When my group discusses ideas of cognitive load theory, the image of a brain weightlifting comes to my mind. The theory of Cognitive Load exists in the realm of educational psychology. However, shouldn’t there be a way to measure work the brain does, much like the weights are a measurement of the increased strength we gain and the target muscle’s appositional growth? How is this done? Furthermore, are there different types of cognitive load? The image of a brain running is completely different from a brain lifting weights? There is a difference in the exercises, but also in the tools and the process happening in those exercises. I am going to take this analogical thinking to the extreme.

Cognitive Load (CL) is defined as “the limitations of working memory (WM) in the learning of new tasks together with its ability to cooperate with an unlimited long-term memory (LTM) for familiar tasks enable human being to deal effectively with complex problems and acquire highly complex knowledge and skills (Pass & Ayres, 2014). This definition is quite complex because the theory divides the memory into two parts a working and longterm. To continue my analogical way of thought, this is like saying the arm is like the brain, and the working memory is your bicep and your tricep is the longterm memory. This is over simplification of the theory and of anatomy of how the arm works. But this simplification is an example of how simple we treat the idea of cognitive load within our life long journey of learning.  Pass and Ayres state, “it has become apparent that cognitive load theory, research and practice may profit from a broader view on the role of memory in learning and education.” (p. 192) They continue to use four articles of research to reinforce the complexity of CL. Analogically, the arm has tons of small muscles in the joints, wrist, bones, and so on to move the arm in different ways. And the finer the movement or more skillful position of the hand, for example a surgeon or ballet dancer, the more muscles and support from other muscles. Am I missing something as the learning sciences try to identify components of learning, memory, cognition, and understanding the process between them all?

Pass and Ayres first article example is not explained in depth, but basically says read Cowan (2014), “Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning, and education”; as a foundational article summarizing the debate and mechanism of CL and WM. Pass and Ayres did not recap, but mentions this as if the reader has prior knowledge on the subject and to validate he has reviewed the body of foundational knowledge. Now, I need to read Cowan (2014) to make any analogical thoughts on the matter! So, I will skip this first article until I able to read Cowan 2014.

The next article example, written by Choi et al. (2014), look at the components of the surrounding’s affect on the WM and learning. Such factors as objectives in a curriculum, redundancy, split attention, learning tasks, learner preferences, prior knowledge, and age; are listed. These factors are all focuses in the learning sciences, and the basis of instructional design. Therefore, a teacher may be comparable to a personal trainer in my analogy. As I take this farther, teachers who specialize in a subject are like fitness trainers for specific sports. Fitness trainers train there clients in a specialized manner to improve performance in a sport. Does this mean a teacher needs to teach in certain ways to help improve the leaner’s learning of a specific subject? What happens when you use personal training techniques for weight lifting competitors to train a tennis player? I don’t think this would maximize performance. Sure you can use weight training, but with skilled and specific exercises to help improve the tennis players performance. More importantly, do teachers teach specifically to the students needs for a specific subject in our education system with regards to what we understand about the theory of Cognitive Load and Working Memory? Is a teacher training our brain to manage learning with how or what they are using to teach us? This is not about the learner managing their learning or self regulation, but the opposite. Furthermore, is instructional design the fitness plan for our learning and where in the instructional development do we assess how much CL a learner can manage?

The third example article is quite significant, written by Smith and Ayres (2014). The third article considers how persistent pain has a negative influence on the process of learning. Within the individual, pain effects our WM, but emotions and anxiety effect (Ericsson and Charness 1994) the WM and the interaction of WM and LTM. Do we build associations and remember the pain, the anxiety, and the emotional attachments to what is learned in those moments? And how do these memories of pain, emotions, and anxiety influence our perception of specific subjects? With an  analogical comparison, I will do some exercises and feel good doing them for an endorphine response. The next day I may feel sore, but a good kind of sore, and as time passes I feel stronger and the exercise becomes easier. This isn’t immediate, but a slow and deliberate training of the muscle and nervous system. The ‘load’ on our muscles, joints, heart, complexity of movement is done in a way to gradually train the body to a specific goal with a positive effect. To present a different scenario, if I put to much weight on, try to force a stretch, or push beyond my endurance, I can seriously injure myself. I may quite that exercise, sport or activity. Reasons I quite maybe to to heal and recover, but may never return based on the whole experience. I present this analogy to exemplify three different components of exercise ‘load’ to be manipulated; weight, endurance, and range of motion. Too much of one of these three components can cause injury and deter the fitness goal. Too little of one of these three components, deters or prevents significant fitness improvement. What components of CL deter or improve learning? Those familiar with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development may interject here. I am not asking about the students need for help. I am asking what components and at what intensity of load, is important for the student to be able to learn with a teacher’s help and even on their own. This leads to my question, what are the components in “Cognitive Load”, which have a direct and indirect affect in learning? A fitness trainer could tell their client, but can a teacher or a researcher of learning sciences tell a learner, simply?

