Cited by 130Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational theories and practices

The Scientific Value of Cognitive Load Theory: A Research Agenda Based on the Structuralist View of Theories

Gerjets, Peter, Scheiter, Katharina, Cierniak, Gabriele·2009·Educational Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-008-9096-1

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Cierniak, G.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Gerjets, Peter
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2008-11-12
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
43-54
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2001517130
Cited by
130
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational theories and practices
Keywords
cognitive load theory, critical rationalism, Karl Popper, falsifiability, fundamental assumptions, research agenda, methodological assumptions, circularity

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