# data[].attributes.body
The key message that I agree with the authors about is that educators should not focus only on the instructional design of learning tasks when attempting to reduce learners’ cognitive load. I also found a lot of promise in several techniques new to me, such as eye closure and use of gestures, and would like to try incorporating them in my own teaching (and learning!) soon.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, the description of the three aspects and the three techniques for each are woefully brief, and at points could be better explained (e.g. the split-attention effect). The discussion at the end of the article is also brief. This leads the article to not provide a comprehensive review, but rather uncritical short summaries of a mixture of the most well-researched techniques. Although the first half of the article explains the CLT well, I believe that the second half is lacklustre, and could have been both more clearly explained, and then more thoughtfully discussed, in a longer article.

# data[].attributes.body
This article does not present new data, instead the authors referred to the work of primary research sources and other secondary sources - such as more in-depth literature reviews.  Paas and Merrienboer do not claim that any new data is presented in their article, nor claim that was a purpose of this work. The findings of the original research may be evidence-based, but this requires substantial investigation on behalf of the critical reader.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas and Merrienboer wrote this article that briefly introduces the concept and principles of CLT and presented this with three methods for reducing learners’ cognitive load for each of three categories: the task design, the learner, and the learning environment. It is somewhat unclear who is the intended audience for this work, perhaps it is most useful for educators new to the concept of CLT, who would be interested in trying out any of the nine described methods in their own practice. The authors end the article with a call for further research in the lesser developed aspects of the learner and the learning environment, which would be a radically different audience to newer educators. However, this journal is likely to have such established researchers as readers, so this presents a second audience group that may find the article to be of interest.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides an interesting introduction/overview of Cognitive-Load Theory and examples of how to optimise working memory within an educational setting. Although I was aware of the concept of CLT and WM this is the first piece of academic writing I have read on the subject. The article has peaked my personal interest in the theory of CLT and methods of effectively managing the WM and will lead to me further researching these topics to incorporate them into my future teaching methods.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to the lack of primary data in this article there isn’t any analysis of data taking place, instead vague summaries of previous research have been chosen to support their theories on CLT. The discussion provides a good overview of the information included in the article, however with no opposing views or theories in the article acts as more of a conclusion than a discussion. The potential limitations of this article (specifically in education) are shown in the second paragraph of the discussion where it is mentioned that some of the methods have been identified outside of the field of education and need further investigation and research.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is a review of existing research on CLT and therefore does not include primary data and completely relies on secondary data from past research to support the authors theories. When citing the secondary data in the article there is a lack information included on setting, data collection, and sample size. Often when conducting a review of current literature, a research paper would explain its methodology/reasoning for selecting the specific papers being reviewed, this however is not the case in this article.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of the article are Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer who both are researchers of education and psychology. The intended audience of this article are likely to be those involved within the field of education who may have not been previously introduced to CLT. The authors of this article continuously cite their own research papers and other papers that support their research on CLT without including any other opposing theories, this suggests potential bias towards CLT.

# data[].attributes.body
Before reading this article, I hadn’t even heard of CLT. And while I was aware of LTM and WM, it was beneficial to have them discussed within the academic framework of cognitive architecture. In particular, I found it interesting to find out that gesturing can help to temporarily off-load WM resources by maintaining the information within the gesture. I will be curious to see whether it has the desired effect in practice.

# data[].attributes.body
The article mainly focuses on collecting and presenting/describing various approaches. However it does comment on how the characteristics of instructional design decisions to manage the learner’s WM resources interact with one another.

# data[].attributes.body
The article doesn’t directly present any data, rather it collects and summarises the results of various research projects. It does, however, admit that not all of the described methods have been investigated thoroughly, as some have only been identified outside the field of learning and education.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is aimed primarily at education professionals, but also anyone who needs to train/pass on information to someone else. Since it relies on evidence gathered by other researchers, it is unlikely to have an author bias in regard to the data. However, bias may be shown in how the author has chosen to present the data or researcher’s findings.

