of interest are cognitive load, hence the name of the theory, and learning. CLT was developed to explain the effects of instructional design on these two constructs.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 9 - 28
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

,American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. (1983). Human associative memory. Washington, DC: Winston.Google Scholar
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. W. & Spence, J. T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A. (2000). Social-cognitive theory. In Kazdin, A. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 329–332). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
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
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load, recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boekaerts, M. (2006). Self-regulation and effort investment. In Sigel, E. & Renninger, K. A., (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4) Child psychology in practice (pp. 345–377). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bratfisch, O., Borg, G., & Dornic, S. (1972). Perceived item-difficulty in three tests of intellectual performance capacity (Tech. Rep. No. 29). Stockholm: Institute of Applied Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 151–170.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In Chase, W. G. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Oxford, England: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, A. (1966). Perception and memory versus thought: Some old ideas and recent findings. In Kleinmuntz, B. (Ed.), Problem solving: Research, method, and theory (pp. 19–50). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In Damon, W. & Eisenberger, N. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory & Cognition, 7, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisk, A. D., & Schneider, W. (1983). Category and work search: Generalizing search principles to complex processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 117–195.Google Scholar
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
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked-out examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, E. R. (1959). Association by contiguity. In Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (Vol. 2, pp. 158–195). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Halford, G., Maybery, M., & Bain, J. (1986). Capacity limitations in children's reasoning: A dual task approach. Child Development, 57, 616–627.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. A., & Desmond, P. A. (2001). Stress, workload and fatigue. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. A., & Meshkati, N. (1988). Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland.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, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huey, B. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). Workload transition: Implications for individual and team performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–357.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kantowitz, B. H. (1987). Mental workload. In Hancock, P. A. (Ed.), Human factors psychology (pp. 81–121). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Y., Honda, M., & Kamii, C. (2006). Kindergartners play lining up the 5s: A card game to encourage logical-mathematical thinking. Young Children, 61(4), 82–88.Google Scholar
Kirshner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1979). On the use of concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 189–207.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, W. (2003). The impact of job demands and workload on stress and fatigue. Australian Psychologist, 36, 102–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, J. M. (1962). What makes work difficult? Personnel Journal, 41, 341–344.Google Scholar
Maybery, M., Bain, J., & Halford, G. (1986). Information processing demands of transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 12, 600–613.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mead, D. F. (1970). Development of an equation for evaluating job difficulty. Brooks, TX: Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moray, N. (1979). Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In PytlikZillig, L., Bodvarsson, M., & Bruning, R. (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1–19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don't work: Is cognitive load theory at an impasse? Learning and Instruction, 16, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making. Learning and Instruction, 19, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture [Guest editorial statement]. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Solso, R. L. (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 212–225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., & Grobe, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works – A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1976). The representation of knowledge in memory. In Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Montague, W. E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Schiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. In Rouet, J. F., Levonen, J., & Biardeau, A. (Eds.), Multimedia learning? Cognitive and instructional issues (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2006). Cognitive load and the format of instructional aids for coherence formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seufert, T., Jänen, I., & Brünken, R. (2007). The impact of intrinsic cognitive load on the effectiveness of graphical help for coherence formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1055–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In Siegler, R. S. (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 325–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A., & Gilmartin, K. J. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1993). Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organisation and presentation of information. Australian Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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
Sweller, J., & Chandler, , , P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P., & Clark, R. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Mawer, R., & Ward, M. (1983). Development of expertise in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112(4), 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 442–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrash, T., & Elliott, A. (2001). Delimiting and integrating achievement motive and goal constructs. In Efklides, A., Kuhl, J., & Sorrentino, R. (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 3–21). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning, educational technology, research and development, Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.
Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Croock, M. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(3), 365–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychology, 38, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Winne, P. H. (2005). Key issues in modeling and applying research on self-regulated learning. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In Pajares, F. & Urdan, T. (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 1–27). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×