I published this article on 7th November 2021. I've added a bit and deleted a link to a now-defunct website and replaced it with another one. Apart from those changes, I still agree with everything I said back then.

In this article…

Introduction

A question: is Cognitive Load Theory another example of the emperor’s new clothes?

What is CLT?

One of the best explanations I’ve come across is that published on the Twinkl Education Blog:

These days you can hardly open any educational publication without coming across references to, or someone extolling the merits of, CLT. However, I’m afraid I can’t accept that as proof of the validity of a theory.

So what are my objections?

For one thing, there is such a thing as publication bias (which is one of the aspects of research covered in the book called Science Fictions).

Secondly, during my time in education I’ve noticed that theories have a habit of becoming flavour of the month, and then being replaced by a different flavour of the month, either because a “better” one comes along, or because it’s shown to be unhelpful or wrong (think of learning styles, which was all the rage at one point).

Now, I’m aware that Dylan Wiliam has spoken in favour of CLT:

I've come to the conclusion Sweller's Cognitive Load Theory is the single most important thing for teachers to know https://t.co/MkJJLruR8g

— Dylan Wiliam (@dylanwiliam) January 26, 2017

That being the case, it would be tempting for me to assume I must be wrong then. However, Dylan Wiliam is an expert, in particular, in assessment for learning, so while one might have respect for him as an educationalist, does that mean that everything he says is objectively correct? I recently reviewed a book summarising various educational theories, and I could say the same thing about several of them.

Just to be clear, I’m perfectly happy to allow myself to be convinced that I’m wrong, and that Wiliam is right. I simply don’t think I should take his word for it, because I think it’s not healthy in educational discussions to unquestioningly agree with something because of who it was that said it. I wrote about this in The Trouble With Gurus. (Interestingly enough it’s an issue that is not confined to the field of education. In The Great Cholesterol Con (Amazon Associate link), Dr Malcolm Kendrick talks about “eminence-based medicine”, as opposed to evidence-based medicine.)

Counter-evidence

Firstly, Sweller’s and other’s research was, as far as I know, based on small numbers of older students in the fields of science and maths and, to some extent, education technology (in particular spreadsheets). Therefore, I don’t regard the theory as de facto applicable to secondary school (or primary school) pupils studying Computing (or anything else).

Secondly, when it comes to “working memory” (WM), not only does that differ from person to person, but even subject to subject. For example, I can remember the lyrics of a song after listening to it once, but if someone gives me their phone number I will have forgotten it by the time I’ve finished dialling the area code.

Thirdly, my understanding of WM theory is that people can hold only between 4 and 7 items in their heads at a time. Well, I’m no genius, but I’ve had no trouble organising a staff rota for 120 students, 17 staff and 30 rooms in my head. (I was designing a spreadsheet to solve that particular challenge while driving home. In so doing, I actually found the solution. I wasn’t expecting that!) And aren’t composers able to hold several strands of a piece in their mind at once, for example base, treble, various instruments?

Fourthly, the practical implication of CLT is that teachers should break up the material into small chunks. How small? There was once a huge trend for so-called competency-based education, in which students would learn individual bits. It sometimes led to a situation where they could do each single bit, but had no idea of how to put it all together. Plus that must differ from student to student too. If the chunks are too small, I think there could be quite a few bored students in the class. (As it happens, I’m currently reading Teaching Machines, by Audrey Watters, and according to her one of the criticisms of breaking down subjects into bite-sized gobbets for so-called teaching machines (they were mostly testing machines) and programmed learning is that the resultant material was so boring. I would also add that it’s really hard, if not impossible, to see the big picture when all you’re given is small, easily digestible chunks.)

Fifthly, there is a matter of common sense. When I was doing ‘A’ Levels our teacher advised us to separate similar subjects by a completely different subject when doing revision. For example, revise French, then History, then German, because by doing History in the middle you’d be giving the language part of your brain a rest. Not very scientific, I’ll grant you, but common sense, and you don’t need to invoke CLT or WM.

