The Core of the Matter Issue #4
Some implications of cognitive load on learning…
Dylan Wiliam once tweeted, “I've come to the conclusion that Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory is the single most important thing for teachers to know.” Yet, in my work I have found that many educators have never even heard of it. So in this issue, I dig into Cognitive Load Theory and breakdown why it is hard to argue with Dylan Wiliam.
Cognitive scientists define learning as a change in long term memory. However, in order for new knowledge to connect with your prior knowledge and be organized in long term memory (also known as schema building), meaning making processes must occur in your working memory. The challenge is that unlike our long-term memory, our working memory has an extremely limited capacity and can become overloaded quickly. During knowledge acquisition, our working memories deploy resources to thinking about all kinds of things, also known as cognitive load, some of which are connected to what we are trying to learn and some that are not.
Cognitive load theory is concerned with how to best manage the limited capacity of working memory during the learning process. As the theory has evolved, three types of cognitive load have been identified:
Intrinsic cognitive load is a product of the material being learned. The more complex the material, the greater the intrinsic cognitive load. Intrinsic load is dependent on the background knowledge of each learner. For example, if an accomplished baker was presented with a new souffle recipe it probably wouldn’t contribute much intrinsic load due to the fact that the expert baker has deep schema in their long term memory to draw from. However, if I presented the same recipe to a person who has never baked anything before, and thus has little background knowledge to draw from, it would likely lead to a high amount of intrinsic load on working memory. Therefore, intrinsic cognitive load, sometimes called the base load, cannot be reduced as a result of instruction. It can only be lessened either by making the task less complex, or by the learner acquiring related schema in long term memory.
Extraneous cognitive load is considered extraneous because it interferes with schema acquisition and thus actually hinders learning. Extraneous load arises from elements in the learning environment or instructional materials that may not be directly related to the content being learned, but still require mental resources to process. For example, let’s suppose a student is working on how to solve multi-digit multiplication and division problems in math with the instructional goal being for the student to understand the role place value plays in these types of computations. If the student is not fluent with their basic facts and thus must devote a lot of their cognitive resources to computation, little would be left to notice anything about place value. Unlike intrinsic load, extraneous load can be reduced during instruction, which mainly occurs through teacher scaffolding. In the above example, the teacher may provide the student with a multiplication chart in order to reduce extraneous load, which would allow them to use more of their limited working memory to make meaning about place value.
The third type of cognitive load is called germane cognitive load. Germane cognitive load is necessary for learning as it signifies the cognitive resources required for schema acquisition and skill automation. Optimizing germane cognitive load involves promoting activities and instructional practices that encourage learners to make meaning of new ideas and knowledge, make connections between new and prior learning, and engage in associated thinking processes.
Source: Nobili, 2024
Classroom Connection
Cognitive Load Theory clearly has significant implications for instructional design and implementation. For instance, when presenting material to students, we want to make sure their attention is on the most salient information, therefore we should avoid over-cluttering slides or other visuals with distracting fonts or graphics. Additionally, we should not play music during times when we ask our students to read or write or think, because the act of listening recruits some of their cognitive bandwidth that would otherwise be available for learning. There are numerous other examples for which Cognitive Load Theory is a useful frame; however, for this post, I want to focus on teacher scaffolding and how Cognitive Load Theory is critical to informing this practice.
Scaffolding is one of the most ubiquitous practices in K-12 classrooms. However, like many other education terms, it suffers from definitional ambiguity. In other words, if you were to ask ten teachers to define what scaffolding is you would get eleven different answers. This lack of a shared understanding of scaffolding has led many educators to justify any support given to a learner as a type of scaffold. As a result, many practices employed under the guise of scaffolding actually serve to reduce the level of thinking required of a student, or flat out do the thinking for students, both of which are antithetical to learning. When I work with educators, I talk to them about the different types of cognitive load and then I define scaffolding as anything the teacher does to reduce the extraneous cognitive load of their students.
There are several pedagogical implications of this definition of scaffolding. First and foremost, the teacher has to be extremely clear on what the learning intention is for a given lesson or lesson segment. They need to have a clear answer to the question: what meaning-making do I want my students to engage in? This is especially critical because it is very difficult to categorize what is germane to learning and what is extraneous without a clear understanding of the knowledge we want our students to acquire. In fact, the same support could be classified as both a scaffold and as over-teaching, depending on the goal of instruction. For example, allowing a child who struggles with decoding grade level text to listen to a text is an appropriate scaffold if the instructional intent is about character analysis. In this scenario, it is likely that the cognitive resources the learner would have to devote to decoding the text would leave little left for thinking about the characters, but the oral recitation of the story frees up cognitive resources the child would otherwise have had to use to decode, allowing the student to use them to make meaning about the characters. Conversely, allowing the learner to listen to a story would not be an appropriate scaffold if the instructional goal was for the student to improve at decoding. In this case, the cognitive resources the child employs to decode the text are actually germane to the intended learning and therefore should not be reduced.
