Cited by 200Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Cognitive load theory and its relationships with motivation: A self-determination theory perspective

Open access
Evans, Paul, Vansteenkiste, Maarten, Parker, Philip, Kingsford-Smith, Andrew, Zhou, Sijing·2024·Educational Psychology Review

Abstract

Abstract Although cognitive load theory research has studied factors associated with motivation, these literatures have primarily been developed in isolation from each other. In this contribution, we aimed to advance both fields by examining the effects of instructional strategies on learners’ experience of cognitive load, motivation, engagement, and achievement. Students ( N = 1287) in years 7–10 in four Australian high schools completed survey measures of motivation, engagement, cognitive load, and their teachers’ perceived instructional strategies and motivating style. Results suggest that teachers’ load-reducing instructional strategies were related to lower cognitive load and were positively associated with relative autonomous motivation, engagement, and achievement. Teachers’ motivating styles characterized by autonomy support and structure were also associated with reduced extraneous and intrinsic cognitive load, as well as motivation and engagement. We conclude that by using load-reducing strategies and a motivating style characterized by structure and autonomy support, teachers can reduce students’ cognitive load and improve their self-regulated motivation, engagement, and achievement. In so doing, we discuss a number of future avenues for the joint study of self-determination theory and cognitive load theory, with the aim of refining and extending both perspectives.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The AIGF-TGF order aligns with cognitive load theory, as students first address less cognitively demanding issues (surface-level concerns) before progressing to more complex tasks (higher-order revisions).

    “Moreover, this order aligns with cognitive load theory (Evans et al., 2024), as students first address less cognitively demanding issues (surface-level concerns) before progressing to more complex tasks (higher-order revisions).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1-4419-8126-4 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Evans, P., Vansteenkiste, M., Parker, P., Kingsford-Smith, A., & Zhou, S.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Evans, Paul
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2024-01-15
Volume
36
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W4390863507
Cited by
200
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 20
FWCI
82.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of New South Wales
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
cognitive load theory, self-determination theory, motivation, teaching methods, autonomous motivation, student engagement, academic performance, autonomy support, structure, extraneous cognitive load, intrinsic cognitive load, high school students

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