Finally, I’ve included some references below. I’m not sure how far all of them are available in the public domain, so I’ve cited a few excerpts and made one or two comments.  

Further reading

Was CLT a myth? https://researchschoo

Four problems with Cognitive Load Theory

This advice to teachers from Hello World magazine #17 sounds to me like competency-based teaching, in which a student could be an expert in all the different individual elements and have no real understanding of the whole.

 Finally, this review:

Review: Cognitive Load Theory: A Step Forward?

Reviewed Work: Cognitive Load Theory by Jan L. Plass, Roxana Moreno, Roland Brünken

Review by: Martin Valcke

In Educational Technology

Vol. 51, No. 3 (May-June 2011), pp. 53-55 (3 pages)

In reference to the fact that researchers have to ask learners about how much they can “take in” at any one time (because they cannot look inside their heads):

Also:

Concluding remarks

In answer to the question I posed at the beginning of this article, yes I do think that Cognitive Load Theory is yet another example of the emperor’s new clothes. (We seem to get a lot of this in education.) However, as I said earlier, I’m happy to be convinced of the error of my ways. In the meantime, I won’t be recommending CLT to my trainees or conference delegates any time soon.

Since writing the above paragraph, I've continued to read articles about CLT, and I still remain to be convinced of its efficacy. I listened to a podcast about it, which consisted of four people droning on about good and important CLT is in terms of the so-called need to limit the amount of new information you give students at any one time. What was missing?

• Any critical evaluation of CLT.
• Any indication of what constitutes an acceptable amount of information to throw at students at a particular point in time...
• ... or how to ascertain what that might be in the first place.

I think CLT is one of those theories or concepts that sounds sensible at first, but which then simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny once you start pulling it apart.

If you found this article interesting or useful (or both), why not subscribe to my free newsletter, Digital Education? It’s been going since the year 2000, and has slow news, informed views and honest reviews for Computing and ed tech teachers — and useful experience-based tips.

   

This article is taken from my book on how to get the most out of education conferences. Just 99p or equivalent for the Kindle version.

All of the reasons to attend that I’ve suggested in 21 reasons to attend conferences are valid, but they are personal, in a sense. That is to say, it is not obvious from looking at the list how your school will benefit from your attendance at the conference. So here are 9 suggested arguments that may appeal to your senior leadership team.

Best value

If you are considering major new purchases, such as tablets or managed services, you really ought to look at all the product options available if the conference has a large exhibition area.

Find the suppliers

A conference exhibition isn’t really the kind of place you can talk business if you’re meeting a supplier for the first time, but it can be a good place to start if you want to find out who the suppliers of a particular product or service are, with a view to meeting with them later or, say, inviting them to submit a tender for work.

Meet the suppliers

If you already know the supplier you may be able to arrange to meet with them at the conference in order to discuss a particular concern you have, or simply to reinforce the personal contact by having a chat combined with a perhaps more in-depth look at new products or features than would normally be offered to visitors to their stand. The benefits of this sort of personal contact may be difficult to quantify on a balance sheet, but they tend to manifest themselves in ways like enjoying a faster response time to queries or, if there’s a problem, having a named contact who actually knows you, and who perhaps can cut through the red tape on your behalf.

Conference prices

Exhibitors at conferences often have special conference prices, which are lower than their usual rates. It may be worth attending just to take advantage of such discounts.

Professional development

By attending seminars and talking to people on the exhibition stands, you will find out ways of improving what you do, which can only benefit your school.

To keep up to date with your subject

Finding out about the latest thinking and research in your subject, and possibly the latest relevant technology, will put you in a prime position to advise the school in a hot-off-the-press way.

To obtain help

If your school has invested heavily in a new idea or technology, and it hasn't worked very well, a conference may afford the opportunity for you to talk to someone who can suggest what to do next.

Networking

Meeting other people doing a similar job is always a good idea in my experience. It’s useful for picking up fresh ideas and learning of people, organisations or resources you may not have come across before.

