Cited by 96Innovations in Medical EducationVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Twelve tips for medical curriculum design from a cognitive load theory perspective

Open access
Leppink, Jimmie, Duvivier, Robbert·2016·Medical Teacher

Abstract

During their course, medical students have to become proficient in a variety of competencies. For each of these competencies, educational design can use cognitive load theory to consider three dimensions: task fidelity: from literature (lowest) through simulated patients (medium) to real patients (highest); task complexity: the number of information elements in a learning task; and instructional support: from worked examples (highest) through completion tasks (medium) to autonomous task performance (lowest). One should integrate any competency into a medical curriculum such that training in that competency facilitates the students' journey that starts from high instructional support on low-complexity low-fidelity learning tasks all the way to high-complexity tasks in high-fidelity environments carried out autonomously. This article presents twelve tips on using cognitive load theory or, more specifically, a set of four tips for each of task fidelity, task complexity, and instructional support, to achieve that aim.

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 · 10.3109/0142159x.2015.1132829

Cites

24 of 24 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?

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 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leppink, J., & Duvivier, R.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Leppink, Jimmie
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2016-01-25
Volume
38
Issue
7
Pages
669-674
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2257885826
Cited by
96
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
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 curriculum development, task complexity, pedagogical support, worked examples, standardized patients, competency-based education, medical education
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Cognition, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Humans, Learning, Psychological Theory, Models, Educational

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