Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?

  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive load theory has been traditionally described as involving three separate and additive types of load. Germane load is considered as a learning-relevant load complementing extraneous and intrinsic load. This article argues that, in its traditional treatment, germane load is essentially indistinguishable from intrinsic load, and therefore this concept may be redundant. Contrary to extraneous and intrinsic load, germane cognitive load was added to the cognitive load framework based on theoretical considerations rather than on specific empirical results that could not be explained without this concept. The design of corresponding learning activities always required methods and techniques external to the theory. The article suggests that the dual intrinsic/extraneous framework is sufficient and non-redundant and makes boundaries of the theory transparent. The idea of germane load might have an independent role within this framework if (as recently suggested by John Sweller) it is redefined as referring to the actual working memory resources devoted to dealing with intrinsic rather than extraneous load.

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

References

  • Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannert, M., Hildebrand, M., & Mengelcamp, C. (2009). Effects of a metacognitive support device in learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 829–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, J. F. (2010). Taming a beast of burden: On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 20, 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanation: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groβe, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groβe, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612–634.

    Article  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.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  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.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Vollmann, B., & Catrambone, R. (2009). The impact of learner characteristics on information utilization strategies, cognitive load experienced, and performance in hypermedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2010). Reanalyzing the expertise reversal effect. Instructional Science, 38, 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Salden, R., & Aleven, V. (2011). Effects of different ratios of worked solution steps and problem solving opportunities on cognitive load and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, J., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.

    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: Academic.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 43, 214–216.

    Article  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., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional Science, 32, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction, 16, 154–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18, 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self- explanation effect. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 1–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, B., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Prediction of mental workload in single and multiple task environments. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4, 213–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Slava Kalyuga

Authors
  1. Slava Kalyuga
    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

Cite this article

Kalyuga, S. Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?. Educ Psychol Rev 23, 1–19 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation