Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning

By J. V. van Merriënboer, Paul Ayres. 2005

414 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This introduction to the special issue provides a context for the contributing articles. for readers who are not familiar with cognitive load theory (CLT), it provides a very brief description of assumptions regarding memory systems and learning processes, different types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous, and germane), and design implications. Whereas traditional CLT research focused on instructional methods to decrease extraneous cognitive load that is not directly relevant for learning, contributions to this special issue represent wider perspectives that reflect new developments in CLT. These articles have been organized into three categories: (a) methods to decrease intrinsic cognitive load, and deal with high-element interactivity materials, (b) methods to increase germane cognitive load that is directly relevant for learning, and (c) methods to deal with differences in learner's individual levels of expertise and expertise development. To conclude, design implications for (adaptive) e-learning are discussed.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/80eac236adf8dfdd29bd82820940161ad28b8be9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback (2005, methodology): “For the dual-code hypothesis to apply, the information contained in both codes should not be redundant, and the two codes should be integrated so that students are not forced to split their attention between the two codes (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1999; van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005).”
Worked example effects in individual and group work settings (2010, background): “Cognitive load theory (see Sweller, 1999; Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998; van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005) assumes that subject areas such as mathematics constitute biologically secondary rather than biologically primary knowledge (Geary, 2007, 2008; Sweller, 2007, 2008).”
Integrating cognitive load theory and concepts of human-computer interaction (2010, methodology): “Principles to reduce extraneous load In the first years of CLT research, the focus was on possible methods for reducing extraneous cognitive load (Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007; Van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005).”
Cognitive Load Theory and the Role of Learner Experience: An Abbreviated Review for Educational Practitioners (2008, background): “Moreover, CLT assumes that learners have “an effectively unlimited long-term memory holding cognitive schemas that vary in their degree of complexity and automation” ( van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005, p. 6 ). The implication of these assumptions is that learning will be hindered if instructional mater”