## Key ideas > [!abstract] Core concepts > > - **Three load types**: Intrinsic (content difficulty), extraneous (presentation problems), germane (schema building) (Sweller et al., 1998) > - **Working memory limitation**: Mental effort is constrained by 4-item working memory capacity (Cowan, 2001) > - **Strategic management**: Reduce extraneous load, optimise intrinsic load, increase beneficial germane load (Sweller, 2010) ## Definition **Cognitive load**: The amount of mental effort used in working memory during learning, encompassing three types that must be strategically managed for effective instruction (Sweller et al., 2019). ## Connected to [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Memory]] | [[Element Interactivity]] | [[Part-whole approach]] | [[Scaffolding]] --- ## Three types of cognitive load ![[CognitiveLoad.png|400]] Cognitive load comprises three distinct forms, each requiring different instructional responses. ### Intrinsic load Intrinsic load is the mental effort required by the [[element interactivity|inherent difficulty]] of material and the learner's [[Prior Knowledge]] (Sweller, 1994). This load varies with both content complexity and student expertise level (Sweller et al., 2019) and cannot be eliminated, only managed through instructional design. For novices, intrinsic load is higher because they lack the [[Chunking|chunked knowledge]] that [[Experts and Novices Think Differently|experts]] develop through experience (Chi et al., 1981). Teachers manage intrinsic load through several strategies. - The [[Part-whole approach]] breaks complex procedures into smaller, practised steps that students learn sequentially, reducing the total load in any single cognitive moment (Catrambone, 1998). - Pre-teaching delivers prerequisite content before the main lesson until that knowledge becomes automated, reducing the effort needed to understand new material (Mayer et al., 2002). - The snowball approach, used in procedural learning, has students learn a new step and then complete all previous steps together, gradually building fluency (Renkl et al., 2002). - [[Chunking]] groups related information to reduce working memory burden by organising separate elements into meaningful units (Miller, 1956). These strategies work by reducing either the total complexity students face or the number of elements they must hold in working memory simultaneously. ### Extraneous load Extraneous load is unnecessary mental effort imposed by poor information presentation (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). It represents cognitive resources consumed that do not contribute to learning. Poor curriculum design introduces irrelevant information. Chaotic or anxiety-inducing learning environments create additional cognitive demands. Unnecessary presentation complexity obscures essential content. Distracting images, jokes, or side content draw attention away from learning objectives (Fisher et al., 2014; Mayer et al., 2001; Chandler & Sweller, 1992). Reducing extraneous load is effective because it is directly under teacher control (Sweller et al., 1998). Teachers create clear environments that remove visual and auditory distractions competing for working memory (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). Integrated materials combine text with diagrams appropriately rather than separating them, reducing mental effort needed to connect information (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). Using [[Use Booklets|booklets and worksheets]] provides permanent rather than transient information, allowing students to refer back without extraneous cognitive effort (Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Simple presentation eliminates unnecessary decorative elements without pedagogical value (Mayer et al., 2001), and maintaining quiet during independent practice prevents auditory interference with cognitive work. Each of these reduces the amount of working memory devoted to processing irrelevant or distracting content. ### Germane load Germane load is beneficial mental effort required to process and integrate new information into existing knowledge structures (schema) (Sweller et al., 1998). This is the productive work of learning. Germane load facilitates deeper processing and understanding, builds connections between new and prior knowledge, and strengthens long-term memory formation (Craik & Tulving, 1975; Chi et al., 1994; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Once intrinsic and extraneous loads are managed, teachers can strategically increase germane load to deepen learning (Sweller, 2010). [[Retrieval Practice]] strengthens memory traces through testing and recall, preventing forgetting and building automaticity (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). The [[Interleaving Effect]] improves learning by mixing problem types, which increases the cognitive demand required to discriminate between different approaches (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Complex problem-solving provides challenging tasks requiring higher-level thinking, but should only be introduced after basics are automated to avoid excessive intrinsic load (Sweller et al., 2019). Connection-making explicitly links new concepts to existing knowledge, requiring integrative processing that strengthens schema development (Chi et al., 1994). These strategies increase cognitive effort in service of understanding rather than wasting effort on processing. ## Implementation framework The application of cognitive load theory varies by learning phase. During initial learning, teachers break content into small steps and remove all unnecessary distractions, keeping germane load minimal as students focus on building basic understanding. The practice phase gradually combines steps together whilst maintaining a clean environment and introduces retrieval practice to strengthen memory. The mastery phase presents full complexity and allows some challenge elements within tasks, whilst increasing interleaving and explicit connection-making to deepen understanding. Environmental factors affect cognitive load. Physical conditions matter: adequate sleep and hydration affect students' cognitive capacity and memory (Gais et al., 2006; Kempton et al., 2011), appropriate classroom temperature and humidity support sustained attention (Wargocki & Wyon, 2007), and suitable carbon dioxide and oxygen levels maintain cognitive performance (Satish et al., 2012). Minimal visual and auditory distractions prevent extraneous load from consuming working memory resources (Shield & Dockrell, 2008). The instructional environment also influences cognitive load. Clear, organised presentation of information reduces extraneous load (Chandler & Sweller, 1992), whilst predictable routines and expectations reduce the cognitive effort needed to understand task requirements. Pacing should match the group's expertise level, moving faster for those with more prior knowledge and slower for novices (Sweller, 1994). Strategic use of silence during cognitive work prevents auditory interference during learning and practice. ## Practical application and common mistakes When intrinsic load is high, teachers should manage content complexity. Pre-teaching ensures foundational knowledge is automated before addressing new material, reducing the working memory demand during main instruction (Mayer et al., 2002). Slower pacing allows more processing time for complex material with high element interactivity (Sweller, 1994). Frequent checks for understanding prevent students from progressing into more complex material whilst still struggling with basics. [[Worked Examples]] provide step-by-step demonstrations that reduce the problem-solving effort required whilst students are learning the underlying principles (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). When extraneous load is high, simplification becomes essential. Removing unnecessary elements and distracting content reduces the cognitive resources diverted from learning (Mayer et al., 2001). Integrating related text with visuals, rather than separating them, reduces the mental effort needed to connect information (Chandler & Sweller, 1992). Providing permanent reference materials like booklets allows students to refer back without searching for information, whereas transient slideshows increase cognitive load (Leahy & Sweller, 2011). Controlling the environment by managing noise, temperature, and visual distractions prevents competing demands on working memory (Shield & Dockrell, 2008), and clear instructions eliminate ambiguity that would force students to expend cognitive effort interpreting requirements. Germane load increases only after foundational skills are automated; premature increase produces confusion rather than deeper learning (Kalyuga et al., 2003). Strategic challenges using complex problems that require connecting different concepts increase productive cognitive effort (Chi et al., 1994). Mixed practice that interleaves different problem types forces students to discriminate between approaches and deepen understanding (Rohrer & Taylor, 2007). Reflection opportunities through explanation and connection-making tasks require students to engage in integrative processing (Chi et al., 1994). Progressive complexity gradually increases cognitive demands over time rather than introducing all difficulty at once (van Merriënboer et al., 2003). Teachers frequently mismanage cognitive load in several ways. Overloading novices by adding complexity before basics are secure constitutes an attempt to increase germane load whilst intrinsic load remains high, resulting in confusion and poor learning outcomes (Sweller et al., 2019). Ignoring prerequisites by teaching without ensuring foundational knowledge is automated forces students to learn and apply new concepts simultaneously, overwhelming working memory (Mayer et al., 2002). Using decorative distractions increases extraneous load whilst appearing to add motivation (Mayer et al., 2001). Rushed progression through high-complexity material without allowing adequate time for schema construction prevents deep learning because working memory cannot process material quickly enough to build meaningful connections (Sweller, 1994). Expert bias leads teachers to underestimate cognitive load for novices due to the [[Curse of Knowledge]], where what feels simple to experts because their knowledge is chunked and automatic can overwhelm learners who lack that automated knowledge (Hinds, 1999). ## Teacher cognitive load Teachers' cognitive processes are subject to the same principles that govern student learning (Willingham, 2009). Teaching involves simultaneous management of multiple