Cognitive load

In the late 1980s, John Sweller developed cognitive load theory out of a study of problem solving, in order "to provide guidelines intended to assist in the presentation of information in a manner that encourages learner activities that optimize intellectual performance".{{cite journal |last1=Sweller |first1=John |last2=van Merrienboer |first2=Jeroen J. G. |last3=Paas |first3=Fred G. W. C. |s2cid=127506 |title=Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design |journal=Educational Psychology Review |date=1998 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=251–296 |doi=10.1023/A:1022193728205 |url=https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/288323612/Sweller1998cognitive.pdf }} Sweller's theory employs aspects of information processing theory to emphasize the inherent limitations of concurrent working memory load on learning during instruction.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}} It makes use of the schema as primary unit of analysis for the design of instructional materials.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

The history of cognitive load theory can be traced to the beginning of cognitive science in the 1950s and the work of G.A. Miller. In his classic paper,{{cite journal |last1=Miller |first1=George A. |title=The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information |journal=Psychological Review |date=1956 |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=81–97 |doi=10.1037/h0043158 |pmid=13310704 |citeseerx=10.1.1.308.8071 |s2cid=15654531 }} Miller was perhaps the first to suggest our working memory capacity has inherent limits. His experimental results suggested that humans are generally able to hold only seven plus or minus two units of information in short-term memory.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

In 1973 Simon and Chase were the first to use the term "chunk" to describe how people might organize information in short-term memory.{{cite journal |last1=Chase |first1=William G. |last2=Simon |first2=Herbert A. |title=Perception in chess |journal=Cognitive Psychology |date=January 1973 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=55–81 |doi=10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 }} This chunking of memory components has also been described as schema construction.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

In the late 1980s John Sweller developed cognitive load theory (CLT) while studying problem solving. Studying learners as they solved problems, he and his associates found that learners often use a problem solving strategy called means-ends analysis. He suggests problem solving by means-ends analysis requires a relatively large amount of cognitive processing capacity, which may not be devoted to schema construction. Sweller suggested that instructional designers should prevent this unnecessary cognitive load by designing instructional materials which do not involve problem solving. Examples of alternative instructional materials include what are known as worked-examples and goal-free problems.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

In the 1990s, cognitive load theory was applied in several contexts. The empirical results from these studies led to the demonstration of several learning effects: the completion-problem effect;{{cite journal |last1=Paas |first1=Fred G. |title=Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=1992 |volume=84 |issue=4 |pages=429–434 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 }} modality effect;{{cite journal |last1=Moreno |first1=Roxana |author1-link=Roxana Moreno|last2=Mayer |first2=Richard E. |title=Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=1999 |volume=91 |issue=2 |pages=358–368 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358 |citeseerx=10.1.1.458.4719 }}{{cite journal |last1=Mousavi |first1=Seyed Yaghoub |last2=Low |first2=Renae |last3=Sweller |first3=John |title=Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=1995 |volume=87 |issue=2 |pages=319–334 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319 |citeseerx=10.1.1.471.2089 }} split-attention effect;{{cite journal |last1=Chandler |first1=Paul |last2=Sweller |first2=John |title=The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction |journal=British Journal of Educational Psychology |date=June 1992 |volume=62 |issue=2 |pages=233–246 |doi=10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x |s2cid=40723362 }} worked-example effect;{{cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=Graham |last2=Sweller |first2=John |title=Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=1987 |volume=79 |issue=4 |pages=347–362 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347 }}{{cite journal |last1=Sweller |first1=John |last2=Cooper |first2=Graham A. |title=The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra |journal=Cognition and Instruction |date=14 December 2009 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=59–89 |doi=10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 }} and expertise reversal effect.{{cite journal |last1=Kalyuga |first1=Slava |last2=Ayres |first2=Paul |last3=Chandler |first3=Paul |last4=Sweller |first4=John |s2cid=10519654 |title=The Expertise Reversal Effect |journal=Educational Psychologist |date=March 2003 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=23–31 |doi=10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=edupapers }}

Cognitive load theory provides a general framework and has broad implications for instructional design, by allowing instructional designers to control the conditions of learning within an environment or, more generally, within most instructional materials. Specifically, it provides empirically-based guidelines that help instructional designers decrease extraneous cognitive load during learning and thus refocus the learner's attention toward germane materials, thereby increasing germane (schema related) cognitive load. This theory differentiates between three types of cognitive load: intrinsic cognitive load, and extraneous cognitive load.

