Revisiting cognitive load theory: second thoughts and unaddressed questions

Jimmie Leppink

doi:10.15448/1980-6108.2020.1.36918

Autores

Jimmie Leppink University of York, York, North Yorkshire (NY) http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8713-1374

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-6108.2020.1.36918

Palavras-chave:

Teoria da carga cognitiva, definições, autorrelatos, prática de recuperação, falha produtiva

Resumo

Na teoria da carga cognitiva (CLT), a aprendizagem é o desenvolvimento de esquemas cognitivos em uma memória de longo prazo sem limites conhecidos e pode acontecer apenas se nossa limitada memória de trabalho puder processar novas informações apresentadas e a quantidade de informações que não contribui para a aprendizagem é baixo. De acordo com essa teoria, o aprendizado é ideal quando diminui o suporte instrucional, passando de exemplos trabalhados, via problemas de conclusão, para uma solução autônoma de problemas, e os alunos não se beneficiam praticando a recuperação com conteúdo complexo. No entanto, estudos sobre falhas produtivas e práticas de recuperação forneceram evidências claras contra essas duas diretrizes. Neste artigo, são discutidos problemas com a CLT e com pesquisas inspiradas nessa teoria, que permanecem amplamente ignorados entre os teóricos da carga cognitiva, mas provavelmente contribuíram para essas descobertas contraditórias. Este artigo conclui que essas questões devem nos fazer questionar a utilidade da CLT na educação em ciências da saúde, educação médica e outros domínios complexos e apresenta recomendações para a prática educacional e para pesquisas futuras sobre o assunto.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Mar 01];22:123-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.

Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory [monograph on Internet]. New York: Springer; 2011. [cited 2020 Mar 01]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4.

Sweller J, Van Merrienboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 1998 [cited 2020 Mar 02];10:251-96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.

Sweller J, Van Merrienboer JJG, Paas F. Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Mar 02];31:261- 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5.

Leppink J, Van den Heuvel A. The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education. Perspect Med Educ [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 02];4:119-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-015-0192-x.

Van Merrienboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professions education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2020 Mar 02];44:85-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x.

Young JQ, Van Merrienboer JJG, Durning S, Ten Cate O. Cognitive load theory: implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Med Teach [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 02];36:371-84. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.889290.

Karpicke JD, Aue WR. The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 02];27:317-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3.

Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2020 Mar 02];1:181-210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x.

Roediger HL, Karpicke JD. Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2020 Mar 02];17:249-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.

Van Gog T, Sweller J. Not new, but nearly forgotten: The testing effect decreases or even disappears as the complexity of learning materials increases. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 02];27:247-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9310-x.

Leppink J, Paas F, Van Gog T, Van der Vleuten CPM, Van Merrienboer JJG. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learn Instruct [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 02];30:32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.12.001.

Van Gog T, Kester L, Paas F. Effects of worked examples, example-problem, and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemp Educ Psychol [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 Mar 03];36:212-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.004.

Kalyuga S, Singh AM. Rethinking boundaries of cognitive load theory in complex learning. Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Mar 02];28:831-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9352-0.

Kapur M. Productive failure. Cognit Instruct [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2020 Mar 03];26:379-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669.

Kapur M. A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: Unpacking the design components. Instruct Sci [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 Mar 03];39:561-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3.

Kapur M. Productive failure in learning math. Cognit Sci [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 03];38:1008-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107.

Kapur M, Rummel N. Productive failure in learning from generation and invention activities. Instruct Sci [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Mar 03];40:645-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9235-4.

Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Kirschner F, Zambrano JR. From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Inter J Comp Supp Collab Learn [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Mar 03];13:213-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y.

Lee CB, Hanham J, Leppink J. Instructional design principles for high-stakes problem-solving environments [monograph on Internet]. Singapore: Springer; 2019. [cited 2020 Mar 03]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2808-4.

Paas F. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem- solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Educ Psychol. [Internet]. 1992 [cited 2020 Mar 03];84:429-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

Sweller J. Measuring cognitive load. Perspect Med Educ [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Mar 03];7:1-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0395-4.

Leppink J. Statistical methods for experimental research in education and psychology [monograph on Internet]. Cham: Springer; 2019. [cited 2020 Mar 03]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21241-4.

Bjork RA, Dunlosky J, Kornell N. Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Ann Rev Psychol [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2020 Mar 03];64:417-44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.

Lehmann J, Seufert T. The interaction between text modality and the learner’s modality preference influences comprehension and cognitive load. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2020; [cited 2020 Mar 05]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02820.

Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educ Psychol Rev [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2020 Mar 05];23:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.

Klepsch M, Schmitz F, Seufert T. Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2017; [cited 2020 Mar 05]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997.

Leppink J, Paas F, Van der Vleuten CPM, Van Gog T, Van Merrienboer JJG. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behav Res Meth[Internet]. 2013[cited 2020 Mar 05];45:1058-72. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1.

Naismith LM, Cheung JJH, Ringsted C, Cavalcanti RB. Limitations of subjective cognitive load measures in simulation-based procedural training. Med Educ [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Mar 05];49:805-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12732.

Sewell JL, Boscardin CK, Young JQ, Ten Cate O, O’Sullivan PS. Measuring cognitive load during procedural skills training with colonoscopy as an exemplar. Med Educ [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Mar 05];50:682-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12965.

Pashler H, McDaniel M, Rohrer D, Bjork R. Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychol Sci Pub Int [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2020 Mar 05];9:105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x.