Post

A new paper challenging Cognitive Load Theory has just been published. I've been hoping to read a good criticism of CLT for some time but unfortunately this is not it. THREAD ⬇️ 🧵

The paper basically argues that Cognitive Load theory (CLT) is an outdated framework, rooted in 1980s cognitive psychology, and needs to be replaced by a richer, more holistic view of the brain and learning. Fair enough, let's see what they have to say...

Although I don't think the argument that just because something is old, it is 'outdated'. Indeed, the authors offer Darwin's theory of evolution as analogous to challenges to existing orthodoxies.

Anyway, the authors ultimately advocate for a "new" approach to understanding learning, grounded in modern neuroscience and philosophy (ok again, this sounds interesting)

The main claims are that: 1. Learning is emergent, self-organizing, and not strictly linear. 2. The brain actively predicts and processes information, rather than reacting passively. 3. Emotional salience and attention play a key role in memory formation and learning.

So I think the 3rd point is sort of fair and worth exploring but the first two are not ones contradicted by Sweller, or at least not that I recognise.

The authors ultimately advocate for a "new" approach to understanding learning, grounded in modern neuroscience and philosophy (ok...this sounds interesting) The main claims are that: 1. Learning is emergent, self-organizing, and not strictly linear.

2. The brain actively predicts and processes information, rather than reacting passively. 3. Emotional salience and attention play a key role in memory formation and learning.

I think the two most strongest criticisms of CLT in the paper are these two claims, however they are not new: 1. The theory’s reliance on Geary and biologically primary vs. secondary knowledge.

2. CLT does not adequately account for the emotional and motivational aspects of learning, which are essential for engagement and memory. I've read these criticisms before and I think they are worth exploring in more detail.

The problems with this paper: Well firstly, the paper suggests that CLT oversimplifies working memory, treating it as a passive bottleneck rather than acknowledging its "dynamic" nature. But...

But Sweller explicitly discusses working memory as an active processor that interacts with long-term memory and other cognitive processes, especially when dealing with secondary knowledge.

Sweller’s framework is built on the principle that working memory limitations are context-dependent. For novel information, working memory is indeed constrained in capacity and duration, but..

...when dealing with familiar information or schemas retrieved from long-term memory, these limitations are mitigated. This nuance is central to CLT, yet this paper doesn't seem to be aware of this.

Additionally, the paper seems to misunderstand the role of schemas in Sweller’s model. Schemas allow working memory to process complex information as single elements (chunking), effectively bypassing its limitations. .

This integration between long-term memory and working memory is at the heart of CLT's instructional design implications, particularly in tasks involving biologically secondary knowledge. Ignoring this aspect misrepresents CLT's nuanced understanding of cognitive architecture

Next is a big misunderstanding of CLT: the idea that CLT dismisses inquiry-based methods. The truth is that CLT advocates for minimally guided instruction and student independence but only after learners have gained sufficient foundational knowledge through explicit instruction.

He even offers an effect called the 'expertise reversal effect', which explicitly states that discovery learning is effective for experts but not novices.

The paradox, as @paulkirschner.bsky.social and I have written, is that independent learning is a bad way to become an independent learner. We wouldn't expect anyone to discovery learn their way to driving a car as it's just not effective.

Another claim is that CLT lacks practical tools for teachers and over-relies on theoretical constructs. Ok so this claim is wild to be honest. Firstly, CLT is deeply rooted in empirical research, including randomized controlled experiments demonstrating...

...the effectiveness of clear strategies like worked examples, goal-free problems, and the split-attention effect! And CLT is also a branch of cognitive psychology that unlike many others uses ecologically valid experiments (real classrooms with real teachers as opposed to labs)