Intrinsic cognitive load is the inherent level of difficulty associated with a specific instructional topic. The term was first used in the early 1990s by Chandler and Sweller.{{cite journal |last1=Chandler |first1=Paul |last2=Sweller |first2=John |title=Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction |journal=Cognition and Instruction |date=December 1991 |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=293–332 |doi=10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 |s2cid=35905547 |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=edupapers }} According to them, all instructions have an inherent difficulty associated with them (e.g., the calculation of 2 + 2, versus solving a differential equation). This inherent difficulty may not be altered by an instructor. However, many schemas may be broken into individual "subschemas" and taught in isolation, to be later brought back together and described as a combined whole.{{cite journal |last1=Kirschner |first1=Paul A. |last2=Sweller |first2=John |last3=Clark |first3=Richard E. |s2cid=17067829 |title=Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching |journal=Educational Psychologist |date=June 2006 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=75–86 |doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 |hdl=1874/16899 |url=https://research.ou.nl/ws/files/1015152/Why%20minimal%20guidance%20during%20instruction%20does%20not%20work.pdf }}

Germane load refers to the working memory resources that the learner dedicates to managing the intrinsic cognitive load associated with the essential information for learning. Unlike intrinsic load, which is directly related to the complexity of the material, germane load does not stem from the presented information but from the learner's characteristics. It does not represent an independent source of working memory load; rather, it is influenced by the relationship between intrinsic and extraneous load. If the intrinsic load is high and the extraneous load is low, the germane load will be high, as the learner can devote more resources to processing the essential material. However, if the extraneous load increases, the germane load decreases, and learning is affected because the learner must use working memory resources to deal with external elements instead of the essential content. This assumes a constant level of motivation, where all available working memory resources are focused on managing both intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.

Extraneous cognitive load is generated by the manner in which information is presented to learners and is under the control of instructional designers. This load can be attributed to the design of the instructional materials. Because there is a single limited cognitive resource using resources to process the extraneous load, the number of resources available to process the intrinsic load and germane load (i.e., learning) is reduced. Thus, especially when intrinsic and/or germane load is high (i.e., when a problem is difficult), materials should be designed so as to reduce the extraneous load.{{cite journal |last1=Ginns |first1=Paul |title=Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects |journal=Learning and Instruction |date=December 2006 |volume=16 |issue=6 |pages=511–525 |doi=10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001 }}

An example of extraneous cognitive load occurs when there are two possible ways to describe a square to a student.{{cite book |last1=Clark |first1=Ruth C. |last2=Nguyen |first2=Frank |last3=Sweller |first3=John |title=Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load |date=2005 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-0-7879-7728-3 }}{{page needed|date=July 2020}} A square is a figure and should be described using a figural medium. Certainly an instructor can describe a square in a verbal medium, but it takes just a second and far less effort to see what the instructor is talking about when a learner is shown a square, rather than having one described verbally. In this instance, the efficiency of the visual medium is preferred. This is because it does not unduly load the learner with unnecessary information. This unnecessary cognitive load is described as extraneous.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

Chandler and Sweller introduced the concept of extraneous cognitive load. This article was written to report the results of six experiments that they conducted to investigate this working memory load. Many of these experiments involved materials demonstrating the split attention effect. They found that the format of instructional materials either promoted or limited learning. They proposed that differences in performance were due to higher levels of the cognitive load imposed by the format of instruction. "Extraneous cognitive load" is a term for this unnecessary (artificially induced) cognitive load.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

Extraneous cognitive load may have different components, such as the clarity of texts or interactive demands of educational software.{{cite journal |last1=Skulmowski |first1=Alexander |last2=Rey |first2=Günter Daniel |title=Subjective cognitive load surveys lead to divergent results for interactive learning media |journal=Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies |date=2020 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=149–157 |doi=10.1002/hbe2.184 |doi-access=free }}

As of 1993 Paas and Van Merriënboer had developed a construct known as relative condition efficiency, which helps researchers measure perceived mental effort, an index of cognitive load. This construct provides a relatively simple means of comparing instructional conditions, taking into account both mental effort ratings and performance scores. Relative condition efficiency is calculated by subtracting standardized mental effort from standardized performance and dividing by the square root of two.

