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-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T15:51:50.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Cognitive Load Theory: Recent Theoretical Advances

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
John Sweller
Edited by
Jan L. Plass ,
Roxana Moreno  and
Roland Brünken
John Sweller
Affiliation:
University of New SouthWales
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

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) began as an instructional theory based on our knowledge of human cognitive architecture. It proved successful in generating a series of cognitive load effects derived from the results of randomised, controlled experiments (Clark, Nguyen, & Sweller, 2006). This chapter summarises the theory, including its general instructional implications. Many of the theory's specific instructional implications, which provide its prime function and purpose, are discussed in other chapters in this volume and therefore will not be discussed in detail in this chapter (see Table 2.1 for a summary).

HUMAN COGNITION

The processes of human cognition constitute a natural information-processing system that mimics the system that gave rise to human cognitive architecture: evolution by natural selection. Both human cognition and biological evolution create novel information, store it for subsequent use, and are capable of disseminating that information indefinitely over space and time. By considering human cognition within an evolutionary framework, our understanding of the structures and functions of our cognitive architecture are being transformed. In turn, that cognitive architecture has profound instructional consequences. CLT is an amalgam of human cognitive architecture and the instructional consequences that flow from that architecture.

From an evolutionary perspective, there are two categories of human knowledge: biologically primary and biologically secondary knowledge (Geary, 2007, 2008). Biologically primary knowledge is knowledge we have evolved to acquire over many generations. Examples are general problem-solving techniques, recognising faces, engaging in social relations, and listening to and speaking our native language.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cognitive Load Theory , pp. 29 - 47
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

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1946).Google Scholar
Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory and Cognition, 7, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geary, D. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In Carlson, J. S. & Levin, J. R. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Geary, D. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43, 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, R., Turner, A., Polson, P., & Atwood, M. (1981). Processes involved in designing software. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 255–283). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. (2005). Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325–337). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, 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
Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 857–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Paas, F., Camp, G., & Rikers, R. (2001). Instructional compensation for age-related cognitive declines: Effects of goal specificity in maze learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. (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
Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgement and reasoning in the child. New York: Harcourt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renkl, A. (2005). The worked out example principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–245). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H., & Gilmartin, K. (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. (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. (2005). The redundancy principle. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–167). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (2007). Evolutionary biology and educational psychology. In Carlson, J. S. & Levin, J. R. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 165–175). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David Geary's evolutionary educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 43, 214–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J. (2009). Cognitive bases of human creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.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

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
×