Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive load theory has been very influential in educational psychology during the last decade in providing guidelines for instructional design. Whereas numerous empirical studies have used it as a theoretical framework, a closer analysis reveals some fundamental conceptual problems within the theory. Various generalizations of empirical findings become questionable because the theory allows different and contradicting possibilities to explain some empirical results. The article investigates these theoretical problems by analyzing the conceptual distinctions between different kinds of cognitive load. It emphasizes that reduction of cognitive load can sometimes impair learning rather than enhancing it. Cognitive load theory is reconsidered both from the perspective of Vygotski’s concept of the zone of proximal development and from the perspective of research on implicit learning. Task performance and learning are considered as related, but nevertheless fundamentally different processes. Conclusions are drawn for the further development of the theory as well as for empirical research and instructional practice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Sweller (2005) assumes that a smaller working memory is more efficient than a larger one. The argument is that in a working memory including four elements, finding the correct sequence of operations by trial and error is still possible, because the number of permutations is only 24 (4!). In a working memory including 10 elements, on the contrary, the number of permutations would be more than 3 millions (10!), which would no longer allow finding the correct sequence of operations. We are in doubt, however, whether the analogy between biological evolution and cognition really holds at this point. If a task requires n operations to be performed in the right sequence, the learner has to find the right sequence out of the n! possibilities anyway by trial and error, regardless of his/her size of working memory. A larger working memory would then allow longer sequences of operations being stored and memorized and, thus, be more advantageous for learning than a smaller working memory. A larger working memory allows also anticipating longer sequences of operations. According to our knowledge, human working memory is a relatively recent development of evolution, and there are no indications that any human or nonhuman species was disadvantaged due to a too large working memory.

  2. It should be noted that these definitions of cognitive load are not fully equivalent. Learning a particular material (Sweller and Chandler 1994) means the acquisition of knowledge or skills that corresponds to a change in long-term memory. Performing a particular task Sweller et al. (1998) means finding a solution by manipulating an external or internal situation regardless whether or not a change in long-term memory takes place.

References

  • Ainsworth, S., & Van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1997). Human memory. Theory and practice. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. C., & Broadbent, D. E. (1984). On the relationship between task performance and associated verbalizable knowledge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratfisch, O., Borg, G., & Dornic, S. (1972). Perceived item-difficulty in three tests of intellectual performance capacity. Report No. 29. Stockholm: Institute of Applied Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, W. F., & Nakamura, G. V. (1984). The nature and functions of schemas. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, Vol. 1 (pp. 119–160). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüncken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computer program. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleeremans, A., Destrebecqz, A., & Boyer, M. (1998). Implicit learning: News from the front. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(10), 406–416.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Learning of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eggemeier, F. T. (1988). Properties of workload assessment techniques. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human and mental workload (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam: North-Holland, Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2000). Cognitive psychology. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, P. A. (1998). One concept, multiple meanings. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. (2005). The origin of mind. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary, D. (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. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North Holland).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. V., & Howard, J. H. (1992). Adult age differences in the rate of learning serial patterns: Evidence from direct and indirect tests. Psychology & Aging, 7, 232–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2000). When using sound with a text or picture is not beneficial for learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(2), 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 126–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkhart (2001). The nature of declarative and nondeclarative knowledge for implicit and explicit learning. Journal of General Psychology, 128(4), 447–461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, M., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1997). Learning from equations or words. Instructional Science, 25, 37–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, P. (1985). Nonconscious biasing effects of single instances on subsequent judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 563–574. .

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, P. (1986). Nonconscious social information processing. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Bizot, E. (1988). Acquisition of procedural knowledge about a pattern of stimuli that cannot be articulated. Cognitive Psychology, 20, 24–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, P., Hill, T., & Czyzewska, M. (1992). Nonconscious acquisition of information. American Psychologist, 47(6), 796–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & D. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 39–58). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Google 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, B., Corkin, S., & Teubner, H. L. (1968). Further analysis of the hippocampal amnestic syndrome: 14-year follow-up study of H.M. Neuropsychologia, 6, 215–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minassian, A., Granholm, E., Verney, S., & Perry, W. (2004). Pupillary dilation to simple vs. complex tasks and its relationship to thought disturbance in schizophrenia patients. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 52, 53–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999a). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999b). Visual presentations in multimedia learning: Conditions that overload visual working memory. In D. P. Huijsmans & A. W. M. Smeulders (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Visual information and information systems (pp. 793–800). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, L. J. M. (1992). Measurement and analysis methods of heart rate and respiration for use in applied environments. Biological Psychology, 34, 205–236.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, N. W. (1998). The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 27–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16, 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perrig, W. J. (1996). Implizites lernen. In J. Hoffmann & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der psychologie (pp. 203–234). Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reber, S., Walkenfeld, F. F., & Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and explicit learning: Individual differences and iq. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 888–896.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1999). Learning mathematics from worked-out examples. Analyzing and fostering self-explanations. European Journal of Psychology of Education 14, 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Lerning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., Gruber, H., Weber, S., Lerche, T., & Schweizer, K. (2003). Cognitive Load beim Lernen aus Lösungsbeispielen [Cognitive load during learning from worked-out examples]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043–1056.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information prodessing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. In J. F. Rouet, J. Levonen, & A. Biardeau (Eds.), Multimedia learning — cognitive and instructional issues (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W., & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 53(3), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information prodessing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2004). Item response theory. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods, Vol. 2 (pp. 529–533). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slusarz, P., & Sun, R. (2001). The interaction of explicit and implicit learning: An integrated model. In Proceedings of the 23rd cognitive science society conference (pp. 952–957). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivas, K., & Roediger, H. L. (1990). Classifiying implicit memory tests: Category association and anagram solution. Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 389–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadler, M. A., & Frensch, P. A. (1998). Handbook of implicit learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, R., Merrill, E., & Peterson, T. (2001). From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: A bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 203–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1976). The effect of task complexity and sequence on rule learning and problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 67, 553–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1980). Hypothesis salience, task difficulty, and sequential effects on problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 93, 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.

    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: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natiral selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 185–233.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Levine, M. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8, 463–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Howe, W. (1982). Consequences of history-cued and means–end strategies in problem solving. American Journal of Psychology, 95, 455–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J. J. G, & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology, 41, 167–174.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age In B. Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the U.S.S.R. (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, A. S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We are grateful to John Sweller for various intensive discussions about fundamental issues of cognitive load theory. We also want to thank four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a previous version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology, Department of General and Educational Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany

    Wolfgang Schnotz & Christian Kürschner

  2. Department of General and Educational Psychology, Thomas-Nast-Str. 44, 76829, Landau (Pfalz), Germany

    Wolfgang Schnotz

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Schnotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Kürschner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Schnotz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schnotz, W., Kürschner, C. A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory. Educ Psychol Rev 19, 469–508 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation