Talk:Cognitive load

Three types of loads are additive

One of the core assumptions of cognitive load theory is that it posits a single cognitive resource and the three types of loads are additive in nature (Ayres & Sweller, 2005). Thus, even a moderate amount of extraneous load is not a problem when a task at hand is easy. I thought this information should be included to clarify when extraneous load is harmful and when it is not, so I added a few sentences on this. Wndud (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This part of the article also breaks down under the subtopic titled Intrinsic where it appears the author intends to point up 'levels' of associated difficulty rather than just associated difficulty outright. I say this because the parenthetical qualifier for that statement uses the term 'versus', thereby implying a comparison and thus a gradation. Since the author of this portion of the article is presumed to be versed in the work (reference) from which these matters are extrapolated, one can hope an edit is forthcoming to address this point of vaguery. Though qualified to correct problems in grammar and syntax, I cannot presume to make such changes in content proper. Raywood TM (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No definition

This article does not start out with a definition of the term, which is not typical for Wikipedia articles.

Also, this article only list proponents of Cognitive Load Theory.

This problem is now fixed. Lova Falk 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem now is that it gives an incorrect definition. The amount of cognitive load is not the amount of mental effort "present" or displayed, but rather the amount required to do a task with presented information for a specific individual. Robotczar (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

cognitive load is an ill-defined concept

Cognitive load is an ill-defined concept. This limits the utility of cognitive load theory. Chipmas 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Utility of cognitive load theory

Baddeley and Hitch (1974)(one of the most highly cited articles in Cognitive Psychology), included several experiments concerning "concurrent memory load" (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974, p.69). Thus the utility of Cognitive load theory is not in question. It is an expansion and explanation of these early experiments.

--Dlewis3 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive and Instructional Design

While Psychologists should be interested in Cognitive load it was first developed Instructional Technologists and is used to explain the working memory load given various instructional designs. Before making rash decisions about where to place this material read the literature carefully to make an informed decision. --Dlewis3 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition of cognitive load (the very first line of the article) is perfectly clear. I agree with Dlewis that cognitive load theory is important enough to deserve an article. "Cognitive load" gives 127 000 results in google, so it's good that people who wonder what is meant by cognitive load can read about it in Wikipedia. Lova Falk 15:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight,

Cognitive load refers to a burden placed on executive control systems in the brain. It is *not* the "load on working memory during instruction." Any load on working memory/executive function can be referred to as "cognitive load," regardless of the task or the context. "Instruction" need not be involved in any way. The concept may inform theories of learning (e.g., cognitive load theory), but as it is, this article gives undue weight to the meaning of cognitive load in the context of instructional design. Is this article being primarily edited by someone with a vested interested in pushing this view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.70.119 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Would it be better to have "Cognitive load theory" (which seems to refer to a specific theory used in education) on it's own page and use this page to describe the more general concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.102.231 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think removing references to "instruction" or replacing them with more appropriately general terms would probably be the best solution.

128.112.70.119, you should not be so quick to assign malicious intentions to the editor(s) of this article. Just because the information has a specific bent towards a certain profession does not mean the editor(s) had a "vested interested". Rather, it probably just reflects the scope of their knowledge.

If you have extra information for which you might provide credible citations, I think that it should be added to the article rather than split up as suggested by 83.67.102.231. Cburke91 (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad example

The example makes no sense. There is no reason to translate to your native language while studying. And obviously if you want to translate something you need to understand it. Understanding precedes translation. The example is ridiculous.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more than with the previous comment. Personnally, I am not not using English as a native language, but each time I read or write in English, I think in this language. I do not translate back and forth from my native language (French), because it would be at the same time slower and the source of a lot of syntactic and idiomatic errors. This is just not the way it works, so I can tell that what the article says about cognitive load in foreign language is what could be said about people who begin to learn a language. In fact, for some topics, it is sometimes easier to think in a foreign language, because its structure or grammar or vocabulary is more fitted to the subject ; it happens frequently when dealing with scientific or philosophical subjects. 86.69.152.179 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

One addition: While the explanation is incorrect (as noted before, somebody studying a subject in a foreign language usually does not translate the subject matter into his native language) the example still seems valid. In my personal experience, studying in a foreign language does indeed take longer than in one's native language, even without translating. --88.72.163.89 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I, too, am completely in agreement with the above statement. It is not necessary to translate into your native language and is, in fact, detrimental later on in the language learning process.

I think the example should be removed. Cburke91 (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong redirection

I got to this article looking for information on the concept of "mental workload". This article however focuses nearly exclusively on the concept of cognitive load theory (even though there are some analogies). When looking for "mental workload" the redirection should be to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Workload

Furthermore both articles (Workload and Cognitive Load) should be cross referenced in both directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.128.21.242 (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Research articles

Here is a list of sources I am researching to add further information and citations to this article:

Cognitive Load Theory: New Directions and Challenges

An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks

Contemporary cognitive load theory research: The good, the bad and the ugly

Effects of the Physical Environment on Cognitive Load and Learning: Towards a New Model of Cognitive Load

A Reconsideration of Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive Load Theory: How Many Types of Load Does It Really Need?

The Scientific Value of Cognitive Load Theory: A Research Agenda Based on the Structuralist View of Theories

Using Task-Induced Pupil Diameter and Blink Rate to Infer Cognitive Load

Scout37 (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Suggestions for improvement

-Edit the definition, syntax and word choice.

-Add new explanation of cognitive load, including a more comprehensible example

-Add clarity about its’ origin and implications: Emphasize importance of Cognitive Load Theory (should this be a separate article? or perhaps different heading orientation?)

-Add criticism to the types of load and their necessity

-Add discussion about the role of the physical environment on cognitive load

-Add and explain dimensions of mental load, mental effort and performance under measurement heading.

-Clarify measurement techniques and add simple research examples of each

-Add description of eye-tracking measurement and simple research example

-Add discussion of difficulty in separating distinct types of cognitive load

-Add new heading about reducing cognitive load

-Rule automation and schema acquisition

-Connect these elements to expert skills

-Instructional techniques

-Under individual differences in processing

-Describe differences between novice and expert

-Add new heading about cognitive load in children

- Examples of cognitive load in children

- How they attempt to reduce it

- When does it get easier for kids? (maybe - just throwing it out there)

Scout37 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments on recent suggestions

Scout37, I moved your entry to the bottom of the talk page. It is Wiki standard to add to the bottom of the page. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to or allowed to do this, but perhaps if it is the wrong thing an editor will come and tell me/us and we'll have more eyes on this page! Paula Marentette (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bizarrely, my comment seems to show up between your comments and your reference list... Not sure how to fix that since I can't see the reference list here. I've added a heading and we'll see if that puts your pieces back together. Marentette (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC) That would be a no... Marentette (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving on to content. Great start, I like the choice of article and it is clear that you have done some leg work to figure out what needs to be changed and incorporated. I agree that the adult and theoretical aspects need improvement, and see that you suggest a much needed children's section. I wonder if you want to upgrade the section on cognitive load generally, particularly the intro paragraph which is very important in wiki articles, and then focus on children? I'm OK either way.
I don't see the need to take the issue of why cognitive load matters out to a new article. I think that at least some summary needs to be present on this page. If you do decide to focus on children, one way to proceed would be to put a summary on this page and start a new page on cognitive load in children. An editor may be able to help us determine notability (interesting enough to warrant its own page).
Once you start working in a sandbox, can you put a link to it here so we can see where you are headed? Paula Marentette (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

A few more suggestions in case you focus on the children's aspect:
Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–22. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00395
Ping, R., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 602–19. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.x

Here is one I really like that isn't about children. I'm not sure if it is a good source for Wiki (can't believe I'm saying that about an article in Science, but there you go), but it may provoke other ideas.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341(6149), 976–80. doi:10.1126/science.1238041
Paula Marentette (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a link to my talk page where I am currently working on the intro paragraph on cognitive load: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Scout37/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scout37 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Scout37, this is looking good. I like the new lead and think that the additions you have made about children and environment are strong. I like that the page is now a more balanced examination of cognitive load in general, that is recognizes Sweller's work but isn't limited to that. What we really need now is more eyes on the page. I think what is left for you to do is go through and try to simplify/clarify where you can.

• Individual Differences ¶1, 2nd and 3rd sentences. I don't really know how to interpret this. Can you clarify? There is a funny statement about tasks and I'm not sure how it is connected to anything.
• Final sentence in ¶2 on SES - do you have a citation for that. I suspect that it is much more complicated because I think WM is related to cog load and that doesn't vary perfectly with SES. I agree SES is relevant but am not sure that is what this sentence says. At any rate, does this statement belong in an encyclopedia?
• Heavy Cognitive Load. This section feels odd to me, but I know it predates you. Is sent 2 about stereotyping linked to the bullet linking to Fundamental Attribution error? What do you think about removing the bullets and incorporate the links into the text? At least the links between ideas and explanation would be apparent then. Surely we can remove the link to the non-existent page (and concept) of Split Attention Effect. In fact, I just did that.

I'll come back and check if you are getting any feedback. I think you are close to finished unless there is conversation about the changes. Paula Marentette (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Also add a link to Gesture... especially if there is a relevant one for gesture in children...Marentette (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

April 2019

To save me some time- how many of the above comments have now been addressed? I will be looking to put in a link in Primary school and need to get the wording right. ClemRutter (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

cognitive load is a theory

and as a theory, there are dissenters. There should be a section on objections to the theory. See https://www.ictineducation.org/home-page/i-dont-agree-with-cognitive-load-theory-clt-heres-why 199.127.133.181 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the other side should be brought up. I am yet to go through the full article myself but the link you put in doesn't seem to have any disagreements that aren't raised mentioned in Swellers work. Many of the issues raised are spoken for to my knowledge.DannyHatcher (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Edwin2233 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ZZakh23 (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

TODO: change the title of this page

The title of this page should be "Cognitive Load Theory"; otherwise, the current title is significantly misleading. If people would like to know about cognitive load or mental workload, they can refer to the workload page, which already exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.11.201.200 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: I see no reason why the title "Cognitive load" is misleading, and this proposal to move the page provides no reasons. I would not move the page without good reasons and evidence. As for the suggestion that "Cognitive load" is equivalent to Workload, that seems false based on a perusal of the content of the articles, which are significantly different, as are the corresponding Wikidata items: d:Q1107019 & d:Q628539. Biogeographist (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)