Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is an internationally well known and widespread theory, which has been empirically confirmed in numerous studies. Kirschner, the guest editor of this issue, has been successful in obtaining papers of internationally acknowledged representatives of CLT, which give an excellent overview of the current state of the field. Moreover, the papers also show several ways of how learning can be optimised by means of instruction. As Kirschner states in the introduction, CLT is based on cognitive theories of human architecture, and one major assumption is that a human’s working memory has only a limited capacity. When learning, humans allocate most of their cognitive resources to this activity, and in many cases it is the instructional format which causes an overload. Consequently, the basic idea is to reduce such external load in order to make available more capacity for actual learning so that better learning and transfer performance is achieved. As described in this special issue, CL can arise from three sources. The first one is called “intrinsic cognitive load” (ICL) and is connected with the nature of the material to be learned. High ICL occurs in case of high element interactivity and when learners do not yet have sufficient command over appropriate schemata. The second source is called “extraneous cognitive load” (ECL) and has its roots in poorly designed instructional materials. Such ECL does not contribute to learning—instead it reduces working memory capacity for learning. The third source is referred to as “germane cognitive load” (GCL); it occurs when free working memory capacity is used for deeper construction and automation of schemata. In general, the main difference between contributions is the degree to which they are based on CLT; some encompass additional theoretical approaches
[1]
Richard E. Snow,et al.
Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories and Models.
,
1988
.
[2]
Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.
Instructional-design Theories and Models : A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume II
,
1999
.
[3]
H. Tabbers,et al.
Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing.
,
2004,
The British journal of educational psychology.
[4]
Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.
Instructional Design Theories and Models : An Overview of Their Current Status
,
1983
.
[5]
F. Paas,et al.
Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem-Solving Skills: A Cognitive-Load Approach
,
1994
.
[6]
F. Paas,et al.
Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design
,
1998
.
[7]
Fred Paas,et al.
High versus low contextual interference in simulation-based training of troubleshooting skills: effects on transfer performance and invested mental effort
,
1998
.
[8]
P. Chandler,et al.
Why Some Material Is Difficult to Learn
,
1994
.
[9]
J. Sweller,et al.
Understanding Instructions
,
2004
.
[10]
Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer,et al.
Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component Instructional Design Model for Technical Training
,
1997
.