Cognitive Load Theory

Introduction to Cognitive Load Theory

Overview

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) examines how working memory is organized into three categories: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Each type of cognitive load plays a critical role in effective learning. By minimizing extraneous load, simplifying intrinsic load, and maximizing germane load instructional designers can create more effective teaching practices.

CLT was developed by John Sweller in the 1980s, but many of the concepts of CLT were created from Miller’s (1956) study on the short-term memory limits, Atkinson and Shiffrin’s (1968) model of cognitive processing, and various theorists such as Barlett (1926) & Piaget (1954) on schema development. Sweller introduced five learning effects from the results of his study, the completion-problem effect, modality effect, split-attention effect, worked-example effect, and expertise reversal effect. These effects have been built upon by Paas and Van Merrienboer (1994) who wanted to measure their impact and by Mayer (2001) who developed 12 multimedia principles that target the various load types for more effective multimedia learning.

Importance

CLT has become widely recognized as an influential framework in educational research, guiding instructional practices, and fostering continuous improvement in designing effective and engaging learning experiences. CLT helps designers and educators look closely at their learning objectives, learners, and content. Managing the types of load designers present to students requires designers to keep information manageable and more closely aligned with their learning objectives. This theory works best with novice learners who often need material deconstructed in ways that provide them with the proper scaffolding for learning. Lastly, designers who understand the content can find creative ways to organize the information cohesively so that meaning can be made of the material for appropriate schema construction.

Origins of Cognitive Load Theory

Historical Context

The cognitive psychology revolution led to many studies around learning and its processes. The cognitive psychology revolution was a direct response to behaviorism which some psychologists posited was too rigid with observable learning. Cognitive psychology sought to try to determine what was going on with the brain, how it works, and how we learn (American Psychological Association, 2025.). Entire fields of psychology are dedicated to cognitive processes. Cognitive Load Theory is rooted in the cognitivist learning theories. Many cognitive theorists laid the foundation necessary for CLT to develop.

Theorists

George Miller (1956) was the first theorist who contributed to the CLT by identifying the phenomena of cognitive processing limits. Miller noticed that most learners can process seven bits of information plus or minus two. Miller’s research laid the groundwork for understanding the finite nature of short-term (working) memory. Much of CLT is about understanding the total cognitive load or the total capacity of working memory and maximizing its efficiency. Richard Atkinson and Richard Shiffrin (1968) built on the ideas of Miller by providing an entire model of cognitive processing called the Atkinson-Shiffrin model. This model has been widely used in cognitive psychology and provided a process for how material is learned (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure Description: The image is a flowchart of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model illustrating the process of memory formation and retention. It begins on the left with a box labeled “Input (stimuli)” connected by an arrow to “Sensory memory.” From “Sensory memory,” an arrow labeled “Attention” points to “Short-term memory.” Below “Sensory memory,” an arrow directs downward to “Forgetting.” From “Short-term memory,” there are multiple arrows: one pointing to “Long-term memory,” another looping back labeled “Rehearsal,” and a downward arrow pointing to “Forgetting.” Between “Short-term memory” and “Long-term memory,” there is a cycle involving arrows labeled “Encoding,” “Retrieval,” and “Rehearsal.” An arrow also connects “Long-term memory” back to “Short-term memory.”

The essential part of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model that CLT targets is short-term memory forgetting and encoding into long-term memory. CLT wants to reduce forgetting and increase encoding. Lastly, Schema Theory by both Sir Frederic Bartlett (1926) and Jean Piaget (1954) posited that learning can be more productive when schemas (rules of thumb) can be associated with learning tasks or constructed from the task. Schema is the cognitive infrastructure built by learners in long-term memory to make meaning of their learning. People can retrieve information from these schemas which reduces the amount of cognitive load required to learn material.

The foundations of schemas, working memory, and a model for cognitive processing gave way to John Sweller (1988) who is the founder of the CLT. He argued that total working memory could work more efficiently when breaking material down into types of cognitive load and properly managed. Those types (explained further below) are extraneous load, intrinsic load, and germane load (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure Description: The image depicts a transparent measuring cup filled with three distinct horizontal layers, each labeled with a different type of cognitive load. The top layer is gray and labeled “EXTRANEOUS CL,” representing the load imposed by the manner in which information is presented to learners. The middle layer is green and labeled “INTRINSIC CL,” representing the load imposed by the learning task itself. The bottom layer is orange and labeled “GERMANE CL,” devoted to processing information, constructing, and automating schemas.

By managing these types of cognitive load when designing, learning could become more effective and efficient. The amount of material that could be constructed into schemas or added to existing ones could be maximized. From this theory, Sweller was able to determine some effects that happen within learning such as the completion-problem effect; modality effect; split-attention effect; worked-example effect; and expertise reversal effect. These effects can either constrain or improve the management of cognitive load. These effects became the foundation for contemporary concepts that have been used in multimedia learning today.

Contemporary Connections

Paas and Van Merriënboer (1994) began to measure the learning effects by studying the impacts of providing worked examples and partially worked examples to learners in helping them process their learning. They were actively trying to manage the load of learners by providing scaffolding that allowed for more cognitive resources to be applied in different ways. Additionally, Mayer (2001) has taken Sweller’s work and developed 12 principles of multimedia design that specifically target extraneous, intrinsic, and germane load. Mayer’s work has led to research on the topic of cognitive load to grow through measuring the impact of the 12 principles of design.

Review the key theorists using the H5P.

Connections to Learning Theories

CLT is quite connected to the systematic processes of cognitivism and the emphasis of creating strong schemas that can be used later for more rapid learning. Additionally, this theory is connected heavily to the cognitivist concepts of prior knowledge. Knowing the learner is important when designing material. Lastly, scaffolding to provide support to the learner is one way in which cognitive load is managed.

The theory does support the notion of having observable learning objectives like behaviorism.  CLT as it gets studied more in contemporary settings has become more measurable by controlling different variables for cognitive load which behaviorists would support. It strays from behaviorism by trying to focus on internal cognitive processes that are often difficult to measure or quantify. It also focuses on personally built schemas of the learners rather than reinforcement as the main proponent for learning.

CLT is also connected to constructivism in that cognitive constructivists still want learners to make meaningful connections to their learning through generative processes. Maximizing germane load allows learners to have the capacity to make meaning of the information for the construction of knowledge. It moves away from constructivists by being more instructor-centered than learner-centered in its approach.

Fundamental Tenets of Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive Load theory is best understood by clearly defining the types of cognitive load. The goal of understanding these types of load is to aid in the development of schema. As a reminder, a schema is the associations or connections learners have to a topic that is stored in long-term memory for later use. A well-developed schema on a particular subject can allow learners to retrieve important information and use less required cognitive resources. The three types of cognitive load impact the learning process in different ways (see Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure Description: The image is a diagram illustrating the concept of total cognitive load begin split into the various load types. The pink rectangle explains Total Cognitive Load as “The amount of information actively in working memory.” It connects to three categories: The purple rectangle is “Extraneous Load” and is described as “Unnecessary information that is included in the learning process” with the an arrow indicating to “REDUCE” this type of load, the blue rectangle is “Intrinsic Load” and is described as “The load necessary to complete a learning task” with an arrow indicating to “SIMPLIFY” this type of load, and the orange rectangle is “Germane Load” and is described as “The load necessary to make meaning of the learning task (schema building” with an arrow indicating to “MAXIMIZE” this type of load.

Extraneous Cognitive Load

Extraneous load is information that is “presumably irrelevant to schema acquisition” because they are not critical to new schema construction (Sweller, 1988, p. 282). Another way to say this is that extraneous load is the extra information that is not directly connected to the learning task. This can be additional sensory information, distracting material, or sounds. When part of the total cognitive load is used up by extraneous load the learning is less than optimal. Extraneous load should be managed by trying to reduce as much distracting or non-essential information in the learning process as possible.

When the learner is overburdened with extraneous information, the learning process can grind to a halt. For example, imagine a middle school earth science course. The instructor has a slideshow presentation on rock identification, but besides the rocks includes several other images of the earth, cartoons, and memes that do not directly connect to the learning objective of identifying the three types of rock. While the additional pictures are relevant on the whole, they take away from the learning objective. Now add in the general sounds and distractions of a middle school environment and one can see how extraneous load can dominate cognitive load and pull away from the learning objective.

Intrinsic Cognitive Load

Intrinsic cognitive load refers to the required cognitive resources it takes to complete a learning task. Intrinsic learning tasks vary in complexity and interactivity with other elements within the learning environment. As such, understanding the complexity of the task and the learner will help determine how many cognitive resources will be used in any learning task. Intrinsic load should be managed by trying to simplify complex material to create more capacity for germane load.

If intrinsic load is not managed and the material presented is overly complex, it can lead to poor transfer of information to long-term memory because there are not enough cognitive resources for the learner to make meaning of the information. This ties back to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. Instructors want material to be adequately challenging, but not so challenging that deep connections to the learning are unable to take place. For example, consider elementary school students learning how to write a five-paragraph essay. From an intrinsic load standpoint, having students write all five paragraphs at once without managing the processes would be extremely difficult. Simplifying the material to a paragraph that has scaffolded sentences that focus on topic sentences, supporting ideas, or a thesis breaks the content into manageable chunks. While the process is simplified when first learning about essay writing, instructors know that a high schooler could be given a topic and told to write a five-paragraph essay with significantly less scaffolding. This is because they have already built the process into a functional schema.

Germane Cognitive Load

Germane cognitive load refers to the effort needed to transfer short-term information to long-term knowledge and understanding via schemas. Transfer is the most important part of learning material. Being able to store and access the information for later use helps the learner in future similar situations. The goal is to create enough capacity to maximize germane load so more opportunity for transfer is possible. The goal of the learning process is for retention, connection, and purpose to be made from the material. If the learning process has been consumed by extraneous and intrinsic load, the transfer of content cannot be possible. This often leads to reteaching.

When germane load is maximized, instructors can see students begin to make connections or make meaning of the material. For example, consider a high school history class where they have just learned about the Enlightenment movement and now are reading the Declaration of Independence. By maximizing deep learning of the Enlightenment, students may notice quickly that the same inalienable rights that were discussed in the Declaration of Independence were the same ones used by John Locke in support of overthrowing King James during the Glorious Revolution. Maximizing germane load allows students to make deep connections and begin to critically think about content.

The example lesson below provides an example of ways a teacher can reduce extraneous load, simplify intrinsic load, and maximize germane load.

After reading about the different types of cognitive load and seeing applicable examples, review the types of cognitive load using the H5P.

Supporting Mechanisms

CLT works best as a learning theory when the design or person applying the theory incorporates some additional considerations into the theory.

• Who is the learner? Understanding if the learner is a novice or an expert will impact the way this theory is applied and approached. This theory is primarily used with novices to the information. Novices benefit the most because material complexity is higher than those who are experts with the content. In the example above, a five-paragraph essay is not the same for an elementary school student as it is for a high school student. Keeping the learner in mind helps the designer manage cognitive load more effectively.
• Scaffolds: Establishing useful scaffolds can help simplify intrinsic load. Like many cognitivist approaches, scaffolding helps support learners in the building of schemas. From the example lesson, students learning how to read primary sources for the first time may need scaffolds like highlighting key content, guided questions, or analysis tools.
• Generative Processing: Germane load is predicated on generative processing. This means that activities that allow for encoding and meaning-making need to be part of the theory. Generative processing can be activities after the learning has taken place to build connections.

Strengths and Limitations of the Theory

Strengths

CLT acknowledges that overloading a learner with information and stimulus can have negative effects on task completion or learning of content. The key strength of this theory is simplifying content and pulling out distracting information. Many educators are passionate about their content areas in a way where they can overdesign or underestimate the cognitive capacity of their learners. This theory helps designers assess what is most important and who their learners are to create optimal learning opportunities.

A second strength of this theory is that it has laid the groundwork for some specific design strategies. Mayer (2022) has used CLT to design principles of multimedia instruction that target redundancy of information, intertwine the use of visual and verbal information, and create generative processing activities. Each type of load can be targeted depending on the learning task, making CLT a flexible theory that can be productively applied.

Limitations

CLT does have several limitations to it. As with many of the cognitive processes, they are extremely difficult to measure. This becomes even more of a problem when specifically talking about cognitive load. What are bits of information? How are they measured? Is it the same for every learner? Miller (1956) wrestled with this when trying to understand information bits and chunks.

The theory is good at targeting the prior knowledge of the group but often struggles when trying to individualize material to meet the needs of each learner. For instance, a classroom with diverse learning abilities like students who are on individualized learning plans (IEPs), gifted and talented, and English Language Learners (ELLs) may not benefit from the same type of load management.

CLT does not work well with experts. It is a phenomenon called the expertise reversal effect. The expertise reversal effect is when differentiated instructional approaches, such as reducing element interactivity, that are helpful for novice learners harm expert learners (Kalyuga, 2022). It may require more cognitive load for experts to have oversimplified material.

Lastly, CLT if not designed well can bypass the generative processing step. It requires there to be important meaning-making activities or the load was managed for no reason at all.

Instructional Design Implications

CLT has been applied to various learning scenarios and there are several considerations when designing using this theory. This theory is anchored in organizing information in a way to manage the three types of loads while trying to maximize the learning potential.

Practical Applications

An instructor should consider the following factors when designing lessons, using activities, and assessments when applying CLT.