Paas and Van Merriënboer used relative condition efficiency to compare three instructional conditions (worked examples, completion problems, and discovery practice). They found learners who studied worked examples were the most efficient, followed by those who used the problem completion strategy. Since this early study many other researchers have used this and other constructs to measure cognitive load as it relates to learning and instruction.{{cite journal |last1=Paas |first1=Fred |last2=Tuovinen |first2=Juhani E. |last3=Tabbers |first3=Huib |last4=Van Gerven |first4=Pascal W. M. |s2cid=16587887 |title=Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory |journal=Educational Psychologist |date=March 2003 |volume=38 |issue=1 |pages=63–71 |doi=10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8 |citeseerx=10.1.1.670.1047 }}

The ergonomic approach seeks a quantitative neurophysiological expression of cognitive load which can be measured using common instruments, for example using the heart rate-blood pressure product (RPP) as a measure of both cognitive and physical occupational workload.{{cite journal |last1=Fredericks |first1=Tycho K. |last2=Choi |first2=Sang D. |last3=Hart |first3=Jason |last4=Butt |first4=Steven E. |last5=Mital |first5=Anil |title=An investigation of myocardial aerobic capacity as a measure of both physical and cognitive workloads |journal=International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics |date=December 2005 |volume=35 |issue=12 |pages=1097–1107 |doi=10.1016/j.ergon.2005.06.002 }} They believe that it may be possible to use RPP measures to set limits on workloads and for establishing work allowance.

There is active research interest in using physiological responses to indirectly estimate cognitive load, particularly by monitoring pupil diameter, eye gaze, respiratory rate, heart rate, or other factors.{{cite journal |last1=Heard |first1=Jamison |last2=Harriet |first2=Caroline E. |last3=Adams |first3=Julie A. |title=A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load |journal=IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems |date=2018 |volume=48 |issue=5 |pages=434–451 |doi=10.1109/THMS.2017.2782483 |doi-access=free }} While some studies have found correlations between physiological factors and cognitive load, the findings have not held outside controlled laboratory environments. Task-invoked pupillary response is one such physiological response of cognitive load on working memory, with studies finding that pupil dilation occurs with high cognitive load.

Some researchers have compared different measures of cognitive load. For example, Deleeuw and Mayer (2008) compared three commonly used measures of cognitive load and found that they responded in different ways to extraneous, intrinsic, and germane load.{{cite journal |last1=DeLeeuw |first1=Krista E. |last2=Mayer |first2=Richard E. |title=A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load |journal=Journal of Educational Psychology |date=2008 |volume=100 |issue=1 |pages=223–234 |doi=10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223 |s2cid=4984926 |url=http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3808/8da333aa85e0bb5c72d5eff3404b4b74edcf.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190222114604/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3808/8da333aa85e0bb5c72d5eff3404b4b74edcf.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2019-02-22 }} A 2020 study showed that there may be various demand components that together form extraneous cognitive load, but that may need to be measured using different questionnaires.

{{See also|Audience effect|Drive theory}}

A heavy cognitive load typically creates error or some kind of interference in the task at hand. A heavy cognitive load can also increase stereotyping.{{cite journal |last1=Biernat |first1=Monica |last2=Kobrynowicz |first2=Diane |last3=Weber |first3=Dara L. |title=Stereotypes and Shifting Standards: Some Paradoxical Effects of Cognitive Load |journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology |date=October 2003 |volume=33 |issue=10 |pages=2060–2079 |doi=10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01875.x |doi-access=free }} This is because a heavy cognitive load pushes excess information into subconscious processing, which involves the use of schemas, the patterns of thought and behavior that help us to organize information into categories and identify the relationships between them.{{Cite web |title=Cognitive Load Theory |url=https://www.cs.virginia.edu/luther/2910/F2021/clt.html |access-date=2023-04-20 |website=www.cs.virginia.edu}} Stereotypical associations may be automatically activated by the use of pattern recognition and schemas, producing an implicit stereotype effect.{{Cite journal |last=Hinton |first=Perry |date=2017-09-01 |title=Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in "biased" person perception |journal=Palgrave Communications |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=1–9 |doi=10.1057/palcomms.2017.86 |s2cid=54036730 |issn=2055-1045|doi-access=free }} Stereotyping is an extension of the Fundamental Attribution Error which also increases in frequency with heavier cognitive load.Gilbert, D. T. (1989). [https://books.google.com/books?id=HT6ddclz6EAC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189 Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process]. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 189–211). New York, Guilford Press. The notions of cognitive load and arousal contribute to the "Overload Hypothesis" explanation of social facilitation: in the presence of an audience, subjects tend to perform worse in subjectively complex tasks (whereas they tend to excel in subjectively easy tasks).

