Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816819.003

2 - Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

John Sweller

Edited by

Richard Mayer

Show author details

John Sweller: Affiliation:
University of New South Wales
Richard Mayer: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

Humans have evolved with a working memory that has no logical central executive available when required to organise novel information. Consequently, failing instruction, we must randomly propose organisational combinations and test them for effectiveness. This procedure is only possible with a very limited number of elements and as a consequence, working memory is severely limited when dealing with novel information. In contrast, familiar, organised information previously stored in long-term memory can act as a central executive and eliminate the need for working memory limitations. These structures are central to cognitive load theory. They suggest that instruction should act as substitute for the missing central executive when dealing with novel information and that factor, in turn, determines multimedia instructional principles.

Introduction

Good instructional design is driven by our knowledge of human cognitive structures and the manner in which those structures are organised into a cognitive architecture. Without knowledge of relevant aspects of human cognitive architecture such as the characteristics of and intricate relations between working memory and long-term memory, the effectiveness of instructional design is likely to be random. Cognitive load theory has been one of the theories used to integrate our knowledge of human cognitive structures and instructional design principles. This chapter is concerned with the elements of that theory and its general implications for multimedia learning, specifically, words presented in spoken or written form along with pictures or diagrams.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 19 - 30

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, R., & Shiffrin, R. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In Spence, K. & Spence, J. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332CrossRef Google Scholar

Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81CrossRef Google Scholar

Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362CrossRef Google Scholar

Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1946.)Google Scholar

Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Egan, D. E., & Schwartz, B. J. (1979). Chunking in recall of symbolic drawings. Memory and Cognition, 7, 149–158CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Jeffries, R., Turner, A., Polson, P., & Atwood, M. (1981). Processes involved in designing software. In Anderson, J. R. (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 255–283). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–33CrossRef Google Scholar

Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294CrossRef Google Scholar

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D., & Simon, H. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–348CrossRef Google Scholar

Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63CrossRef Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4CrossRef Google Scholar

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8CrossRef Google Scholar

Paas, F., & Mërrienboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133CrossRef Google Scholar

Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory and Cognition, 17, 398–422CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Peterson, L., & Peterson, M. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66CrossRef Google Scholar

Shiffrin, R., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190CrossRef Google Scholar

Simon, H., & Gilmartin, K. (1973). A simulation of memory for chess positions. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 29–46CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne, Australia: ACER PressGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In Ross, B. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89CrossRef Google Scholar

Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296CrossRef Google Scholar

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287Google Scholar

Book contents

2 - Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive