Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design

https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper is concerned with some of the factors that determine the difficulty of material that needs to be learned. It is suggested that when considering intellectual activities, schema acquisition and automation are the primary mechanisms of learning. The consequences of cognitive load theory for the structuring of information in order to reduce difficulty by focusing cognitive activity on schema acquisition is briefly summarized. It is pointed out that cognitive load theory deals with learning and problem solving difficulty that is artificial in that it can be manipulated by instructional design. Intrinsic cognitive load in contrast, is constant for a given area because it is a basic component of the material. Intrinsic cognitive load is characterized in terms of element interactivity. The elements of most schemas must be learned simultaneously because they interact and it is the interaction that is critical. If, as in some areas, interactions between many elements must be learned, then intrinsic cognitive load will be high. In contrast, in different areas, if elements can be learned successively rather than simultaneously because they do not interact, intrinsic cognitive load will be low. It is suggested that extraneous cognitive load that interferes with learning only is a problem under conditions of high cognitive load caused by high element interactivity. Under conditions of low element interactivity, re-designing instruction to reduce extraneous cognitive load may have no appreciable consequences. In addition, the concept of element interactivity can be used to explain not only why some material is difficult to learn but also, why it can be difficult to understand. Understanding becomes relevant when high element interactivity material with a naturally high cognitive load must be learned.

References (35)

  • G. Cooper et al.

    The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer

    Journal of Educational Psychology

    (1987)
  • A. De Groot

    Thought and choice in chess

    (1965)
  • D.E. Egan et al.

    Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings

    Memory and Cognition

    (1979)
  • G. Halford et al.

    Capacity limitations in children's reasoning: A dual task approach

    Child Development

    (1986)
  • R. Jeffries et al.

    Processes involved in designing software

  • J. Larkin et al.

    Models of competence in solving physics problems

    Cognitive Science

    (1980)
  • R. Low et al.

    Text editing of algebraic word problems

    Australian Journal of Psychology

    (1990)
  • Cited by (2161)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The work reported in this paper was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council.

    View full text