The internet has transformed how individuals process, store, and retrieve information, serving both as a cognitive aid and a potential burden on working memory. While digital tools can reduce cognitive strain by offloading memory demands onto external systems,{{Cite journal |last=Skulmowski |first=Alexander |last2=Xu |first2=Kate Man |date=March 2022 |title=Understanding Cognitive Load in Digital and Online Learning: a New Perspective on Extraneous Cognitive Load |url=https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7 |journal=Educational Psychology Review |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=171–196 |doi=10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7 |issn=1040-726X|doi-access=free }} they also introduce challenges such as information overload, decision fatigue, and attention fragmentation. These multifaceted effects necessitate a nuanced understanding of the internet’s impact on cognitive load.

One prominent phenomenon illustrating this impact is the Google Effect, also known as digital amnesia. This term describes the tendency to forget information readily available online, as individuals are less inclined to remember details they can easily access through search engines.{{Cite journal |last=Sparrow |first=Betsy |last2=Liu |first2=Jenny |last3=Wegner |first3=Daniel M. |date=2011-08-05 |title=Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1207745 |journal=Science |volume=333 |issue=6043 |pages=776–778 |doi=10.1126/science.1207745}} This reliance on external digital storage aligns with transactive memory theory, wherein people distribute knowledge within a group, focusing on who knows what rather than retaining all information individually. The internet extends this system, allowing vast data storage externally and emphasizing retrieval over internal recall. While this can free up working memory for complex problem-solving, it may also diminish long-term retention and comprehension. Studies have shown that when individuals expect information to be accessible online, they are less likely to deeply encode it, prioritizing access over understanding.

Beyond memory offloading, digital tools enhance cognitive efficiency by simplifying complex tasks. Online learning platforms, for instance, offer interactive elements, real-time feedback, and adaptive technologies that structure information accessibly, aligning with the principle of reducing extraneous cognitive load—elements that consume mental resources without directly contributing to learning. Well-designed digital environments can enhance knowledge acquisition by minimizing unnecessary processing demands, allowing learners to focus on essential concepts. Features like auto-complete functions, digital calculators, and grammar-checking tools further streamline tasks, reducing the mental effort required for routine operations. These advantages demonstrate how, when effectively leveraged, the internet can optimize information processing and retrieval, thereby enhancing cognitive efficiency.

However, the internet also presents significant cognitive challenges. One major issue is information overload, where the vast amount of available content overwhelms cognitive capacity, leading to decision fatigue and reduced learning efficiency.{{Cite journal |last=Firth |first=Joseph |last2=Torous |first2=John |last3=Stubbs |first3=Brendon |last4=Firth |first4=Josh A. |last5=Steiner |first5=Genevieve Z. |last6=Smith |first6=Lee |last7=Alvarez‐Jimenez |first7=Mario |last8=Gleeson |first8=John |last9=Vancampfort |first9=Davy |last10=Armitage |first10=Christopher J. |last11=Sarris |first11=Jerome |date=June 2019 |title=The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing our cognition |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20617 |journal=World Psychiatry |language=en |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=119–129 |doi=10.1002/wps.20617 |issn=1723-8617 |pmc=6502424 |pmid=31059635}} The necessity of filtering through extensive information to assess credibility and relevance adds an extraneous cognitive burden, potentially diminishing focus on core learning objectives. Research indicates that excessive information can impair decision-making by increasing cognitive effort, resulting in less effective knowledge retention. Additionally, the prevalence of hyperlinked texts, advertisements, and continuous updates contributes to fragmented attention, making sustained, deep learning more difficult.

