“Unbundling” Difficult Content with Cognitive Load Theory
Lana L. Becker, Accountancy, East Tennessee State University
Abstract
In most college courses regardless of discipline, certain concepts or skills emerge as being the “most
difficult” for students and thus create significant challenges for educators as well as learners. As experts
in our disciplines, it is sometimes difficult to understand why students struggle with certain content.
Cognitive load theory provides a valuable lens through which educators can begin to unravel some of
the mystery associated with student difficulties. Cognitive overload is especially threatening to novice
learners who are faced with tasks which are inherently complex. Complexity of tasks often occurs due
to the presence of underlying elements or sub-skills which must be processed simultaneously.
The term “unbundling” is used to describe the important process of identifying these underlying skills
which must be individually mastered in order to successfully complete the more complex task. A
classroom example will be presented to illustrate how this “unbundling” process was used to develop an
instructional tool which addresses the intrinsic load associated with complexity and also makes learning
more “visible.” Participants in the session will engage in activities designed to help them practice the
“unbundling process” so that they can begin to “unbundle” the difficult content in their own courses.
Objectives






Raise awareness of the effect of cognitive overload on learning, especially for novice learners who lack schema
Explain what creates complexity of tasks, how complexity creates cognitive overload, and how cognitive
overload impacts learning
Demonstrate how “difficult” content can be “unbundled” to address complexity and drive instructional design
Demonstrate the value of making learning “visible” in the classroom
Engage participants in activities to reveal the complexity of tasks within their own classrooms
Provide ideas for addressing the intrinsic load often associated with complex course content
Literature Review
According to Paas and Ayres (2014), the fundamental objective of cognitive load theory is to “optimize
learning of complex tasks by efficiently using the relation between the limited working memory and
unlimited long-term memory” (p. 192). Cognitive load theory is especially applicable to novice learners
who lack the highly interrelated knowledge structures present in experts known as schemas. According
to Sweller, Van Merriёnboer, and Paas (1998), the development of schemas is the fundamental purpose
of education and creates what is known as “germane” load.
Because working memory is limited, the building of knowledge structures creates cognitive load
which must compete with extraneous and intrinsic cognitive load. Although extraneous load (e.g.
confusing course materials) is considered to be controllable by the instructor, intrinsic load is driven
by the complexity or the degree of interactivity between the underlying sub-skills of a complex task.
The simultaneous processing of these interactive elements creates a cognitive burden for the novice
learner, leaving little cognitive capacity for the schema construction that makes full understanding
possible. An understanding of this phenomenon, described in the literature as the “paradox of
learning,” can help educators begin to unravel the mystery of why some content is so difficult for
novice learners (Pollock, Chandler, and Sweller, 2002). Research efforts have been devoted to
determining instructional strategies that can effectively address cognitive complexity including
scaffolding and sequencing techniques such as “simple-to-complex” and “progressive” sequencing
(Van Merriënboer, Kirschner, and Kester, 2003; Sweller and Van Merriënboer, 2005).
Description
The literature related to cognitive load theory will be used to anchor a presentation focused on
understanding why novice learners encounter significant difficulties with certain course content.
The presenter will emphasize how identification of the sources of complexity through a process
referred to as “unbundling” is a critical first step to designing effective instruction for difficult
content. An instructional tool designed for a complex skill in an introductory accounting course will
be presented as an example.
Discussion
Using small groups, participants will complete an exercise designed to “unbundle” a familiar task
into its interrelated and underlying sub-skills. Using “pair and share,” participants will be asked to
identify a “particularly challenging” concept or skill they teach in a course and “unbundle” its
complexity by identifying the sub-skills that must be mastered and processed simultaneously.
References
Artino Jr, A. R. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience: An abbreviated review for
educational practitioners. Aace Journal, 16(4), 425-439.
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning and
instruction, 12(1), 139-146.
Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). Interactions between the isolated–interactive elements effect and
levels of learner expertise: Experimental evidence from an accountancy class. Instructional Science,38 (3),
277-287.
Davis, E. A., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(3), 265-272.
Lovett, M. C., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2000). Applying cognitive theory to statistics instruction. The American
Statistician, 54(3), 196-206.
Paas, F., & Ayres, P. (2014). Cognitive load theory: A broader view on the role of memory in learning and
education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 191-195.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 6186.
Sweller, J., Van Merriёnboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational
psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
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.
Van Merriёnboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and
future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.