Editing Cognitive load (section)

==Categories==
Cognitive load theory provides a general framework and has broad implications for [[instructional design]], by allowing instructional designers to control the conditions of learning within an environment or, more generally, within most instructional materials. Specifically, it provides empirically-based guidelines that help instructional designers decrease extraneous cognitive load during learning and thus refocus the learner's attention toward germane materials, thereby increasing germane (schema related) cognitive load. This theory differentiates between three types of cognitive load: intrinsic cognitive load, germane load, and extraneous cognitive load.<ref name="Sweller et al., 1998" />

===Intrinsic===
''Intrinsic cognitive load'' is the inherent level of difficulty associated with a specific instructional topic. The term was first used in the early 1990s by Chandler and Sweller.<ref name="Chandler & Sweller, 1991">{{cite journal |last1=Chandler |first1=Paul |last2=Sweller |first2=John |title=Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction |journal=Cognition and Instruction |date=December 1991 |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=293–332 |doi=10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 |s2cid=35905547 |url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=edupapers }}</ref> According to them, all instructions have an inherent difficulty associated with them (e.g., the calculation of 2 + 2, versus solving a [[differential equation]]). This inherent difficulty may not be altered by an instructor. However, many schemas may be broken into individual "subschemas" and taught in isolation, to be later brought back together and described as a combined whole.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kirschner |first1=Paul A. |last2=Sweller |first2=John |last3=Clark |first3=Richard E. |s2cid=17067829 |title=Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching |journal=Educational Psychologist |date=June 2006 |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=75–86 |doi=10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 |hdl=1874/16899 |url=https://research.ou.nl/ws/files/1015152/Why%20minimal%20guidance%20during%20instruction%20does%20not%20work.pdf }}</ref>

=== Germane load ===
''Germane load'' refers to the working memory resources that the learner dedicates to managing the intrinsic cognitive load associated with the essential information for learning{{Citation needed|date=May 2025}}. Unlike intrinsic load, which is directly related to the complexity of the material, germane load does not stem from the presented information but from the learner's characteristics. It does not represent an independent source of working memory load; rather, it is influenced by the relationship between intrinsic and extraneous load. If the intrinsic load is high and the extraneous load is low, the germane load will be high, as the learner can devote more resources to processing the essential material. However, if the extraneous load increases, the germane load decreases, and learning is affected because the learner must use working memory resources to deal with external elements instead of the essential content. This assumes a constant level of motivation, where all available working memory resources are focused on managing both intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load.

===Extraneous===
''Extraneous cognitive load'' is generated by the manner in which information is presented to learners and is under the control of instructional designers.<ref name="Chandler & Sweller, 1991" /> This load can be attributed to the design of the instructional materials. Because there is a single limited cognitive resource using resources to process the extraneous load, the number of resources available to process the intrinsic load and germane load (i.e., learning) is reduced. Thus, especially when intrinsic and/or germane load is high (i.e., when a problem is difficult), materials should be designed so as to reduce the extraneous load.<ref name="Ginns, 2006">{{cite journal |last1=Ginns |first1=Paul |title=Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects |journal=Learning and Instruction |date=December 2006 |volume=16 |issue=6 |pages=511–525 |doi=10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001 }}</ref>

An example of extraneous cognitive load occurs when there are two possible ways to describe a square to a student.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Clark |first1=Ruth C. |last2=Nguyen |first2=Frank |last3=Sweller |first3=John |title=Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load |date=2005 |publisher=Wiley |isbn=978-0-7879-7728-3 }}{{page needed|date=July 2020}}</ref> A square is a figure and should be described using a figural medium. Certainly an instructor can describe a square in a verbal medium, but it takes just a second and far less effort to see what the instructor is talking about when a learner is shown a square, rather than having one described verbally. In this instance, the efficiency of the visual medium is preferred. This is because it does not unduly load the learner with unnecessary information. This unnecessary cognitive load is described as extraneous.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

Chandler and Sweller introduced the concept of extraneous cognitive load. This article was written to report the results of six experiments that they conducted to investigate this working memory load. Many of these experiments involved materials demonstrating the [[split attention effect]]. They found that the format of instructional materials either promoted or limited learning. They proposed that differences in performance were due to higher levels of the cognitive load imposed by the format of instruction. "Extraneous cognitive load" is a term for this unnecessary (artificially induced) cognitive load.{{citation needed|date=July 2020}}

Extraneous cognitive load may have different components, such as the clarity of texts or interactive demands of educational software.<ref name="Skulmowski & Rey, 2020">{{cite journal |last1=Skulmowski |first1=Alexander |last2=Rey |first2=Günter Daniel |title=Subjective cognitive load surveys lead to divergent results for interactive learning media |journal=Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies |date=2020 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=149–157 |doi=10.1002/hbe2.184 |doi-access=free }}</ref>