The CLT-based design produced higher effective learning scores at retention and transfer, while achievement effective learning scores were nearly equal between groups¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? Experimental-group effective learning scores (E = PZ - CLZ/√2) were higher than control scores at retention (E = .39 vs -.37) and transfer (E = .38 vs -.36). → Kala 2023 q3 i? Achievement-based effective learning scores were almost equal (E = -.01 experimental vs .01 control) because the experimental group's mental effort was also higher. → Kala 2023 (2)

Evidence¶

Kala 2023¶

Kala, N., & Ayas, A. (2023). Effect of instructional design based on cognitive load theory on students' performances and the indicators of element interactivity. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 20(3), 468-489. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2023.027

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Effective learning scores computed from performance Z and cognitive load Z scores (Paas & van Merriënboer formula) for both groups: "the score of the experimental group is higher than that of the control group" at retention (E = .39 vs -.37) and transfer (E = .38 vs -.36).

"According to the retention and transfer effective learning scores calculated on the basis of these scores, it was detected that the score of the experimental group is higher than that of the control group."

Kala 2023 (2)¶

q3 · i? · causal · r2

For the TAT post-test basis, the article states the "effective learning scores (E= - .01) were almost equal to the control group (E= .01)" because the experimental group's mental effort scores were higher, despite a higher performance Z score (.31 vs -.29).

"the thermodynamic academic achievement effective learning scores (E= - .01) were almost equal to the control group (E= .01) since their mental effort scores are also higher"

Discussion¶

Cognitive Overload Degrades Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
In one study of 37 thermodynamics freshmen, a CLT-based instructional design yields higher retention and transfer scores than lecturer-designed instruction, controlling for prior knowledge and memory span — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
No significant difference between groups on the thermodynamics achievement post-test or cognitive load scale after CLT-based versus lecturer-designed instruction — related
In one thermodynamics study, retention and transfer scores tended to be lower on topics of higher element interactivity, a descriptive pattern with several sessions that did not fit it — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`clt-design-effective-learning-retention-transfer`
`title`	`The CLT-based design produced higher effective learning scores at retention and transfer, while achievement effective learning scores were nearly equal between groups`
`description`	`The CLT-based design produced higher effective learning scores at retention and transfer, while achievement effective learning scores were nearly equal between groups`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2023`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-02`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `kala-2023`, `kala-2023-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.