You may be aware that along with Sweller, Slava Kalyuga was one of my PhD supervisors. I remember visiting UNSW around, say, 2016. Jan Plass was visiting from New York. Slava was beaming and excited as if the prodigal son had returned and I sat in on Plass’s talk. Earlier in his career, Plass researched cognitive load theory, but the talk he gave that day was on his new research into computer games-based learning. I found it odd and unimpressive, but Slava was enthused. At the end, I asked Plass how he could reconcile all the extraneous load in these games with cognitive load theory. His response was withering. None of that mattered if kids aren’t motivated to learn. The kids these games were for were doing no maths, so doing some was an improvement. I’ve not heard much about these games since then.
I have not read Rethinking Cognitive Load Theory so it might be brilliant. It might also be full of extraneous information. I’m not motivated enough to find out.
Fascinating story. And helps explain/justify the perspective that CLT's limits are worth protecting. I was browsing Rethinking Cognitive Load Theory while putting this piece together, I think it's just an expansion of his journal piece, so you're probably not missing much.
I've been, in my own more unstructured and less knowledgeable way, thinking about the value and limitations of CLT over the summer. CLT is appealing as a theory because it is very orderly, logical, and so makes sense. I still think it has a lot of value. However...
“We are not thinking machines that feel, we are feeling machines that think” - Anthony Damasio
I wish I had some profound insight into how to square these two aspects. At this point, I have resigned myself to asking myself the question as I think about teaching and learning, about how all the elements interact. This year our school is introducing The RULER Approach to emotional regulation sort of in parallel with a year-long read of Power Teaching. Hence, I'm spending most of my summer thinking hard about how I help colleagues navigate what feels a little split-screen.
Lovely piece. The arc from the number puzzle to the germane load retraction is beautifully told. But the Wiliam quote is where I get stuck. "Complementary theories" feels like a generous description of a field where nothing ever quite gets ruled out. In education, I'm not sure whether we're looking at a genuine ecology or just a lot of theories no one has bothered to falsify. Meehl's line (in Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks, 1978) about psychological theories drifting into desuetude rather than dying has always stayed with me.
You may be aware that along with Sweller, Slava Kalyuga was one of my PhD supervisors. I remember visiting UNSW around, say, 2016. Jan Plass was visiting from New York. Slava was beaming and excited as if the prodigal son had returned and I sat in on Plass’s talk. Earlier in his career, Plass researched cognitive load theory, but the talk he gave that day was on his new research into computer games-based learning. I found it odd and unimpressive, but Slava was enthused. At the end, I asked Plass how he could reconcile all the extraneous load in these games with cognitive load theory. His response was withering. None of that mattered if kids aren’t motivated to learn. The kids these games were for were doing no maths, so doing some was an improvement. I’ve not heard much about these games since then.
I have not read Rethinking Cognitive Load Theory so it might be brilliant. It might also be full of extraneous information. I’m not motivated enough to find out.
Fascinating story. And helps explain/justify the perspective that CLT's limits are worth protecting. I was browsing Rethinking Cognitive Load Theory while putting this piece together, I think it's just an expansion of his journal piece, so you're probably not missing much.
I enjoyed reading this so much! Thank you.
Oh, thank you for reading it!! And glad it was fun.
Thank you for writing this.
I've been, in my own more unstructured and less knowledgeable way, thinking about the value and limitations of CLT over the summer. CLT is appealing as a theory because it is very orderly, logical, and so makes sense. I still think it has a lot of value. However...
“We are not thinking machines that feel, we are feeling machines that think” - Anthony Damasio
I wish I had some profound insight into how to square these two aspects. At this point, I have resigned myself to asking myself the question as I think about teaching and learning, about how all the elements interact. This year our school is introducing The RULER Approach to emotional regulation sort of in parallel with a year-long read of Power Teaching. Hence, I'm spending most of my summer thinking hard about how I help colleagues navigate what feels a little split-screen.
Lovely piece. The arc from the number puzzle to the germane load retraction is beautifully told. But the Wiliam quote is where I get stuck. "Complementary theories" feels like a generous description of a field where nothing ever quite gets ruled out. In education, I'm not sure whether we're looking at a genuine ecology or just a lot of theories no one has bothered to falsify. Meehl's line (in Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks, 1978) about psychological theories drifting into desuetude rather than dying has always stayed with me.
I have seen the angle problem with matchsticks.
And people already know how to construct reality, like in the Veritaserum video.
I used to see David Geary a lot! Especially on Quillette. [his Pink Panther icon was everywhere].