Another concern is the impact of media multitasking on cognitive function. Many individuals frequently switch between multiple online streams—checking emails, browsing social media, and engaging with various digital content sources simultaneously. While this behavior may seem productive, studies suggest that heavy media multitasking is associated with reduced working memory efficiency, diminished attentional control, and increased distractibility. The rapid alternation between tasks prevents sustained focus, leading to shallow information processing rather than deep comprehension. Neuroimaging research has shown that frequent multitaskers exhibit decreased activation in brain regions associated with sustained attention and impulse control, indicating that digital environments can fragment cognitive resources.

Furthermore, the internet may alter how individuals value and interact with knowledge. In traditional learning environments, effortful cognitive processing contributes to deeper retention and understanding. However, the instant accessibility of online information can create an illusion of knowledge, where individuals overestimate their understanding simply because they can quickly look up answers.{{Citation |last=Carr |first=Nicholas |title=Is Google Making Us Stupid? |date=2017-12-31 |work=The Best Technology Writing 2009 |pages=84–97 |url=https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300156508-009 |access-date=2025-03-05 |publisher=Yale University Press}} This reliance on digital search engines can lead to a false sense of expertise, as users mistake access to information for actual comprehension. This shift in cognitive processing raises questions about how the internet may reshape intellectual engagement, particularly in academic and professional settings where deep learning and critical thinking are essential.

While cognitive offloading and digital tools offer clear advantages, the long-term consequences of internet reliance remain an active area of research. The challenge lies in balancing the use of digital aids to enhance cognitive efficiency with ensuring that such reliance does not compromise memory retention, critical thinking, and attentional control. As digital environments continue to evolve, researchers emphasize the need for strategies that optimize cognitive load management, such as designing educational interfaces that promote deep learning while minimizing distractions. Further investigation is needed to determine best practices for integrating digital tools into learning contexts without exacerbating the cognitive drawbacks associated with information overload and media multitasking.

As of 1984 it was established for example, that there were individual differences in processing capacities between novices and experts. Experts have more knowledge or experience with regard to a specific task which reduces the cognitive load associated with the task. Novices do not have this experience or knowledge and thus have heavier cognitive load.{{cite journal |last1=Murphy |first1=Gregory L. |last2=Wright |first2=Jack C. |title=Changes in conceptual structure with expertise: Differences between real-world experts and novices |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition |date=1984 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=144–155 |doi=10.1037/0278-7393.10.1.144 }}

The danger of heavy cognitive load is seen in the elderly population. Aging can cause declines in the efficiency of working memory which can contribute to higher cognitive load.{{cite journal |last1=Wingfield |first1=Arthur |last2=Stine |first2=Elizabeth A.L. |last3=Lahar |first3=Cindy J. |last4=Aberdeen |first4=John S. |title=Does the capacity of working memory change with age? |journal=Experimental Aging Research |date=27 September 2007 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=103–107 |doi=10.1080/03610738808259731 |pmid=3234452 }} Heavy cognitive load can disturb balance in elderly people. The relationship between heavy cognitive load and control of center of mass are heavily correlated in the elderly population. As cognitive load increases, the sway in center of mass in elderly individuals increases.{{cite journal |last1=Andersson |first1=Gerhard |last2=Hagman |first2=Jenni |last3=Talianzadeh |first3=Roya |last4=Svedberg |first4=Alf |last5=Larsen |first5=Hans Christian |s2cid=22614522 |title=Effect of cognitive load on postural control |journal=Brain Research Bulletin |date=May 2002 |volume=58 |issue=1 |pages=135–139 |doi=10.1016/s0361-9230(02)00770-0 |pmid=12121823 }} A 2007 study examined the relationship between body sway and cognitive function and their relationship during multitasking and found disturbances in balance led to a decrease in performance on the cognitive task.{{cite journal |last1=Faulkner |first1=Kimberly A. |last2=Redfern |first2=Mark S. |last3=Cauley |first3=Jane A. |last4=Landsittel |first4=Douglas P. |last5=Studenski |first5=Stephanie A. |last6=Rosano |first6=Caterina |last7=Simonsick |first7=Eleanor M. |last8=Harris |first8=Tamara B. |last9=Shorr |first9=Ronald I. |last10=Ayonayon |first10=Hilsa N. |last11=Newman |first11=Anne B. |last12=Health, Aging, and Body Composition |first12=Study. |title=Multitasking: Association Between Poorer Performance and a History of Recurrent Falls |journal=Journal of the American Geriatrics Society |date=April 2007 |volume=55 |issue=4 |pages=570–576 |doi=10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01147.x |pmid=17397436 |s2cid=32223760 }} Conversely, an increasing demand for balance can increase cognitive load.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