Designing Lessons

• Prior Knowledge of the Learner: Completing a learner analysis (brief or extensive) is important to know how the design process can begin. A designer developing content for novices will manage loads differently than those who have more prior knowledge. Considering who the learners are and what knowledge they already have helps the design process either use previously constructed schemas or start from scratch.
• Clear Learning Objectives: Establishing clear learning objectives is important because it helps the designer begin the process of simplifying intrinsic load by determining what material is the most important to be learned. Clear objectives also help in managing extraneous load because designers can start to figure out what material needs to be reduced.
• Review Lesson and Organize Material Based on Load Type: Designers should find a way to organize and identify what parts of their lesson fall into each type of load. While eliminating extraneous load would be ideal, it is not realistic in the learning environment. Establishing what each type of load is, helps designers determine how much capacity may be wasted on each task (Paas & Sweller, 2022).

Activities

• Scaffold Content: Activities that are scaffolded by providing visual aids, guides, graphic organizers, and other resources help learners organize material requiring less of a burden on cognitive load. For instance, if a designer was teaching students how to change a tire. They may provide a fully worked example video that shows how to change a tire and the tools required. The video provides students with an example before they work out the problem themselves.

Assessment

• Schema Building or Generative Processing Assessments: CLT from a design perspective is only as effective as the schemas that are built with it. This means assessment should help with the construction of meaning-making for the student. The assessment should help students to make deeper connections to the content. An example would be providing students with a matching exercise for a vocabulary lesson or a writing activity using the vocabulary in its proper context.

Review the various components of CLT in the design process using the H5P.

Strategies

Mayer’s (2022) principles of multimedia learning to target extraneous, intrinsic, or germane loads are extremely effective strategies for using CLT. Strategies for targeting extraneous load include coherence (simplification of content), signaling, reducing redundancy, or creating content that is closer in space and time. An example strategy to reduce extraneous load is using signaling. It can be found all throughout this chapter. There are specifically colored text boxes and bolded information to help the reader draw focus to important information. Intrinsic load can be managed by segmenting complex material, pre-training foundational content ahead of time, or not overloading visual and verbal channels. An example strategy to simplify intrinsic load is pre-training. An instructor may pre-train foundational concepts, definitions, or illustrations to students to construct a schema for later use in the lesson or unit. Lastly, the germane load can be maximized by personalizing material, adding humanization to automated content, or using high-quality images or multimedia to make meaning from.

Contexts

This theory is best used with novice learners and multimedia-rich contexts because cognitive load needs to be managed more closely for deep learning to take place. CLT is also best used when there is complex material where the cognitive load needs to be accounted for.

Classrooms by far have the largest amount of cognitive load to address because of the larger potential for extraneous load to be present such as posters, other students, intercoms, fire alarms, and more. Reducing distractions within the lesson when possible becomes more important because those outside factors are more present. Classroom environments do lend themselves to higher levels of social interaction which can be useful for building content into schemas and making meaning of the learning.

Online environments can better control extraneous load, but intrinsic load can be difficult to manage by having access to information-rich sources. It is important to simplify content to not overwhelm learners. Additionally, online environments typically do not have the same type of social interaction. This means designing meaning-making activities that build schemas can be more difficult in online settings.

Conclusion

Cognitive Load Theory is a learning theory that targets cognitive load within working memory and determines how best to manage load type by reducing, simplifying, and maximizing. Rooted in cognitivist learning, CLT helps designers simplify material in ways to make for more optimal learning environments. As technology continues to be critical to the learning process, understanding CLT becomes even more important. CLT can actively help designers maximize visual and verbal material in a way that best suits the needs of learners. With all the distractions technology can bring, CLT finds ways to use the resources today and shapes them in a way that is advantageous for the learner. Sweller’s work continues to be built upon because of its applicability and adaptability to the learning challenges presented today. Designers can see how AI capabilities can provide worked examples or scaffolds to reduce intrinsic load for learners. To review the key concepts of this chapter please watch the video summary.

References:

American Psychological Association. (2025). Cognitive psychology explores our mental processes. https://www.apa.org/education-career/guide/subfields/brain-science#:~:text=Career%20Psychology%20Subfields-,Cognitive%20Psychology%20Explores%20Our%20Mental%20Processes,perceive%20events%20and%20make%20decisions.

Atkinson, R.C. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. (Vol. 2 pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press.

Bartlett F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kalyuga, S. (2022). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 171–181). Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R.E. (2022). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

Pass, F. G. & Sweller, J. (2022) Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 73–81). Cambridge University Press.

Paas, F. G. &  Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. The Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Police Science, 46(3).

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https:// https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Additional Information:

Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00021-4

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. https://doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

Van Merriënboer, J. J., 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.10.1207/S15326985EP3801_2