I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to see how CLT affects the classroom teacher in practice. Here are my personal thoughts:
1. Working memory is limited. Some people can hold only a few items in working memory, while others can hold more, but in general the number of items is always going to be fairly small. It's easy to overwhelm working memory, and when that happens then it becomes very difficult to learn anything. Take-away message for teachers: it's easy to overestimate how much a student can handle, and instructors must be constantly on the alert that you're not flooding working memory.
2. The idea of not overwhelming working memory leads very naturally into the concept of scaffolding. Again, the main take-away is to proceed slowly, always monitoring the student to see if they are keeping up with the flow of information.
3. Given that working memory is a limited resource, we should want students to use as much of it as possible on the actual content to be learned (that's intrinsic load), and as little of it as possible on anything else (that's extraneous load). Take-away message for teachers: eliminate distracting elements from the lesson so that students can focus on what's important.
4. One source of extraneous cognitive load is poorly designed course materials. Good visual design helps to reduce this extraneous load, and can assist the student in devoting working memory to the lesson. This doesn't mean that everything has to have crazy wild graphics, but rather that the materials are organized and reasonably presented. Take-away message: layout and design your materials well in order to lessen extraneous cognitive load.
Yea that's a good list. I like anything that gets more specific than "cognitive load is bad" -- there are lots of examples of cognitive load theory in action, and those are the types of things I think are helpful for teachers.
Dylan, it's not a case of "ok so there are three types of load: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous…” because there are only two! intrinsic and extraneous. We (and that means John and his co-researchers) dropped germane years ago. To quote him:
Because working memory resources that need to be devoted to learning are determined by intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, no instructional consequences of germane cognitive load have been identified and so germane cognitive load is no longer considered an independent source of load and the term is less commonly used."
From: The Development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication Crises and Incorporation of Other Theories Can Lead to Theory Expansion
Thanks for the clarification! I will say that when I encounter CLT I find that many people begin by defining all three types of load, so that has not made it to many of the practitioners sharing the theory. But just thinking about intrinsic and extraneous makes sense to me -- from my perspective saying "we want students thinking about the core things we want them to learn, and we don't want students distracted by elements of the problem or lesson environment that are unrelated to that learning."
I'm not sure if my reflection is related to CLT per se, but your comment about how students often lose sight of the forest for the trees resonated with me. When I'm working with my students, I often respond "Great, tell me more..." when asking them to explain their thinking - even if I know that their answer is wrong. I keep asking them to explain each step until they reach a dead end where it's clear that their answer will result in a contradiction with the constraints of the problem, or we check their answer and it's wrong. Then, we look back at the work together and I'll push a more this time and ask them to justify each step and figure out where they might have gone wrong. (Obviously a lot easier now that I'm tutoring one-to-one...)
In my mind's eye, this is similar to walking with a hiker up the mountain who is just focused on climbing one step at a time and isn't looking up at the trail markers or any other indication about where they are or where they should be going. Instead of correcting them when they miss the turn, I like to wait until they stop in their tracks, look up and go, "Wait - this isn't right..." If students are just hiking up the hill and following the person in front of them without doing any thinking on their own, they won't be able to actually navigate their way through another path on their own, even if the conditions are very similar.
All this to say - students definitely learn what they think about; and when they aren't thinking, they definitely aren't learning.
(Side note: The amount of work I'll put in to avoid the number 69 in any problem - I snorted very loudly at that footnote!!)
I think that role you describe is the role every teacher plays. Whenever I'm learning something new and unfamiliar, I struggle to pick out the forest for the trees. My learning is most efficient if I have a teacher or another resource that can help me focus on what's important. Part of the insight of cognitive load theory for me is that the challenge of losing the forest for the trees is universal in learning, and part of efficient learning is having some sort of guidance to help with that.
To me, CL is neither good nor bad without sufficient context. One can come up with all kinds of (valid) ways to increase or decrease it - but this isn't the main issue I feel. It's actually whether it should be - and that is easier said than done and even more so for younger students (and more so again if in a topic they are not interested in)
One thing re "students learn what they think about" that I'd potentially change or add (?) would be ~"...proportional to the extent and frequency that they think" -- however not quite as catchy!
Yea the substance of cognitive science often isn't as catchy as the slogans that get passed around. You make an important point about age, the way cognitive load plays out is very different for young students.
