Comparative Analysis of the Cognitive Load Theory and the Schema Theory in Learning
Author
Course and Code
Date
Introduction
Learning theories provide frameworks that are important in understanding how to use information, to create knowledge, and to ensure that learning takes place. These frameworks can be used by learning designers to fit them the different learner needs and come up with more informed policies and decisions regarding the most relevant and befitting practices to a specific learning group (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). For instance, the cognitive load learning approach and enhancing knowledge development using the schema theory are some of the approaches that are used to inform the strategies applied in the process of teaching and learning. The cognitive learning theory (CLT) was developed by Sweller (1998) in the late 20th century and is based on the notion that an individual’s working memory is limited to some level of information at a time. The theory looks at the part of the brain that processes what one is currently engaged in with reference to other activities. The cognitive load is also defined by Chandler & Sweller (1991), as the amount of information processing needed by an individual to perform a given task. In enhancing knowledge and development through text materials and instructions, schema theory approaches to knowledge and the role of prior knowledge in comprehension are discussed with reference to how they enhance teaching and learning. In this report, the two areas discussed above will be analysed deeply in regard to how they influence and impact teaching and learning processes. As the education system continues to change due to a rapidly changing world, it is important to look at how these theories can help, alter, or positive impact the role of teaching and how to improve learning. It is also important to outline the integration between the CLT approach and the schema theory strategies as a way of trying to further improve teaching and learning. The report begins by looking at CLT approaches and how they impact earning from instructional materials, followed by a review of how to enhance knowledge development through text materials and instruction using the schema theory approaches. The paper will then demonstrate the interrelationships between them in terms of their theoretical approach and research findings, and lastly consider the implications for educational practice or theory and research. There is convergence in the way CLT and the schema theory focus their attention on knowledge, prior and current, to ensure that teaching emphasizes meeting of an objective from an individual learner’s point of view.
Cognitive Load and Learning from Instructional Materials
CLT bases its argument on a widely accepted principle of how humans process information as shown in image 1 below. CLT describes the entire process as being made up of three parts; the working memory, the long-term memory, and the sensory memory (Kirschner, 2002). From this model, other researchers have added on to the knowledge.
Image 1: the information processing principle in CLT (Source: Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968)
On a daily basis, learning includes one being bombarded with loads of sensory information. Plass and Kalyuga (2019) found that sensory memory has the capacity to filter out a majority of this information, yet maintain an impression for the most crucial items or pieces of information long enough to store them into the working memory. For instance, when playing in a team sport, the sensory memory discards information for the adjacent team and other “irrelevant” information such as nearby sounds, smells, or the surrounding to focus only on playing. Similarly in learning, Kirschner, Sweller, Kirschner, & Zambrano (2018) observed that information from the sensory memory pass into the working memory where further processing or disposal of the same occurs. The working memory holds chunks of information for a given period of time. This is the basis of the CLT in learning and defining how to ensure teaching occurs effectively.
When a learner’s brain processes information, the data is categorized and moved into the long term memory, where storage occurs in knowledge structured defined by Sweller and Paas (2017) as schemas. The schemas are responsible for organization of information in accordance to how one places importance or value. For example, there are schemas for different concepts including animals, dogs, mammals, and other things. Additionally, there are behavioural schemas for actions including socialization, instruction giving and receiving, and other activities such as participation in sports. The more gains practice in applying the schemas, the more they become effortless behaviour, in a process termed by Chandler & Sweller (1991) as automation. These factors are important for learners in terms of how they gain, process, and retain information.
John Sweller, the developer of CLT, related the principle to learning observing that the levels of information that the working memory of a learner is able to hold at a given time is limited. In this sense, Sweller (1998) explained that because of the limited capacity of the working memory, instructional methods in teaching and learning must avoid creating an overload, where additional activities that do not directly impact learning must be removed. CLT also describes the working memory as a function that can be extended in two means. The first is how the mind is able to process auditory and visual information separately. Visual items and auditory items are not in competition in the same manner that two similar items (visual or audio) compete, in a process called the modality effect (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). For instance, explanatory data will be less impactful to the working memory if it is narrated compared to when added to a complex diagram. From this information, it emerges that the teaching of prerequisite skills and pre-training before an introduction into a complex issue helps to establish different schemas that extend the learner’s working memory (De Jong, 2010). The implication of this concept to learning is that a learner can better understand and learn more complex information quicker because of the pre-learning activity.
The application of the CLT to learning is seen in a number of fronts relevant to teaching and the overall learning process. CLT assists in the designing of learning in a way that reduces the demand on the working memory of a learner to make the process more effective. Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas (2019) found CLT to be applicable in measuring expertise and adapting presentation of instructions accordingly for learners. CLT also helps with the reduction of the problem space, a gap that exists between the desired goal and the current situation in learning (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). For learners, a large problem space means that the working memory is overloaded. For example, where a complex problem is involved, the learner is expected to work backwards from the objective to the current state. Such an action is important because CLT comes in to help in holding information in the working memory. A focus on the objective also reduces the attention from learnt information, making it the learning process less effective (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). CLT demands that complex problems be broken down into smaller parts to reduce the problem space and lessen the learner’s cognitive load, to make learning more effective.
The main implication of the CLT approach in learning and teaching is the reduction of the split-attention effect. Whenever one faces multiple sources of information (especially visual data) including explanatory text, diagrams, and labels, a learner’s attention would be divided amongst these elements, thus adding to their cognitive load and making it even more difficult for them to generate new schemas. Upon interpretation of the visual information, the effect is significantly reduced (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). CLT calls for focusing on a singular part of a complex problem to reduce the split-attention effect and the cognitive load. The same applies to auditory information. Therefore, it is important to ensure that all extraneous noise sources are removed when teaching. Extra sources of visual or auditory information such as information in a diagram r people talking loudly in the background when teaching only add to the cognitive load and create the split-attention effect. CLT’s idea is to overcome the split-attention effect by replacing some auditory or visual information with each other to reduce the cognitive load on the working memory.
Enhancing Knowledge Development through Text Materials and Instruction
Richard Anderson played a vital role in the introduction of the schema theory to the education scene. Schemata provides a form of representation in regards to complex knowledge and that old information influences the acquisition of newer knowledge (McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005). Consequently, the learning process is therefore applicable to the learning process, where it serves as a crucial counterweight to bottom-up approaches to teaching and learning. Particularly, the schema theory and its approaches relate to reading and teaching where the emphasis is on use of bottom-up strategies from perceived letters entering the brain and applying top-down knowledge in the construction of a meaningful representation of context in text (Pressley, Tanenbaum, McDaniel, & Wood, 1990). The implication of the schema theory to instruction giving include the suggestion to have relevant information and knowledge activation before any sought of learning and reading. The theory demands that teaching begin by the provision of prerequisite knowledge (Mayer, 1996). The theory also emphasizes on the need to focus more on teaching the higher-order comprehension structures. Therefore, the schema approach in teaching and learning offers an empirical and theoretical basis for practices relating to instruction giving.
The schema theory is applied by linguists and cognitive psychologists in the understanding of the interaction amongst several core factors that affect the learning and teaching processes. In a simple definition, Lorch Jr & van den Broek (1997) offer that the schema theory is a perspective that all knowledge must be organized into small units of knowledge, schemata, to help in the storing of information. Schemas are generalized descriptions and conceptual systems that aid in the understanding of knowledge and how information is represented and used. Schemata represents knowledge on certain concepts including objects and how they interrelate with events, actions, sequence of actions, objects, and sequence of events (McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005). For example, a schema for a classroom may involve knowledge on the expectations, the environment, the sitting arrangement, and the size or feel. The classroom may also be thought of from a larger perspective of learning and education, that is the school and other activities in it. Depending on personal information and knowledge, the information available about the said classroom as a single occurring event or part of a whole system is part of an individual’s schema. Therefore, these two perspectives go together in the development of the schema and every new information gained or experience is incorporated into the schema. Similarly, Mayer (1996) found that learners create schemata for all things. Before they engage in the process of learning, learners already gained some experience and knowledge form other schemata, thus influencing their perceptions on reality. The prior knowledge not only affects how they process and interpret information but also affects comprehension and reading (Wade et al., 1993). As more information is added and knowledge increase, the schemata continue to change.
The impact of the schema theory in teaching and learning is that education is provided with an alternative perspective regarding the representation of some complex knowledge forms. It focuses attention on the role of the old knowledge and what such information does to the acquisition of new knowledge (McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005), thus further putting emphasis on the top-down role and reader-based factors in the teaching and learning process. It follows that individuals are able to learn more effectively when new information interlocks with their existing schemata. The role of prior knowledge emerges as an important factor in teaching and learning, especially for the schema theory because it shows how schema simplify the entire process. New knowledge is categorized and interpreted through a comparative process with newer experiences to the existing schema.
