Post

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.

So ALL theories of learning want students to get to a place of working independently, it's just that they all have different ways of getting there. Sweller's claim is that explicit instruction in the beginning is very effective for getting people to a place of independence in the end.

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)

The thing that really hit me when I first read Sweller's work as a classroom teacher was the sheer practicality of it. It gave me clear practical tools which were extremely effective.

Then there is this claim: "Isn’t didactic, direct instruction often infused with confusions that impact students’ ability to understand new material, especially students with special learning needs that appear largely marginalised in CLT?"

Students with special learning needs are not marginalised in CLT. In fact quite the opposite. As the father of an SEN child, I can confidently say that explicit instruction is highly effective for struggling learners and...

... many teachers who actually work with SEN pupils find CLT a hugely helpful framework to help them understand and help their students.

The next point on motivation I am l less sure about and fully prepared to be wrong but the claim that CLT assumes learners are passive recipients and ignores motivation is not accurate either I think.

It's fair to say that CLT doesn't take into account all contextual affective factors BUT Sweller highlights the importance of minimizing unnecessary cognitive load to keep learners engaged and motivated.

For example, overly complex materials can demotivate novices, which is why CLT advocates for scaffolding. So I would say that this critique conflates “minimizing cognitive load” with ignoring motivation, when in fact the two are closely linked in CLT.

This paper critiques CLT for being outdated and overly theoretical but does not propose a clear alternative instructional framework. So while advocating for a “dynamic, neuroscience-based” cognitive philosophy (fair enough),

I don't see any concrete experimental evidence or instructional strategies to replace CLT, which is itself a very coherent theory with practical recommendations.

(Cool your jets Foucault-fans - Before you get out the torches and pitchforks, I did a PhD in education philosophy and I know how important it is, I'm just saying that there are other fields where more practical guidance is offered.)

So I read this point about learning as being "emergent and dynamic" (which undermines static theories like CLT) and I think 'yeah that sounds great but what doegs this mean for actual teachers beyond a nice sound bite?'

I mean sure, this perspective is philosophically interesting, but it lacks specificity about how teachers should apply it. CLT, on the other hand, provides clear, actionable strategies (e.g., worked examples, guided instruction, dual coding and even collaborative learning).