cognitive demands: monitoring student understanding, managing classroom behaviour, delivering content, and adjusting instruction in real-time. Cognitive load during teaching can easily exceed working memory capacity. Novice teachers experience higher cognitive load than experienced teachers because they lack automated classroom routines and pedagogical schemas. Expert teachers have automated many classroom routines, freeing working memory for responsive teaching. They recognise patterns in student behaviour and understanding that novices miss. Expertise requires extended practice, typically around 10 years or 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. Expert teachers organise knowledge differently from novices, seeing connections between topics and anticipating student difficulties that novices overlook. High cognitive load impairs teaching quality. Interruptions and multitasking reduce teaching effectiveness. Emotional stress increases cognitive load. Adequate planning reduces cognitive load during teaching by pre-solving instructional problems and preparing materials in advance. Teachers should reduce cognitive load through thorough planning, develop routines and procedures to automate classroom management, minimise interruptions during instruction, and simplify when feeling overwhelmed. Developing teaching expertise requires deliberate practice: trying new techniques, getting feedback, and reflecting regularly on effectiveness. Teachers should focus improvement efforts on specific, manageable aspects of practice rather than attempting comprehensive change. Detailed lesson planning reduces cognitive load during teaching by anticipating likely student difficulties and preparing multiple explanations. Teachers should keep records of what works and what doesn't, as memory for teaching events fades. They should not rely on memory alone but write things down for future reference. ## References Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 127(4), 355-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355 Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. *Cognition and Instruction*, 8(4), 293-332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, 62(2), 233-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. *Cognitive Science*, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science*, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: General*, 104(3), 268-294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268 Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., & Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, attention allocation, and learning in young children: When too much of a good thing may be bad. *Psychological Science*, 25(7), 1362-1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614533801 Gais, S., Lucas, B., & Born, J. (2006). Sleep after learning aids memory recall. *Learning & Memory*, 13(3), 259-262. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.132106 Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 5(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Kempton, M. J., Ettinger, U., Foster, R., Williams, S. C. R., Calvert, G. A., Hampshire, A., Zelaya, F. O., O'Gorman, R. L., McMorris, T., Owen, A. M., & Smith, M. S. (2011). Dehydration affects brain structure and function in healthy adolescents. *Human Brain Mapping*, 32(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20999 Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. *Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 25(6), 943-951. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1787 Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 93(1), 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187 Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 8(3), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.3.147 Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works (A cognitive load perspective). *Instructional Science*, 32(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6 Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. *Psychological Science*, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. *Instructional Science*, 35(6), 481-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8 Satish, U., Mendell, M. J., Shekhar, K., Hotchi, T., Sullivan, D., Streufert, S., & Fisk, W. J. (2012). Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance. *Environmental Health Perspectives*, 120(12), 1671-1677. https://doi.org/10.289/ehp.1104789 Shield, B. M., & Dockrell, J. E. (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America*, 123(1), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2812596 Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. *Learning and Instruction*, 4(4), 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. *Educational Psychology Review*, 22(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. *Educational Psychology Review*, 10(3), 251-296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2 Wargocki, P., & Wyon, D. P. (2007). The effects of moderately raised classroom temperatures and classroom ventilation rate on the performance of schoolwork by children (RP-1257). *HVAC&R Research*, 13(2), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2007.10390951 Willingham, D. T. (2009). *Why don't students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom*. Jossey-Bass. ---