# data[].attributes.headline
Using secondary research offers its benefits such as being able to access other people work and views easily, this reduces the validity of articles due there not being any primary research which is harder to analyse and break down

# data[].attributes.subject
Using secondary research offers its benefits such as being able to access other people work and views easily, this reduces the validity of articles due there not being any primary research which is harder to analyse and break down

# data[].attributes.headline
This particular article focuses more on secondary research to validate the points and arguments and does not include a lot of data to back it up

# data[].attributes.subject
This particular article focuses more on secondary research to validate the points and arguments and does not include a lot of data to back it up

# data[].attributes.headline
Paas & Merrinboer are the authors of this study and they have aimed this piece of research at peaple within education who want to learn more about how the mind works especially in terms of Cognitive Load Theory and how teachers can help them retain the correct information. Paas uses other researchers with Sweller being one of them which validates the article and makes it a more credible source

# data[].attributes.subject
Paas & Merrinboer are the authors of this study and they have aimed this piece of research at peaple within education who want to learn more about how the mind works especially in terms of Cognitive Load Theory and how teachers can help them retain the correct information. Paas uses other researchers with Sweller being one of them which validates the article and makes it a more credible source

# data[].attributes.body
The article summarises a lot of terms relating to CLT, especially when regarding cognitive schemas and the types of memory that new learned information is committed to. This, alongside the different factors to be considered when dealing with the learner, the learning task and the learning environment would be considered the main themes of the article.

In terms of my own practice, I found the article incredibly interesting as I have little experience with the concepts that were being discussed. I especially found the content on the learning environment to be useful as the affecting factors that are presented in the article are not necessarily things that I would have thought of myself.

# data[].attributes.body
On the whole, this article does not present any data, instead collecting and summarising research that already exists. It seems to serve primarily as an introduction to CLT and the associated terminology. The lack of primary data gathered is limiting, as is a lack of alternative methods included in the paper in order to compare. No specific case studies are presented in the article, instead there is a reliance on summarising affecting factors in regards to learner, task and environment. In addition to these factors, the article itself states that research into cognitive architecture is “continuously being developed and refined”, this potentially could mean that the findings presented in this article could eventually become outdated.

# data[].attributes.body
The primary focus of the article is on the learning task, the learning environment and the learner themselves, in regards to CLT. Despite this being the focus, Paas and Merriënboer only present “load-management methods that have been used by CLT researchers”, they do not present any of their own new findings. The article does, however, present methods from other fields of research that share similar principles.

Of the methods that are provided, all that is given is an overview of examples and for each area that the article focuses on, only a short three examples are given as factors of each. In addition to this, no new data is presented in the article, it is all drawn from either previous research by Paas and Merriënboer or from the research of others.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of the article, Paas and Merriënboer both work within the fields of psychology and education. Between them, they have published an extensive list of papers on the subject of Cognitive Load Theory.

Their intended audience for this article seems to be mainly fellow researchers as the work was originally published in a volume of “Current Directions in Psychological Science”. Further evidence to their intentions can be found in the inclusion of a discussion section at the end of the article that aims to encourage further research. Overall, the article explains a simplistic version of CLT which may make it more approachable for educators or others without a background in psychology.

A bias can be found in the sources used, as Paas and Merriënboer have referenced many of their own previous works. Despite the heavy reliance on their own material, the pair are both experts in the field, having previously developed their own method to measure perceived mental effort. Another researcher that they draw upon as John Sweller, the Australian education psychologist who initially formulated CLT.

# data[].attributes.body
I was previously unaware of CLT, so reading the article gave me an understanding of something I was unaware of, despite the article's limitations.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite secondary data giving the authors a larger sample to research. This also limits the article since we don’t know the reliability/validity of the secondary data. Also, analysing secondary data is much harder and less objective than conducting primary research as there won’t be as much contradicting findings.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas and Merrienboer effectively use a literature review to outline and paint a picture of the subject using previous research from the area. The researchers are using secondary research in this article by drawing on other researchers’ findings in order to create their own findings with a vast data set of previous samples. The theoretical discussion following the literature review is where the researchers pool together all these conclusions from others to try and find a consensus and a more widely supported findings.

# data[].attributes.body
Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer are the authors of this article. They wrote this article with the intention of other educational researchers and academics within the psychology and education sector. The article can be used to improve others’ educational practice or be built upon by other researchers. Throughout the article, there is evidence or researcher bias. Firstly, Paas and van Merrienboer support this theory already, potentially contributing to confirmation bias. As well, the majority of evidence and references used in the article come from the author’s previous research.