As of 2014, an increasing cognitive load for students using a laptop in school has become a concern. With the use of Facebook and other social forms of communication, adding multiple tasks jeopardizes students performance in the classroom. When many cognitive resources are available, the probability of switching from one task to another is high and does not lead to optimal switching behavior.{{cite journal |last1=Calderwood |first1=Charles |last2=Ackerman |first2=Phillip L. |last3=Conklin |first3=Erin Marie |title=What else do college students 'do' while studying? An investigation of multitasking |journal=Computers & Education |date=June 2014 |volume=75 |pages=19–29 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004 }} In a study from 2013, both students who were heavy Facebook users and students who sat nearby those who were heavy Facebook users performed poorly and resulted in lower GPA.{{cite journal |last1=Sana |first1=Faria |last2=Weston |first2=Tina |last3=Cepeda |first3=Nicholas J. |title=Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers |journal=Computers & Education |date=March 2013 |volume=62 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003 |doi-access=free }}

In 2004, British psychologists, Alan Baddeley and Graham Hitch proposed that the components of working memory are in place at 6 years of age.{{cite journal |last1=Gathercole |first1=Susan E. |last2=Pickering |first2=Susan J. |last3=Ambridge |first3=Benjamin |last4=Wearing |first4=Hannah |title=The Structure of Working Memory From 4 to 15 Years of Age |journal=Developmental Psychology |date=2004 |volume=40 |issue=2 |pages=177–190 |doi=10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177 |pmid=14979759 |citeseerx=10.1.1.529.2727 }} They found a clear difference between adult and child knowledge. These differences were due to developmental increases in processing efficiency. Children lack general knowledge, and this is what creates increased cognitive load in children. Children in impoverished families often experience even higher cognitive load in learning environments than those in middle-class families. These children do not hear, talk, or learn about schooling concepts because their parents often do not have formal education.{{Citation needed|date=November 2019}} When it comes to learning, their lack of experience with numbers, words, and concepts increases their cognitive load.

As children grow older they develop superior basic processes and capacities.{{cite book |last1=Siegler |first1=Robert S. |last2=Alibali |first2=Martha Wagner |title=Children's Thinking |date=2005 |publisher=Pearson Education/Prentice Hall |isbn=978-0-13-111384-8 }}{{page needed|date=July 2020}} They also develop metacognition, which helps them to understand their own cognitive activities. Lastly, they gain greater content knowledge through their experiences. These elements help reduce cognitive load in children as they develop.{{citation needed|date=December 2022}}

Gesturing is a technique children use to reduce cognitive load while speaking.{{cite journal |last1=Ping |first1=Raedy |last2=Goldin-Meadow |first2=Susan |title=Gesturing Saves Cognitive Resources When Talking About Nonpresent Objects |journal=Cognitive Science |date=May 2010 |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=602–619 |doi=10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01102.x |pmid=21564226 |pmc=3733275 }} By gesturing, they can free up working memory for other tasks. Pointing allows a child to use the object they are pointing at as the best representation of it, which means they do not have to hold this representation in their working memory, thereby reducing their cognitive load.{{cite journal |last1=Ballard |first1=Dana H. |last2=Hayhoe |first2=Mary M. |author-link2=Mary Hayhoe |last3=Pook |first3=Polly K. |last4=Rao |first4=Rajesh P. N. |date=1 December 1997 |title=Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=723–742 |citeseerx=10.1.1.49.3813 |doi=10.1017/s0140525x97001611 |pmid=10097009 |s2cid=1961389}} Additionally, gesturing about an object that is absent reduces the difficulty of having to picture it in their mind.

