Cited by 299Innovations in Medical EducationVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The evolution of cognitive load theory and its application to medical education

Open access
Leppink, Jimmie, Van den Heuvel, Angelique·2015·Perspectives on Medical Education

Abstract

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has started to find more applications in medical education research. Unfortunately, misconceptions such as lower cognitive load always being beneficial to learning and the continued use of dated concepts and methods can result in improper applications of CLT principles in medical education design and research. This review outlines how CLT has evolved and presents a synthesis of current-day CLT principles in a holistic model for medical education design. This model distinguishes three dimensions: task fidelity: from literature (lowest) through simulated patients to real patients (highest); task complexity: the number of information elements; and instructional support: from worked examples (highest) through completion tasks to autonomous task performance (lowest). These three dimensions together constitute three steps to proficient learning: (I) start with high support on low-fidelity low-complexity tasks and gradually fade that support as learners become more proficient; (II) repeat I for low-fidelity but higher-complexity tasks; and (III) repeat I and II in that order at subsequent levels of fidelity. The numbers of fidelity levels and complexity levels within fidelity levels needed depend on the aims of the course, curriculum or individual learning trajectory. This paper concludes with suggestions for future research based on this model.

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/s40037-015-0192-x

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • An assessment after out-of-class instruction is an excellent way to evaluate student comprehension and facilitate mastery learning techniques.

    “An assessment after the out-of-class instruction is an excellent way to evaluate student comprehension of a topic and facilitate the use of mastery learning techniques (22).”

    From Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction (2016) · cites this paper as [22]

    In “Three strategies for optimizing intrinsic cognitive load” (page unavailable), the paper says that appropriate assessment can improve and facilitate learning. It does not specifically recommend assessment after out-of-class instruction, say that such an assessment evaluates topic comprehension, or connect it to mastery learning techniques. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leppink, J., & Van den Heuvel, A.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Leppink, Jimmie
Venue
Perspectives on Medical Education
Published
2015-05-28
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
119-127
ISSN
  • 2212-2761 (ISSN-L)
  • 2212-277X
OpenAlex
W1499793228
Cited by
299
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 2
FWCI
18.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
cognitive load theory, medical education, instructional design, task complexity, pedagogical support, worked examples, standardized patients

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