Unlocking the secrets of learning: Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) explained
Did you know that your brain has a limit to the amount of information it can handle at once? It's called cognitive load, and understanding how it affects learning is crucial for educators.
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), developed by John Sweller (1988), provides insights into the working memory's capacity and its role in learning (Sweller, 1994). The theory now generally recognises two types of cognitive load (Paas and Sweller, 2014):
Intrinsic load, and
Extraneous load
Intrinsic load refers to the inherent difficulty of the subject matter being learned. It depends on the complexity of the material and the prior knowledge of the learner. Essentially, it's the mental effort required to understand the content.
Extraneous load, on the other hand, is detrimental to learning. It involves any unnecessary thinking or mental processing that doesn't contribute to learning. Unlike intrinsic load, extraneous load is related to how the material is presented rather than its inherent difficulty.
The working memory
To grasp the learning process, let's take a look at how information moves through different memory systems. When we learn something, it first enters our working memory. From there, under the right conditions, it can be transferred to long-term memory, where it can be retrieved when needed.
However, the working memory has limited capacity and can easily become overwhelmed. Cognitive overload occurs when we provide too much information at once, exceeding the working memory's capabilities.
Research suggests that individuals can handle around 5 to 9 new pieces of information simultaneously for about 20 seconds (Paas and Merriënboer, 2020). In contrast, the long-term memory has a vast capacity, making it ideal for retaining information in the long run. Our goal as educators is to ensure that knowledge we share is processed effectively in the working memory and is moved into the long-term memory, allowing learners to retain the knowledge and recall it when needed.
Because the working memory has very limited capacity, it is easily overwhelmed. When this happens, learners will not process the knowledge and it will not move to their long-term memory stores. So, we need to combat this.
Let's explore some strategies to avoid cognitive overload and enhance learning:
Less is more: Reduce the amount of text and diagrams to the essentials. This prevents overwhelming the working memory and ensures that students can process the information effectively.
Integrate labels and related information: Present information in close physical proximity to its related content. This allows students to process text and images simultaneously, reducing the split-attention effect (Chandler and Sweller, 1992).
Avoid redundant information: Refrain from reading aloud a lot of text that is already visible on slides or boards. Simultaneous processing of spoken and written information overloads the working memory. Keep it short and sweet.
Eliminate distracting images: Only use visuals that directly support learning objectives. Unnecessary images can create extraneous cognitive load because learners have to figure out if the image is relevant to their understanding, which diverts their attention from essential information.
Harness the power of images: Use visuals to support complex ideas and concepts. The dual coding theory suggests that combining language and images enhances learning (Paivio, 1971).
Stage information gradually: Reveal processes step-by-step on the same slide, providing prompts for earlier stages. This reduces the cognitive load of holding multiple pieces of information simultaneously in the working memory.
When it comes to media production, we can apply additional strategies to manage cognitive load effectively:
Signalling (Mayer & Johnson, 2008; deKoning et al., 2009; Ibrahim et al., 2012)
Use on-screen text, symbols, or changes in colour or contrast to highlight important information. Signalling directs learner attention, reducing extraneous load and emphasising organisation and connections within the material.
Segmenting (Guo et al., 2014)
Break content into smaller, user-paced parts. This allows learners to engage with manageable chunks of information and enhances understanding and retention. Shorter videos, around 6 minutes in length, tend to maintain high engagement.
Weeding (Ibrahim et al., 2012)
Remove extraneous information from videos, such as irrelevant music, complex backgrounds, or unnecessary features. Weeding helps learners focus on essential content and minimises distractions.
Matching modality/Dual Coding (Paivio, 1971; Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Thomson et al., 2014)
Use both audio/verbal channel and the visual/pictorial channel to convey information.
CLT provides valuable insights into how we can optimise learning experiences and improve knowledge retention. By understanding the different types of cognitive loads, educators and learning designers can make informed decisions about instructional methods and materials.
To avoid cognitive overload, it is crucial to consider the limitations of working memory and the vast capacity of long-term memory. By reducing extraneous load through strategies like minimising text and diagrams, integrating labels into visuals, and removing unnecessary distractions, we can enhance learning outcomes. Additionally, leveraging the power of dual coding theory by using relevant images and matching modalities can promote effective comprehension and retention.
When it comes to media production, incorporating signalling cues, segmenting information, weeding out extraneous details, and matching modality can enhance learning experiences and reduce cognitive load. These methods help learners focus on essential information, structure their learning, and make efficient use of working memory.
Furthermore, CLT emphasises the importance of learning design goals, such as reducing extraneous processing, managing essential processing, and fostering generative processing. Through coherent content presentation, highlighting key information, avoiding redundancy, and ensuring spatial and temporal contiguity, we can optimise the learning process.
As we continue to explore and refine CLT principles, it is important to apply them to online learning environments. By incorporating methods that reduce extraneous processing, manage essential processing, and foster generative processing, we can create engaging and effective online learning experiences.
By staying up to date with the latest trends and research in CLT, educators and learning designers can continually improve their instructional practices, create engaging and effective learning experiences, and ultimately enhance knowledge retention and transfer.
So, let's embrace the insights of CLT and apply them in our teaching and learning design endeavours, making learning more efficient, engaging, and rewarding for our students.
REFERENCES
Chandler, P. and Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246.
deKoning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P. and Pass, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113-140.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J. and Rubin. R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos.
Ibrahim, M., Antonenko, P., Greenwood, C. and Wheeler, D. (2012). Effects of segmenting, signalling, and weeding on learning from educational video. Learning, Media and Technology, 3, 220-235.
Mayer, R. E. and Johnson, C. (2008). Revising the Redundancy Principle in Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380-386.
Mayer, R. E. and Moreno, R. (2003). Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Paas, F. and van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-Load Theory: Methods to Manage Working Memory Load in the Learning of Complex Tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394-398.
Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.
Paivio. A. (1971). Imagery and Language. In S. J. Segal (Ed.), Imagery: Current Cognitive Approaches (pp. 7-32). Academic Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Thomson, A., Bridgstock, R. and Willems, C. (2014). ‘Teachers flipping out’ beyond the online lecture: Maximising the educational potential of video. Journal of Learning Design, 7(3).
