Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought

Abstract

Cognitive load is a theoretical notion with an increasingly central role in the educational research literature. The basic idea of cognitive load theory is that cognitive capacity in working memory is limited, so that if a learning task requires too much capacity, learning will be hampered. The recommended remedy is to design instructional systems that optimize the use of working memory capacity and avoid cognitive overload. Cognitive load theory has advanced educational research considerably and has been used to explain a large set of experimental findings. This article sets out to explore the open questions and the boundaries of cognitive load theory by identifying a number of problematic conceptual, methodological and application-related issues. It concludes by presenting a research agenda for future studies of cognitive load.

Sketching to Remember: Episodic Free Recall Task Support for Child Witnesses and Victims with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Therefore, the demands of the task are reduced, which is likely to support goal-directed remembering (de Jong, 2010), while simultaneously providing retrieval support in line with the Task Support Hypothesis (Bowler et al, 1997).…”

Knowledge maps: a tool for online assessment with automated feedback

“…Taken together with previous pilot studies [40], knowledge maps has demonstrated high usability and accessibility. These are essential qualities for any educational tool, particularly if it is to be used for assessment purposes [50,51]. The large loss of subjects for the survey, with a 25% completion rate, is a potential source of bias.…”

How Design Science Research Helps Improve Learning Efficiency in Online Conversations

“…We mined Web logs to discover students' learning task completion times in the anchored discussion system. Since students' post-test scores related to the learning task, we used posttest scores as a direct measurement of their performance (for a similar approach, see De Jong, 2010). We then standardized the pre-and post-test scores because they used different scoring scales.…”