Claes, Jan

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Yet another reconsideration of cognitive load theory (conventional paper presentation) Jan Claes Department of Business Informatics and Operations Management, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium jan.claes@ugent.be Keywords. Cognitive load theory, reconsideration, types of cognitive load, multistore memory model Introduction Regardless the demonstrated explanatory power of cognitive load theory and its crucial role in the development of educational methods, the theory has been criticized and adapted frequently. For instance, Schnotz & Kürschner (2007) claim that the separate measurement of the 3 defined types is not feasible. Gerjets, et al. (2009) criticize the circularity in their definition and measurement. Sweller (2010) and Kalyuga (2011) appear to have given up on the notion of germane load as an independent source of load. Yet another reconsideration Let us consider working memory (WM) as an information transformation system (Sweller & Chandler, 1991) aligned to the multi-store model of Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968). Incoming information from sensory memory (SM) has to be transformed to a format suitable for WM and outgoing information has to be transformed for storage in long-term memory (LTM). This novel view entails slight but crucial differences to the definition of the central concepts of cognitive load theory. Extraneous cognitive load (ECL) is the occupation of resources of WM to transform information from SM to a format suitable for WM. This process is called “interpretation”, which is the translation of an external representation of information to an internal representation (i.e., a mental image). A distinction is made between visual ECL (~visuospatial sketchpad) and auditory ECL (~phonological loop). Intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) is the occupation of resources of WM to transform information within the WM representation. This process is called “reasoning” (e.g., by deduction, induction, or abduction). Again, there are two subtypes: declarative ICL (related to facts) and procedural ICL (related to events). The addition of procedural ICL as a subtype comes from observations that learner control and task administration have been related to cognitive overload (Conklin, 1987). Germane cognitive load (GCL) is the occupation of resources of WM to transform information from a WM to a LTM representation. This process is called “learning”. It entails the construction and 2 Jan Claes  automation of cognitive schemas. It makes sense to also distinguish between declarative GCL (to build expertise) and procedural GCL (to build experience) (cf. Squire & Zola-Morgan, 1991). Cognitive overload is when the required instantaneous load exceeds WM capacity (considering the 3 as additive). Insufficient capacity for (visual or auditory) ECL results in interpretation errors. Insufficient capacity for declarative ICL results in conceptual errors. Insufficient capacity for procedural ICL results in procedural errors and/or in slower reasoning. Insufficient capacity for (declarative or procedural) GCL results in learning deficiencies. Conclusion These definitions have a number of advantages. (1) The explicit recognition of GCL explains the difference between problem solving with or without learning. (2) The definitions abstract from the application of learning. (3) They enable direct instantaneous measurement of the different types in the future (e.g., with EEG or MRI). (4) They provide an explanation for the described consequences of overload. (5) They facilitate reasoning about the link between the 3 types of load (information resulting from one transformation is the input for another transformation, one transformation can (un)intentionally reduce the need for another transformation, etc.). References Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3 Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext : An Introduction and Survev. Computer, (September), 17–41. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G. (2009). The scientific value of cognitive load theory: A research agenda based on the structuralist view of theories. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9096-1 Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7 Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4 Squire, L. R., & Zola-Morgan, S. (1991). The medial temporal lobe memory system. Science, 253(5026), 1380–1386. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1896849 Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Yet another reconsideration of cognitive load theory 3 Cognition and Instruction, 8(January 2015), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804  

Yet another reconsideration of cognitive load theory

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8566548/file/8572890.pdf

Yet another reconsideration of cognitive load theory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography