For something that brings a solid evidence-base to help inform the design of learning materials for students, I am surprised it has taken me a good 14 – 15 years to get a handle on understanding what cognitive load theory is, and how I might be able to use it to improve student learning. However perhaps through my combined experience of both teaching in higher education and presenting research has enabled me to build an understanding of this theory without knowing it was a theory!
This became evident over the last week as I prepared two different presentations. Early last week I needed to prepare a presentation to share my experience at ‘The Flipped Classroom in MDHS: Recent Experiences and Directions’, a Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences Learning & Teaching event. Towards the end of that week, I started working on a presentation for the EDUC90970 Facilitating Online Learning subject on Cognitive Load Theory.
In the ‘Flipped Classroom’ presentation I needed to share with my audience the basic premise of this model, results from a pilot study I carried out in 2020 as well as tips and insights from my experience. All in a 7-minute pre-recorded video. To do this, I started by eliminating any information that was not essential to telling the story. I employed simple transitions in PowerPoint to help highlight the important material, I told much of the story by narrating to images, with no onscreen text, presenting the speech and graphics simultaneously. Simple definitions were added to the start of the presentation and I tried to limit the use of on-screen text, presenting information in spoken form instead. When student quotes were used, I left these onscreen for viewers to read without any accompanying speech. These are strategies I have developed over years of experience in presenting information to both students and colleagues as well as sitting in many presentations as a student or researcher.
I then got working on the cognitive load theory presentation. Cognitive load theory is based on two basic concepts. Firstly, that as humans we have a limited working memory load, but an unlimited long-term memory (Kirschner, 2002). This is laid out in this simple video:
Secondly, our working memory load is affected by three different types of load related to the intrinsic nature of the task (intrinsic load), the way in which tasks are presented (extraneous load), and the amount of cognitive resources needed to transfer knowledge into our long-term memory (germane load) (van Merriënboer Jeroen & Ayres, 2005). These different loads are explained well in this video:
Cognitive load theory has been adapted to online learning with the cognitive theory of multimedia learning which incorporates the principle that we have two separate channels for processing auditory/ verbal information and visual/pictorial information (Mayer, 2019).
While reading about cognitive load theory, I came across a narrative review of research on online learning by Richard Mayer (Mayer, 2019). This paper largely discusses the research findings regarding instructional methods that can be employed to reduce extraneous cognitive load when designing learning activities for an online space. I was interested (and relieved!) to find that many of these methods I have stumbled across through many years of trial and error, and had recently employed in the presentation I had finished only days before.
Reflecting on my experience exploring cognitive load theory, and the cognitive theory of multimedia learning over the last week, I feel that I will now be far more purposeful in my design of online learning materials and activities, confident that I will be making choices based in cognitive science rather than just hunch.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning(1), 1. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsbl&AN=RN105151718&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s2775460
Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty Years of Research on Online Learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152-159. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1262953&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s2775460
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3482
van Merriënboer Jeroen, J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on Cognitive Load Theory and Its Design Implications for E-Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=sso&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.30220437&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s2775460
Hi Samantha, I really enjoyed your presentation with Abel in Week 5, and your comments above ring very true. It is great when we find some theory or evidence from other practitioners that the ‘hunch’ we’ve been working on for effective teaching has a sound basis!
Nice to see how your implicit teaching and learning strategies can be backed up and further informed by learning theory – leading to more explicit learning design! A well developed blog post that has been related to your own T&L context.