Cognitive Load Theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is a theory of the cognitive load in learning . It was set up by John Sweller and Paul Chandler. The CLT assumes that learning is connected with cognitive stress and describes how learning can be made easier or more difficult.

Basic assumptions

The CLT ascribes a particularly important function to working memory in learning and knowledge acquisition . The working memory is responsible for problem-solving and information processing processes. It is assumed that the capacity of the working memory is limited and only a certain amount of information can be retained.

Another assumption is that people store knowledge in schemes . During learning, new schemes are constructed and new knowledge is linked to existing ones. It is important that the working memory has enough available capacity and is not cognitively overloaded to enable schema acquisition and thus effective learning.

Types of cognitive load

The theory describes three types of cognitive load in a learning process:

Intrinsic cognitive load

Intrinsic stress is understood to be the type of cognitive stress that is caused by the learning material itself or that depends on the difficulty and complexity of the learning material. The more difficult the learning material, the higher the intrinsic burden. Element interactivity plays a very important role, with Sweller (2003) referring to the entire cognitive load. On the one hand, there are elements that can be learned independently of one another. These can be learned and understood individually, whereby understanding is defined as the ability to process all elements that are necessarily related to one another in the working memory at the same time. Learning material that consists of such elements causes only a low cognitive load. Sweller (2003) speaks of low element interactivity material. Learning the vocabulary of a foreign language would be a concrete example of this, as, for example, the number of vocabulary may be very large, but understanding still does not suffer, as vocabulary can be learned individually and one after the other.

On the other hand, there are elements that are closely related to each other, so there is a very high level of element interactivity. This creates a high cognitive load, as the information must be processed at the same time in order to achieve a high level of understanding among the learner. If the information is learned and processed only one after the other, then it is learned by heart , but no links are made between the various elements. The entire cognitive load decreases as a result, but according to Sweller (2003) there is no understanding, and he describes such complex material as high element interactivity material. An example of this would be the syntax of a foreign language, as everything here has to be processed at the same time in order to understand the material. If there is no simultaneous processing, then it is learned by heart. To put it more simply: when learning to understand, the total cognitive load is high, when learning by heart it is low. According to Sweller et al. (1998) only with high element interactivity, whereby the prior knowledge of the learner has a decisive influence on this. The more appropriate prior knowledge a person has, the lower a possible intrinsic cognitive load can be.

Extraneous cognitive load

The extrinsic stress is influenced by the presentation and design of the learning material. Learning material which is characterized by superfluous and irrelevant information, repetitions or numerous references leads to a higher extrinsic burden. Multimedia content that is only available for visual reasons can also distract the learner's attention. This obstructs the view of the essential information and makes learning more difficult. An optimized design of the learning material can also reduce the extrinsic burden.

German cognitive load (learning-related cognitive load)

Learning-related stress is understood as the important part of the cognitive stress that is necessary for the learning process, i. H. the strain or effort on the learner to understand the learning material. The learning-related stress must be promoted so that the learner can build up new schemes in the working memory and activate existing schemes so that learning takes place. German load can be supported by keeping intrinsic and extraneous load low. This can e.g. B. can be done through a better design of the learning material.

In connection with the germane cognitive load, Sweller (2005) refers to the important aspect that the aim of instructions should be the learning of automated schemes. If the instruction design does not take into account the limitations of the working memory, then the effectiveness of the instruction is left to chance and there is no focus on the schema construction and schema automation.

Effects studied

In the context of the cognitive load theory, various effects were identified that occur when learning different modules. Examples are:

Summary

The three different loads add up, the aim of the instruction should be to reduce the extraneous cognitive load. If this is achieved, the germane cognitive load that is conducive to learning could come into play. A high germane cognitive load can still be acceptable with a simultaneous high extraneous cognitive load, namely when the intrinsic cognitive load is low and thus the overall exposure is at a relatively low level. The instruction design is only relevant if complex material has to be learned, which corresponds to a high intrinsic cognitive load, and at the same time a high extraneous load leads to an excess of working memory resources due to poor instruction design.

According to Sweller (2003), schemes that are stored in long-term memory make it possible to process material with a high level of element interactivity in working memory, as if the material consisted of only a single element. The use and promotion of schemes is seen as the silver bullet for understanding learning. The interacting elements are integrated in the scheme, which can act as a kind of central executive to coordinate these interacting elements. But only through automated schemes is it possible for the limited working memory to reduce the load and thus process more information. However, this is only feasible if, through previous learning, automated schemes have already been created in the long-term memory.

Sweller (2003) therefore concludes that anything that can be learned can also be automated accordingly through practice. Through practice, less and less conscious effort is required for information processing, for example for understanding words and sentences in everyday life, which also reduces the workload on working memory accordingly. Thus, the two functions of schemes according to Sweller et al. (1998) clearly: storage and organization of knowledge in long-term memory, as well as the reduction of working memory load.

It is critical to note that it is not possible to measure the cognitive load directly.

Great similarities to cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning) by Richard E. Mayer.

literature

  • Plass, JL, Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.) (2010): Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  • Sweller, J. (2003): Evolution of human cognitive architecture. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43, 215-266.
  • Sweller, J. (2005): Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In RE Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sweller, J. (2006): How the Human Cognitive System Deals with Complexity. In J. Elen & RE Clark (Eds.), Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Theory and Research (pp. 13-25). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, JJG, & Paas, FGWC (1998): Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
  • Sweller, J. & Cooper, G. (1985): The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra. Cognition and Instruction Vol. 2, No. 1 (1985) (p.60). Sydney: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
  • Tibus, M. (2008): Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML). In N. Krämer, S. Schwan, D. Unz, & M. Suckfüll (Eds.), Media Psychology. Key Terms and Concepts (pp. 91-96). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Web links