The fourth article by Tricot and Sweller (2014), “argue for the primacy of domain-specific knowledge in human cognition (p.193) .” Domain-specific knowledge (DSK) is knowledge in a specific area, like being an expert in a topic or skill. There is the antithesis to DSK, which is domain-general knowledge (DGK), where you develop a ‘global knowledge’ from learning specific topics and integrating them with various topics. The issues people have with transference of knowledge to different or new situation is and example providing more to the argument for DSK, being a primary learning outcome.  I analogically argue DSK in comparison to my physical performance. Physically, I unwittingly trained my body to sit at computer! My domain-specific training is a sedentary lifestyle due to graduate studies. How often do you do your readings on a treadmill or write on a weight bench? Incidentally, this occurs with athletes and those who are more physical in general. Training for a fitness model is very different from training for a tennis player.

 

This difference occurs for other fitness genres leading to different fitness goals, such as cross-fit versus yoga. Most importantly, all of these examples have the three components of ‘load’; range of motion, weight, and endurance. The workout strategies are different, and trainers are different even if they received the same training. These differences of teaching style, teaching philosophy, teacher training, and personality, occurs with teachers who teach people in different subjects, topics, and skills. This all leads me to a question, since there is an argument towards DSK influencing our CL; how do we properly assess the CL in the general population? What factors cause one to shift from DGK to DSK, if there is a shift at all? Is this a factor in CL or cognition? Is transference of knowledge or a subject a measure of CL?

To summarize, I argue there is a need to give the brain a CL test, much like we give a fitness test to kids in grade school. I remember throughout my K-12 schooling receiving a fitness tests in physical education class. This fitness test included three factors or ‘loads’ on the body; range of motion or stretching, strength or pull-ups and push ups, and endurance or running a mile. Funny, my Physical Education teacher never recommended ways to improve my weaknesses upon my fitness tests, nor did any of them change the curriculum to help us students meet new fitness goals, but this is a different topic. Analogically speaking, do we do this type of assessment in education to measure the cognitive load a student can take on in a structured learning situation, much like a fitness test is given? We have assessments, but do those assessments measure CL of a learner the way a fitness test measures those three forms of ‘load’ on the body? Any study we do to measure CL needs to understand what influences the WM, and learning process the way a fitness test targets specific ‘loads’ the body can perform in. This allows for the individual learner to understand their weakness and strengths in their learning process, and then understand how to achieve the learner’s individual learning goals. Matching the individual learning goals to the learning objectives will be the next hurdle. Otherwise, when we study CL in people, especially in higher education, during different times of education and careers, we risk not truly understanding CL. Do we expand on the Cognitive Load Theory as a system of functioning factors in the consciousness and nervous system, which functions like our muscles, becoming more agile, stronger, weaker, resilient, and varying in endurance throughout our life? I think there is evidence for this exploration and this functional process should be explored.

And as a side note, I purposely posted the the fitness model and tennis player eating. Diet plays a role in physical fitness and training. The fuel we use to train influences the outcome of day-to-day training and end results. What factors are we missing in understanding what influences CL? Does what we eat influence our cognitive load, our sleep, and other habits? Do the tools we use to learn influence our CL? Do we need to look at CL as I am looking at a fitness test? Is CL something we can train like a muscle; strength, appositional growth, range of motion, and endurance? How do we flex the amount of CL one can take? Furthermore, how do we train our brain for the various types of CL, I wonder if exist? Training muscles differently result in different results in the physical form and abilities. There will always remain the genetic propensity.  If we understand how to train for different types of CL and identify the weaknesses, could we help learners and improve the way we educate? Maybe technology has the answer for us, can a test for the weaknesses in our CL or the development of a CL test, help design more personalized learning approaches for learners? For example with a fitness test, we can add more stretching or specific exercises, if there is limited range of motion. Comparatively, an adaptive learning platform measures various factors in a formative manner and adapting to the learner. Maybe this is where we need to look to understand cognitive load and personalized learning approaches to provide a scalable approach.

On a side note, this blog post has caused me to further investigate analogical thinking. We are often taught to think logically, but does this help us compare similarities in very contrasting systems? But first I am going to continue this analogical thought of Cognitive Learning with the next article, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, by Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno. Maybe they can help me identify factors for a ‘fitness test” for Cognitive Load?

Choi, H.H. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review.

Cowan, N. (2014). Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning and education. Educational Psychology Review.

Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the role of memory in learning and education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191-195.

Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review.