Check out the hype

We mentioned this in the section called 21 Reasons to attend conferences, and it's worth reading that (again). School leaders may like shiny new ideas, but only if they work. Nobody likes to be featured in the local or national press for having apparently wasted a lot of money on an idea that didn't work. Using a conference for researching the reality behind the hype can be a very good investment indeed.

   

This is an excerpt from a longer article I published yesterday in my free newsletter, Digital Education. Link given below.

As you might expect, I haven’t had much of a chance to go through the final curriculum review with a fine toothcomb, but for now there are a few things to note:

Firstly, AI and pitfalls like fake news are recommended to be included in other subjects where appropriate, such as Citizenship, and explicitly included under the headings Digital Literacy and Media Literacy.

In summary, it recommends:

A good idea, though easier said than done. When I was head of ICT and Computing and ICT Co-ordinator I found that two approaches worked well. One was to try and work with other departments, both on some of the curriculum content and also inviting members of their department to run training sessions for my staff. For example, one guest trainer was a teacher from the science department who explained how studentsw are expected to use data in science subjects.

The challenge with devising cross-curricular units of work was that the sequencing between their subject and mine was different, ie we covered the topics at different stages of the curriculum.

Another challenge was that they typically required a less advanced understanding and knowledge than my subject did.

The other thing I did which proved quite useful was issue a half-termly bulletin to staff stating what transferable skills the students had learnt in Computing in the various Year groups, and what we were about to embark on in the new half-term.

Secondly, it recommends a wider GCSE Computing qualification:

What an excellent idea. Perhaps we could call the new qualification something like, oh I dunno, Information and Communications Technology perhaps?

I’ve had a quick glance at English: I like this:

Absolutely! Most authors had never head of the phrase “fronted adverbial”, including myself until 2014. I can’t say that hearing about it has enhanced my reading or writing skills*.

There is an emphasis on classic English texts and a recommendation to broaden the options for teachers to select more “diverse” literature. I put that in quotation marks because I think literature should be selected because it is good, regardless of where it originated. I understand the intent, and agree with it, but worry that some schools will be tempted to adoipt a tickbox approach which, in my opinion, doesn’t help anyway.

I didn’t know it before, but apparently the Department for Education is working on a new writing framework. Let’s hope it will be voluntary, because if the usual substandard writing we often see emanating from the DfE is anything to go by, it will be the last thing anybody needs.

Anyway, the link is here:

Final curriculum and assessment review (pdf)

Finally, yes I know I could have parsed the report into NotebookLM and obtained a summary, podcase and video summarising it, but that to me seems a bit like the old definition of teaching: the process by which information is transferred from the teacher’s notes to the pupils’ exercise books without passing through the heads of either party. I will do that, but I always prefer to read the thing first so I can impose my own biases on my interpretation before taking on those of the AI!

To see the full article, and to comment, click here.

*While I am on the subject of writing, I thought you might be interested in a course I’m teaching next year. It is called The 60 Minute Writer, and is online. Each week, for eleven weeks, we cover a different aspect of creative writing. I ran the course in January, and I will give a few examples of what we covered. I am running the course again next January, but I will be doing different areas, so that anyone who took the course last year will still benefit from doing it again. I haven’t finished preparing the new course yet, but here are a few things I’m considering:

• Playing with time and sequence, eg writing the ending first;

• Epistolary writing;

• Acrostics and other tricks;

• How to create atmosphere.

Last time I included topics such as:

• Choosing the exactly right word (using work by David Foster Wallace as an example);

• Using dialogue to tell the story (using work by Gay Talese as an example);

• Employing cinematic techniques (using work by Truman Capote as an example).

Each session lasts only an hour, so it’s ideal for busy people. The way I structure the hour is along these lines:

1. Discussion of a reading I gave out or sent earlier.

2. Discussion of the homework;

3. Prompt.

4. Writing for at least 20 minutes.

5. Sharing in twos and threes.

Everyone enjoyed the course, and especially appreciated that I gave feedback on every piece of work people submitted.

