{"id":1009,"date":"2010-08-07T08:36:09","date_gmt":"2010-08-07T14:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=1009"},"modified":"2014-09-12T12:02:03","modified_gmt":"2014-09-12T18:02:03","slug":"thoughts-on-ed-theories-cognitive-load","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2010\/08\/07\/thoughts-on-ed-theories-cognitive-load\/","title":{"rendered":"Thoughts on Ed Theories: Cognitive Load"},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

Forgive me, I come from Science. “Theory” means something different in science from what it means in education. It seems that in education we can label any notion we have about how things work as a theory – and then give it a name.<\/p>\n

There are PILES of learning theories out there – many of which look a WHOLE lot like a bunch of other learning theories with slight variations. But that’s a different rant.<\/p>\n

Today’s comments are about Cognitive Load Theory<\/a>, and it’s not really a rant at all.For those that aren’t familiar, this theory states that there is a limited number of things humans can learn or remember at one time. That’s where the famous 7 \u00b1 2 came from.<\/p>\n

I think that Cognitive Load Theory makes lots of sense (in a lot of ways). It’s not a load as Gary Goodwill<\/a> points out:<\/p>\n

Yes, it is true that the original idea was developed by seeing how many items people could memorize.<\/p>\n

We need to examine our concepts carefully and critically, and move away from research into nonsense as the basis of our instructional designs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I really don’t think this is nonsense.<\/p>\n

What I don’t buy is that it is as simple as people want it to be. Stephen Downes<\/a> seems to be circling the issue – he says:<\/p>\n

I think cognitive load theory misrepresents how we acquire and store information. It supposes that information is atomic and symbolic, like a string of numbers. But our perceptions actually carry multiple meanings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m one of those people who doesn’t buy the notion that “cognitive science” is a science at all for the most part. Once you get beyond the simple operant conditioning kind of learning, it is no longer science. It’s far too complex and has too many variables. But it’s still worth looking at, and we can still do useful things with what we learn. Cognitive Load Theory is one of those things worth looking at.<\/p>\n

Jane Bozarth<\/a> has it closer to the mark. She’s used the basic idea from the theory to talk about how this applies (or should apply) to instructional design.<\/p>\n

Anyone who has tried to teach a class that was really heavy on content or known to be hard has seen the arch-typical reaction of a learner when they have reached their ‘load limit’: they fall asleep. I’m not talking about the people who always<\/em> fall asleep in your class. I’m also not talking about those times (everyone has them) when you are just being boring. I’m talking about those times when you are working on something difficult – when your good students start to nod off – you should realize you’ve passed the limit.<\/p>\n

The fact is, there IS a limit to how much new material people can handle at one time. And, like Stephen implies – there ARE things we can do to enrich the environment in ways to help people assimilate new concepts and ideas. And even though I think that most of what gets done for research in education and the learning or cognitive ‘sciences’ isn’t any kind of science at all, we should be thinking about these things and we should consider how ideas such as this can help us design and deliver better education.<\/p>\n