Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: The collective working-memory effect
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the differential effects of learning task complexity on both learning process and outcome efficiency of 83 individual and group learners in the domain of biology. Based upon cognitive load theory, it was expected that for high-complexity tasks, group members would learn in a more efficient way than individual learners, while for low-complexity tasks, individual learning would be more efficient. This interaction hypothesis was confirmed, supporting our premise that the learning efficiency of group members and individuals is determined by a trade-off between the group's advantage of dividing information processing amongst the collective working memories of the group members and its disadvantage in terms of associated costs of information communication and action coordination. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Kirschner et al. (2011) showed that the efficiency of group versus individual learning from tasks imposing a high or low cognitive load was affected by the trade-off between the benefits of dividing information processing among group members and the transaction costs.
“Kirschner et al. (2011) showed that the efficiency of group versus individual learning from tasks imposing a high or low cognitive load was affected by the trade-off between the benefits of dividing information processing among group members and the transaction costs.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
For learning tasks imposing a low cognitive load, learners working either individually or collaboratively had sufficient cognitive capacity to process all information by themselves.
“For learning tasks imposing a low cognitive load, learners working either individually or collaboratively had sufficient cognitive capacity to process all information by themselves.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
For collaborative learners, the benefits of distributing the cognitive load among each other proved to be higher than the transaction costs.
“For collaborative learners, the benefits of distributing the cognitive load among each other proved to be higher than the transaction costs.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
For learning tasks imposing a high load, individual learners did not have sufficient processing capacity to successfully process the information.
“For learning tasks imposing a high load, individual learners did not have sufficient processing capacity to successfully process the information.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
Learning from tasks imposing a high cognitive load led to more efficient collaborative learning, and learning from tasks imposing a low cognitive load resulted in more efficient individual learning.
“More specifically, they found an interaction effect, indicating that learning from tasks imposing a high cognitive load led to more efficient collaborative learning, and learning from tasks imposing a low cognitive load, resulted in more efficient individual learning.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
When cognitive load was low, qualitative differences in constructed knowledge materialised in higher learning efficiency for those who learned individually than for those who learned collaboratively.
“Consequently, when cognitive load was low, qualitative differences in constructed knowledge materialised in higher learning efficiency for those who learned individually than for those who learned collaboratively.”
From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Kirschner et al. (2011)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 219
- Authors
- Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A.
- Affiliations
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Kirschner, Femke
- Venue
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07-28
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 615-624
- ISSN
- 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087725383
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 10.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.ou.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Applied Cognitive Psychology (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Keywords
- task complexity, cooperative learning, group learning, individual learning, cognitive load theory, learning efficiency, biology education, information processing, communication overhead, coordination costs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