As of 2013 it has been theorized that an impoverished environment can contribute to cognitive load.{{cite journal |last1=Mani |first1=A. |last2=Mullainathan |first2=S. |last3=Shafir |first3=E. |last4=Zhao |first4=J. |s2cid=1684186 |title=Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function |journal=Science |date=29 August 2013 |volume=341 |issue=6149 |pages=976–980 |doi=10.1126/science.1238041 |pmid=23990553 |bibcode=2013Sci...341..976M |citeseerx=10.1.1.398.6303 }} Regardless of the task at hand, or the processes used in solving the task, people who experience poverty also experience higher cognitive load. A number of factors contribute to the cognitive load in people with lower socioeconomic status that are not present in middle and upper-class people.{{cite journal |last1=Hackman |first1=Daniel A. |last2=Farah |first2=Martha J. |title=Socioeconomic status and the developing brain |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |date=February 2009 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=65–73 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.003 |pmid=19135405 |pmc=3575682 }}

Bodily activity can both be advantageous and detrimental to learning depending on how this activity is implemented.{{cite journal |last1=Skulmowski |first1=Alexander |last2=Rey |first2=Günter Daniel |title=Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration |journal=Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications |date=7 March 2018 |volume=3 |issue=1 |page=6 |doi=10.1186/s41235-018-0092-9 |pmid=29541685 |pmc=5840215 |doi-access=free }} Cognitive load theorists have asked for updates that makes CLT more compatible with insights from embodied cognition research.{{cite journal |last1=Paas |first1=Fred |last2=Sweller |first2=John |title=An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks |journal=Educational Psychology Review |date=6 September 2011 |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=27–45 |doi=10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2 |doi-access=free |hdl=1765/31101 |hdl-access=free }} As a result, Embodied Cognitive Load Theory has been suggested as a means to predict the usefulness of interactive features in learning environments.{{cite journal |last1=Skulmowski |first1=Alexander |last2=Pradel |first2=Simon |last3=Kühnert |first3=Tom |last4=Brunnett |first4=Guido |last5=Rey |first5=Günter Daniel |title=Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task |journal=Computers & Education |date=January 2016 |volume=92-93 |pages=64–75 |doi=10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.011 |s2cid=10493691 }} In this framework, the benefits of an interactive feature (such as easier cognitive processing) need to exceed its cognitive costs (such as motor coordination) in order for an embodied mode of interaction to increase learning outcomes.

With increase in secondary tasks inside cockpit, cognitive load estimation became an important problem for both automotive drivers and pilots. The research problem is investigated in various names like drowsiness detection, distraction detection and so on. For automotive drivers, researchers explored various physiological parameters{{cite journal |last1=Healey |first1=J.A. |last2=Picard |first2=R.W. |s2cid=1409560 |title=Detecting stress during real-world driving tasks using physiological sensors |journal=IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems |date=June 2005 |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=156–166 |doi=10.1109/TITS.2005.848368 |citeseerx=10.1.1.73.4200 }} like heart rate, facial expression,{{cite conference |first1=Tevfik Metin |last1=Sezgin |first2=Ian |last2=Davies |first3=Peter |last3=Robinson |year=2009 |title=Multimodal inference for driver-vehicle interaction |conference=Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on Multimodal interfaces (ICMI-MLMI '09) |publisher=Association for Computing Machinery |location=New York, NY, USA |pages=193–198 |doi=10.1145/1647314.1647348 |citeseerx=10.1.1.219.4733 }} ocular parameters{{cite journal |last1=Prabhakar |first1=Gowdham |last2=Mukhopadhyay |first2=Abhishek |last3=Murthy |first3=Lrd |last4=Modiksha |first4=Madan |last5=Sachin |first5=Deshmukh |last6=Biswas |first6=Pradipta |title=Cognitive load estimation using ocular parameters in automotive |journal=Transportation Engineering |date=1 December 2020 |volume=2 |pages=100008 |doi=10.1016/j.treng.2020.100008 |doi-access=free }} and so on. In aviation there are numerous simulation studies on analysing pilots' distraction and attention using various physiological parameters.{{cite book |last1=Kramer |first1=Arthur F. |chapter=Physiological metrics of mental workload: A review of recent progress |doi=10.1201/9781003069447-14 |editor1-last=Damos |editor1-first=D. |title=Multiple Task Performance |date=2020 |pages=279–328 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-1-003-06944-7 |s2cid=241713101 }} For military fast jet pilots, researchers explored air to ground dive attacks and recorded cardiac, EEG{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=GF |last2=Fullenkamp |first2=P |last3=Davis |first3=I |title=Evoked potential, cardiac, blink, and respiration measures of pilot workload in air-to-ground missions |journal=Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine |date=February 1994 |volume=65 |issue=2 |pages=100–5 |pmid=8161318 }} and ocular parameters.{{cite journal |last1=Babu |first1=Mohan Dilli |last2=JeevithaShree |first2=D. V. |last3=Prabhakar |first3=Gowdham |last4=Saluja |first4=Kamal Preet Singh |last5=Pashilkar |first5=Abhay |last6=Biswas |first6=Pradipta |title=Estimating pilots' cognitive load from ocular parameters through simulation and in-flight studies |journal=Journal of Eye Movement Research |date=30 July 2019 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pmid=33828735| doi=10.16910/jemr.12.3.3 |pmc=7880144 |doi-access=free }}