Once a teacher has clarity on the schema they want students to build, they can plan for the scaffolds they might use if their students should need them. Cognitive Load Theory is very useful to consider when deciding whether the proposed support is a true scaffold (i.e., it reduces extraneous load), or if it actually reduces germane load. If it reduces germane load, it would not be classified as scaffold at all and instead be labeled over-teaching.
Scaffolds come in two main forms and both can be useful in reducing extraneous load and maximizing germane load. Tools are a common form of scaffold a teacher might use. In fact, all of the scaffolding examples I have used so far in this post fall under this category, which includes things like multiplication charts, books on tape, graphic organizers, math manipulatives, and Google Translate. Effective scaffolds can also come in the form of a prompt or strategy. Examples of this type of scaffold include:
The teacher prompting students to organize their findings to a math problem about ratios in a table so that they will be better able to focus on the numerical patterns that emerge;
A teacher asking a student to consider the different ways in which a character’s actions could be interpreted in an attempt to focus thinking on how their prior experiences and mental models shape their perceptions;
Not stacking questions (i.e., asking them one at a time) so that students can focus on each one deeply and remain in the present.
Understanding and applying Cognitive Load Theory is essential for educators aiming to enhance student learning. By recognizing the intricacies of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive loads, teachers can make informed instructional decisions that optimize the cognitive resources of their students. Effective scaffolding, when rooted in this theory, ensures that supports are designed to reduce extraneous load while promoting meaningful engagement with content.
Related Reads
This paper by Sweller and colleagues takes you on a chronological journey that explores the origins of Cognitive Load Theory to what we know today.
This paper discusses the origins of as well as some of the recent findings related to cognitive load and instructional design.
This is a slide I made which summarizes the types of cognitive load and their instructional implications.
This paper examines scaffolding in relation to the Zone of Proximal Development.
This paper by Wood, Bruner, and Ross was published in 1976. It focuses on their work on understanding the patterns of interaction between a mother and her child during a problem solving task, and is the first to use the term scaffolding.
This chapter which is titled, Aspects of Teaching and learning, is by David Wood, who was one of the first researchers to connect the concept of scaffolding to preventing the overwhelming of a learner’s cognitive resources.
Good day Dr. Nobili,
Thank you for such an elegant response to the Cognitive Load Theory. My thinking has been pushed as an educator to consider the types of scaffolds I am using to maximize students' thinking during instruction and to not continue to minimize students' thinking during instruction. My recommendations will be different in the near future.
In my experience with developing performance tasks for ELA instruction, I have tried to scaffold intrinsic cognitive load by the order of the questions provided in the task. My hope in the past was to scaffold by presenting the knowledge and comprehension questions first and gradually add in analysis and synthesis type questions later using the Depth of Knowledge construct from Karen Hess. After reading your article, I was wondering if complexity could be scaffolded by the order the cognitive demand of the task for students, which could possibly support the germane cognitive load as an unintended by product.
Let me know your thoughts. I am curious about Cognitive Load Theory as a construct for supporting all teachers but in particular, I am most curious how this line of thinking could change instruction for student receiving special education instruction and student who are multilingual learners. To have a concept that could help educators and me not water down instruction and not create paralyzing frustration would be remarkable.
Excellent blog. 🙌🏿
Thank you for this clear explanation of Cognitive Load Theory. I'd like to add another dimension to consider: how trauma affects students' cognitive load capacity.
For students who have experienced trauma, their baseline working memory capacity may be significantly reduced as their brains allocate resources to monitoring for threats and managing emotional regulation. This creates what might be considered a "trauma tax" on cognitive resources before any learning even begins.
Van der Kolk's research on trauma shows how physiological responses to past trauma can persist, potentially consuming resources that would otherwise be available for learning. This suggests we should consider trauma-informed approaches when applying Cognitive Load Theory in practice.
When designing instruction, we might need additional scaffolding strategies for trauma-affected learners, as their threshold for cognitive overload may be lower. Creating predictable learning environments with appropriate emotional support might free up cognitive resources that would otherwise be consumed by hypervigilance.
Has anyone explored specific interventions that address this intersection of trauma and cognitive load in classroom settings?