Claims

Only a minority of self-reported CLT-familiar teachers could identify the three types of cognitive load

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2025: baselines and conditions change

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.

q2 i? Among teachers claiming familiarity with CLT, only 28.6% could demonstrate the three types of cognitive load. → Houichi 2020

Evidence

Houichi 2020

Houichi, A., & Sarnou, D. (2020). Cognitive Load Theory and its Relation to Instructional Design: Perspectives of Some Algerian University Teachers of English. Arab World English Journal. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.8

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Questionnaire item asking teachers to identify cognitive load's types. The article reports that among those claiming familiarity, "only (28.6%) could demonstrate the three types of cognitive load." No effect size is reported.

"Among (47.4%) who claimed that they are familiar with (CLT), only (28.6%) could demonstrate the three types of cognitive load."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id minority-identify-three-load-types
title Only a minority of self-reported CLT-familiar teachers could identify the three types of cognitive load
description Only a minority of self-reported CLT-familiar teachers could identify the three types of cognitive load
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2020
recheck_by 2025
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-25
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — houichi-2020

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