• {{annotated link|Educational psychology}}
• Energy (psychological)
• {{annotated link|Human factors and ergonomics}}
• {{annotated link|Occupational stress}}
• {{annotated link|Task-invoked pupillary response}}
• {{annotated link|Task loading}} (in scuba diving)
• {{annotated link|Information overload}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite journal |last1=Barrett |first1=H. Clark |last2=Frederick |first2=David A. |last3=Haselton |first3=Martie G. |last4=Kurzban |first4=Robert |title=Can manipulations of cognitive load be used to test evolutionary hypotheses? |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=2006 |volume=91 |issue=3 |pages=513–518 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.513 |pmid=16938033 |citeseerx=10.1.1.583.7931 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Cooper |first1=Graham |title=Cognitive load theory as an aid for instructional design |journal=Australasian Journal of Educational Technology |date=1 December 1990 |volume=6 |issue=2 |doi=10.14742/ajet.2322 |doi-access=free }}
• {{cite web |last1=Cooper |first1=Graham |year=1998 |url=http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/staff/sweller/clt/index.html |title=Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070830131437/http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/staff/sweller/clt/index.html |archive-date=30 August 2007 }}
• {{cite book |editor1=Plass, J.L. |editor2=Moreno, R. |editor3=Brünken, R. |year=2010|title=Cognitive Load Theory|location=New York|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-67758-5}}
• {{cite web |url=http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/news/conferences.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070409152039/http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/news/conferences.html |archive-date=9 April 2007 |title=UNSW Cognitive Load Theory Conference- Sydney Australia 24-26 March 2007 |date=31 October 2005 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Khawaja |first1=M. Asif |last2=Chen |first2=Fang |last3=Marcus |first3=Nadine |s2cid=2374883 |title=Measuring Cognitive Load Using Linguistic Features: Implications for Usability Evaluation and Adaptive Interaction Design |journal=International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction |date=April 2014 |volume=30 |issue=5 |pages=343–368 |doi=10.1080/10447318.2013.860579 }}
• {{cite journal |last1=Sweller |first1=John |title=Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design |journal=Learning and Instruction |date=January 1994 |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=295–312 |doi=10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 |s2cid=145058758 }}
• {{cite book |last=Sweller|first= J. |year=1999 |title=Instructional design in technical areas |location=Camberwell, Australia |publisher=Australian Council for Educational Research |isbn=978-0-86431-312-6}}

For those wishing to learn more about cognitive load theory, please consider reading these journals and special issues of those journals:

• Educational Psychologist, vol. 43 (4) {{issn|0046-1520}}
• Applied Cognitive Psychology vol. 20(3) (2006)
• Applied Cognitive Psychology vol. 21(6) (2007)
• ETR&D vol. 53 (2005)
• Instructional Science vol. 32(1) (2004)
• Educational Psychologist vol. 38(1) (2003)
• Learning and Instruction vol. 12 (2002)
• Computers in Human Behavior vol. 25 (2) (2009)

For ergonomics standards see:

• ISO 10075-1:1991 Ergonomic Principles Related to Mental Workload – Part 1: General Terms and Definitions
• ISO 10075-2:1996 Ergonomic Principles Related To Mental Workload – Part 2: Design Principles
• ISO 10075-3:2004 Ergonomic Principles Related To Mental Workload – Part 3: Principles And Requirements Concerning Methods For Measuring And Assessing Mental Workload
• ISO 9241 Ergonomics of Human System Interaction

{{Standards-based Education Reform}}

{{Education}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cognitive Load}}

Category:Cognition

Category:Cognitive psychology

Category:Educational psychology

Category:Educational technology

Category:Learning

Category:Pedagogy

Category:Psychological methodology