I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to see how CLT affects the classroom teacher in practice. Here are my personal thoughts:
1. Working memory is limited. Some people can hold only a few items in working memory, while others can hold more, but in general the number of items is always going to be fairly small. It's easy to overwhelm working memory, and when that happens then it becomes very difficult to learn anything. Take-away message for teachers: it's easy to overestimate how much a student can handle, and instructors must be constantly on the alert that you're not flooding working memory.
2. The idea of not overwhelming working memory leads very naturally into the concept of scaffolding. Again, the main take-away is to proceed slowly, always monitoring the student to see if they are keeping up with the flow of information.
3. Given that working memory is a limited resource, we should want students to use as much of it as possible on the actual content to be learned (that's intrinsic load), and as little of it as possible on anything else (that's extraneous load). Take-away message for teachers: eliminate distracting elements from the lesson so that students can focus on what's important.
4. One source of extraneous cognitive load is poorly designed course materials. Good visual design helps to reduce this extraneous load, and can assist the student in devoting working memory to the lesson. This doesn't mean that everything has to have crazy wild graphics, but rather that the materials are organized and reasonably presented. Take-away message: layout and design your materials well in order to lessen extraneous cognitive load.
Yea that's a good list. I like anything that gets more specific than "cognitive load is bad" -- there are lots of examples of cognitive load theory in action, and those are the types of things I think are helpful for teachers.
Dylan, it's not a case of "ok so there are three types of load: intrinsic, germane, and extraneous…” because there are only two! intrinsic and extraneous. We (and that means John and his co-researchers) dropped germane years ago. To quote him:
Because working memory resources that need to be devoted to learning are determined by intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load, no instructional consequences of germane cognitive load have been identified and so germane cognitive load is no longer considered an independent source of load and the term is less commonly used."
From: The Development of Cognitive Load Theory: Replication Crises and Incorporation of Other Theories Can Lead to Theory Expansion
Thanks for the clarification! I will say that when I encounter CLT I find that many people begin by defining all three types of load, so that has not made it to many of the practitioners sharing the theory. But just thinking about intrinsic and extraneous makes sense to me -- from my perspective saying "we want students thinking about the core things we want them to learn, and we don't want students distracted by elements of the problem or lesson environment that are unrelated to that learning."
I'm not sure if my reflection is related to CLT per se, but your comment about how students often lose sight of the forest for the trees resonated with me. When I'm working with my students, I often respond "Great, tell me more..." when asking them to explain their thinking - even if I know that their answer is wrong. I keep asking them to explain each step until they reach a dead end where it's clear that their answer will result in a contradiction with the constraints of the problem, or we check their answer and it's wrong. Then, we look back at the work together and I'll push a more this time and ask them to justify each step and figure out where they might have gone wrong. (Obviously a lot easier now that I'm tutoring one-to-one...)
In my mind's eye, this is similar to walking with a hiker up the mountain who is just focused on climbing one step at a time and isn't looking up at the trail markers or any other indication about where they are or where they should be going. Instead of correcting them when they miss the turn, I like to wait until they stop in their tracks, look up and go, "Wait - this isn't right..." If students are just hiking up the hill and following the person in front of them without doing any thinking on their own, they won't be able to actually navigate their way through another path on their own, even if the conditions are very similar.
All this to say - students definitely learn what they think about; and when they aren't thinking, they definitely aren't learning.
(Side note: The amount of work I'll put in to avoid the number 69 in any problem - I snorted very loudly at that footnote!!)
I think that role you describe is the role every teacher plays. Whenever I'm learning something new and unfamiliar, I struggle to pick out the forest for the trees. My learning is most efficient if I have a teacher or another resource that can help me focus on what's important. Part of the insight of cognitive load theory for me is that the challenge of losing the forest for the trees is universal in learning, and part of efficient learning is having some sort of guidance to help with that.
To me, CL is neither good nor bad without sufficient context. One can come up with all kinds of (valid) ways to increase or decrease it - but this isn't the main issue I feel. It's actually whether it should be - and that is easier said than done and even more so for younger students (and more so again if in a topic they are not interested in)
One thing re "students learn what they think about" that I'd potentially change or add (?) would be ~"...proportional to the extent and frequency that they think" -- however not quite as catchy!
Yea the substance of cognitive science often isn't as catchy as the slogans that get passed around. You make an important point about age, the way cognitive load plays out is very different for young students.