Placing heavier cognitive demands on learners can be counterproductive in mapping tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r? · q1
Currency · newest study 1984 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on an ERIC document (a report, conference paper or thesis). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q1 i? When mapping tasks impose too great a cognitive load, benefits may be reduced; the study limited term lists to optimize cognitive demands. → Jonassen 1984

Evidence¶

Jonassen 1984¶

Jonassen, D. H. (1984). Semantic relationships and structural knowledge acquisition in introductory psychology. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED258538

q1 · i? · theoretical · r?

The article offers this as an author interpretation rather than a tested result: "placing heavier cognitive demands on learners can be counter-productive". Term lists were deliberately shortened to avoid excessive load; no effect size is reported.

"placing heavier cognitive demands on learners can be counter-productive"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Concept mapping improves learning over most comparison conditions by a moderate average amount, but not over time-matched retrieval practice — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Cognitive Load Management — related
• Cognitive Load Reduction Improves Learning — related
• Task performance and learning are related but fundamentally different processes — related
• Learning with multiple representations imposes high demands and often fails to produce expected results because learners do not integrate the representations — related