Comparative Analysis of the Cognitive Load Theory and the Schema Theory in Learning
One of the most important similarities between these two theories is how they understand and emphasize on the role of breaking down information and knowledge into small units. CLT calls for the reduction of the demand on the working memory of a learner to make the process more effective. For learners, a large problem space means that the working memory is overloaded. A focus on the objective also reduces the attention from learnt information, making it the learning process less effective. CLT demands that complex problems be broken down into smaller parts to reduce the problem space and lessen the learner’s cognitive load, to make learning more effective. The schema theory follows the same concept in imparting new information to learners. The approach presents that learners create schemata for all things.
The implication of the schema theory to instruction giving include the suggestion to have relevant information and knowledge activation before any sought of learning and reading. The same principle is used in the CLT approach where the concept demands that teaching begin by the provision of prerequisite knowledge. Like in CLT, the schema theory approach in teaching and learning finds that individuals are able to learn more effectively when new information interlocks with their existing schemata. The role of prior knowledge emerges as an important factor in teaching and learning, especially for the schema theory because it shows how schema simplify the entire process. New knowledge is categorized and interpreted through a comparative process with newer experiences to the existing schema. Before they engage in the process of learning, learners already gained some experience and knowledge form other schemata, thus influencing their perceptions on reality. The prior knowledge not only affects how they process and interpret information but also affects comprehension and reading. Specifically, the CLT approach emphasizes that learners can better understand and learn more complex information quicker where there is pre-learning activity.
Implications for Educational Practice or Theory and Research
A clear integration between these two approaches emerge. The CLT and the schema theory approaches converge in the perspective that learning and teaching are less effective where instructional materials directly and indirectly overwhelm the limited working memory resources of a learner. While this language is not specifically used in the schema theory approach, the latter focuses on repeated activities and events that create prior knowledge to reduce the cognitive load. While CLT focuses on the identification of instructional designs to effectively reduce the unnecessary cognitive burdens on a learner’s working memory, the schema theory emphasizes on breaking down knowledge into small units (schemas) with the intention of supporting old knowledge to help in retaining the new, thereby creating improved learning efficiency and instruction giving. The implication for educational practice is a need to focus teaching and learning on an individual learner, to understand their cognitive load or their schema patterns. The role of prior knowledge also comes to play in theory and a requirement for further research emerges in the realm of merging the cognitive load and schema retention for learners.
Conclusions
In summary, learning theories provide frameworks that are important in understanding how to use information, to create knowledge, and to ensure that learning takes place. The frameworks can be used by learning designers to fit them the different learner needs and come up with more informed policies and decisions regarding the most relevant and befitting practices to a specific learning group. The cognitive load learning approach and enhancing knowledge development through the schema theory are some of the approaches that are used to inform the strategies applied in the process of teaching and learning. In enhancing knowledge and development through text materials and instructions, schema theory approaches to knowledge and the role of prior knowledge in comprehension are discussed with reference to how they enhance teaching and learning. Overall, the discussion demonstrates the convergence between CLT and the schema theory and their focus on knowledge, prior and current, to ensure that teaching emphasizes meeting of an objective from an individual learner’s point of view
References
Atkinson, R.C. and Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). ‘Human memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes’. In Spence, K.W. and Spence, J.T. The psychology of learning and motivation, (Volume 2). New York: Academic Press. pp. 89–195.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
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.
De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional science, 38(2), 105-134.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano, J. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213-233.
Lorch Jr, R. F., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Understanding reading comprehension: Current and future contributions of cognitive science. Contemporary educational psychology, 22(2), 213-246.
Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational psychology review, 8(4), 357-371.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of educational research, 75(4), 531-566.
Plass, J. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Four ways of considering emotion in cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 339-359.
Pressley, M., Tanenbaum, R., McDaniel, M. A., & Wood, E. (1990). What happens when university students try to answer prequestions that accompany textbook material?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(1), 27-35.
Sweller, J., & Paas, F. (2017). Should self-regulated learning be integrated with cognitive load theory? A commentary. Learning and Instruction, 51, 85-89.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.
Wade, S. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., & Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 93-114.