Here is that link again:

The 60 Minute Writer

   

by Giogia Lupi and Stefanie Posavec,

This book covers an immense range of the kinds of data that we 'store'. The authors spent a year sending each other postcards on a different theme each week. These contained not words, but pictorial representations of the data they had collected.

In one week, for instance, the topic was the number of times they checked their phone. In week 15 it was how many compliments they had received and given.

Week 24 saw them looking at doors. The book has several merits.

First, it provides ideas about the kinds of things that constitute 'data': pretty much anything.

Secondly, it illustrates how data can be represented and how much information a key can contain: the section on doors shows what kind of door was encountered where, and who opened it.

Thirdly, it suggests a question to explore with your students: how might you convert that to something a computer would understand?

   

Reviewing a book not specifically intended for use in education is always a precarious enterprise. Doing so at a time when the National Curriculum is under scrutiny and likely to change is even more so. The interim review of the curriculum was published in March, and the final report was not due out until the autumn – and at the time of writing is yet to emerge. Nevertheless, we can feel fairly confident that Mathematics and English will continue to enjoy pride of place. Disappointingly, however, the notion of creativity is mentioned, almost in passing, only twice. Assuming that omission is not rectified in the final report, what place might Blueprints merit on a teacher’s bookshelves?

We might attempt an answer to that question by answering this one: what do the following people, amongst others, have in common? David Foster Wallace, Radiohead, Giotto, Le Corbusier. The answer is they, and many others engaged in what we might call the creative pursuits, all appear in this book, and they all use mathematics in their work, albeit sometimes unwittingly. Thus it is that Du Sautoy, in a single volume, has managed to effectively debunk C.P. Snow’s concept of the two cultures.

Indeed, a casual glance at the “Dramatis Personae” at the beginning of the book should dispel any lingering doubts. Writers, composers, architects and several other occupations make an appearance.

The interim curriculum review prioritises two things in particular for the purposes of this review. One is the continuing importance of English and mathematics in the curriculum, while the other is the aspiration for all young people to be able to see themselves represented in their learning. Let’s look at how Blueprints satisfies these requirements.

One of the strengths of the book is that it is interesting to read, with plenty of examples a maths teacher could draw on to bring the subject alive for those students who regard maths as a form of mysticism (or torture). Let’s put it this way:  I “graduated” from secondary school knowing how to use logarithm tables and the definition of an Isosceles triangle. I’ve not used log tables since, and I wouldn’t know what do with an Isosceles triangle even if I tripped over one. In other words, if someone like me finds a book like this enjoyable and informative, there’s hope for everyone.

For example, in a discussion of the circle, rather than focus on “pi R squared” and so on, Du Sautoy examines Bach’s Goldberg Variations. Admittedly, that may also be rather esoteric in the context of a school, but it suggests to me that there is scope here for some cross-curricular collaboration between the maths and the music departments.

Du Sautoy draws together many other disparate strands. For instance, in the chapter on Symmetry, he discusses a work by a French writer, Raymond Queneau, called Exercises in Style. The idea, which I have used in my own creative writing courses and which could easily be adapted by the English department, is to take a very simple story and then rewrite it in several ways – Queneau tells the story ninety-nine times.

Again, in the chapter on prime numbers, the author draws upon Shakespeare’s use of the iambic pentameter, thereby also suggesting a potential collaboration between English and maths.

The second main hope for the curriculum, that all students should see themselves represented in their learning, is not met, or at least not in the way that the architect of the review, Becky Francis, probably had in mind. Yes, people from many different cultures are featured, but the cultures from which they come are not centre stage. On the other hand, given the wide range of contexts examined – art, architecture, stories and music to cite just a few – it would be almost inconceivable to not be able to find something of interest for everyone.

Where the book falls down is that, for me at least, the mathematical explanations are abstruse. But as a sourcebook of ideas for the maths teacher, and a very interesting read for the general reader who is rather more mathematically literate than I am, Blueprints could hardly be bettered.