Extending Cognitive Load Theory to Incorporate Working Memory Resource Depletion: Evidence from the Spacing Effect

Abstract

Depletion of limited working memory resources may occur following extensive mental effort resulting in decreased performance compared to conditions requiring less extensive mental effort. This “depletion effect” can be incorporated into cognitive load theory that is concerned with using the properties of human cognitive architecture, especially working memory, when designing instruction. Two experiments were carried out on the spacing effect that occurs when learning that is spaced by temporal gaps between learning episodes is superior to identical, massed learning with no gaps between learning episodes. Using primary school students learning mathematics, it was found that students obtained lower scores on a working memory capacity test (Experiments 1 and 2) and higher ratings of cognitive load (Experiment 2) after massed than after spaced practice. The reduction in working memory capacity may be attributed to working memory resource depletion following the relatively prolonged mental effort associated with massed compared to spaced practice. An expansion of cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion along with instructional design implications, including the spacing effect, is discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Conlin, J. A., Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, J. W. (2005). Children’s working memory: investigating performance limitations in complex span tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: a deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). New York: Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Oxford: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43, 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802392133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Geary, D. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597–621). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Geary, D., & Berch, D. (2016). Evolution and children’s cognitive and academic development. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 217–249). Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 266–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Healey, M. K., Hasher, L., & Danilova, E. (2011). The stability of working memory: do previous tasks influence complex span? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Spacing in a simulated undergraduate classroom: long-term benefits for factual and higher-level learning. Learning and Instruction, 36, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Küpper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014). Understanding the distributed practice effect: strong effects on weak theoretical grounds. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Paas, F., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H. K., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2007). The shuffling of mathematics problems improves learning. Instructional Science, 35, 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9015-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sweller, J. (2015). In academe, what is learned, and how is it learned? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 190–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415569570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sweller, J. (2016a). Cognitive load theory, evolutionary educational psychology, and instructional design. In D. Geary & D. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education (pp. 291–306). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29986-0.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sweller, J. (2016b). Working memory, long-term memory, and instructional design. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 360–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information processing systems. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 434–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: a reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Tricot, A., & Sweller, J. (2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9243-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tyler, J. M., & Burns, K. C. (2008). After depletion: the replenishment of the self’s regulatory resources. Self and Identity, 7, 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701799997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the students, teachers, and principal of the Chengdu Normal School primary school (Vanke Campus), Chengdu, China for their support.

Funding Information

The second author acknowledges partial funding from CONICYT PAI, national funding research program for returning researchers from abroad, 2014, No 82140021; and PIA–CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence, Project FB0003.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ouhao Chen or John Sweller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J.C., Paas, F. et al. Extending Cognitive Load Theory to Incorporate Working Memory Resource Depletion: Evidence from the Spacing Effect. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 483–501 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9426-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cognitive load theory
  • Human cognitive architecture
  • Working memory resource depletion
  • Spacing effect