# data[].attributes.body
It will be useful taking the knowledge of Working memory, specifically reducing cognitive load to increase WM resources in the classroom, being knowledgeable about some of the applicable factors and adaptable in the ways in which the teaching practice can increase the most efficient learning outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
The use of secondary data in the article is a key limitation within it. There is a lack of regard for a diverse conversation within each example given for how WM capacity is effected by different factors, and these factors which affect WM should have more depth to make each example stronger via more primary evidence, or weaker, by including studies that may have found opposite suggestions.

# data[].attributes.body
The article uses other researchers as a literature review to conclude findings surrounding Working Memory (WM) in the field, giving different research conclusions as a summary of factors that affect WM in relation to Long Term Memory (LTM). This is secondary research as no data was collected first hand by the authors in the field. The findings in the article are largely researched based, built upon previous work done both by the authors, and other researchers in the field.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of this Journal article are Paas F and van Merrienboer J.G. They are influential researchers in psychology, known for their work in Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). The articles intended audience are other CLT researchers, students, and academics in the field.

Largely supported by theory and research as well as building upon previous work, the authors use learner's context and other findings and practices by other researchers to give context to working memory and its relationship with cognitive load theory. There is an argument that many examples given within the article such as attention-capturing-stimuli reduction or Eye closure could apply Cognitive-Load Theory, creating a positivist research paridgm.

# data[].attributes.body
The actual utility of these terms in practise is harder to assess. I would argue that by drawing such defined linear boundaries between different methods of dispensing, gathering, and understanding information, Paas and Merriënboer are - perhaps understandably - unnaturally imposing order upon a much more fluid, mutable set of ‘systems’. Of significant importance is their lack of a system to describe the ‘problem-solving’ stage of learning. Both authors keenly delineate the myriad principles that can lead to full understanding of a topic, but they do not identify when or how that understanding is specifically reached. For the Worked-Example-Effect, Paas and Merriënboer state that students learn more if they already know the answer, but that they cannot be given ‘too many’ worked examples as this will nullify the act of understanding. Nowhere do they state for how long or how many ‘worked examples’ should be undertaken before such an apogee is crested. It is worth questioning if such a thing can be measured, but it is to my mind no clearer than any of the other values outlined in this paper.

In conclusion, all of these facets of learning can be wielded together in an institutional capacity to get the most out of learners and their environs. The individual categorisations warrant further study to understand, something outlined by the authors themselves, but I would draw specific attention to their utility as terms first-and-foremost, and the effect this may have on conceptualising the classroom not as a fluid entity, but as a rigid piece of architecture.

# data[].attributes.body
These three principles, codifying the respective fundamentals of intake and memory, repetitive practise, and imitation can - to Paas and Merriënboer - be amplified through specific styles of learning. They suggest that focusing on one source of information at a time is easier than multiple, that students learn more by being told the answer and then working backwards, and that only a certain, limited amount of these worked examples is necessary. All of these processes can be improved through motivational cues, gradually increasing levels of difficulty, and at least a few mock papers (which the authors describe as ‘Stress-Suppression-Activities’). The additional principles of Narrow-Limits-of-Change and Environmental-Organising-and-Linking are slightly harder to define; the former an explanation of how working memory can be used to process difficult concepts into long-term memory, and the latter a suggestion that a clean, minimalist external environment (such as a classroom) leads to more efficient learning. They expand upon this final example by hypothesising that well-placed ‘schema’ within a classroom (which Merriënboer highlights as warm colours) can help to recall information and link arguments together.

These examples combine the aforementioned knowledge frameworks; Merriënboer’s Cognitive Learning Theory essentially being a guide on how to trick the brain into learning for learning’s sake by disguising this knowledge as necessary for the evolved long-term memory. By ‘Trojan Horse’-ing these packets of information, one’s working memory can conjoin with long-term memory for maximum efficiency. When all students in a classroom operate in this manner, under the auspices of the teacher, then together they form this previously described ‘collaborative system’.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas and Merriënboer envision the process of learning as ‘cognitive architecture’; bricks and mortar held together by synaptic scaffolding, developed via a purposefully directed language of symbols, gestures, and work-plans. Across their varied analogies, the teacher is the ‘architect’, with students as independent machines in a cognitive framework of knowledge, understanding, and practice. When working in groups, said students collectively form a ‘collaborative system’.

Underscoring the authors’ approaches are their backgrounds. Fred Paas is a master of Human Movement Science, focused on the utility of non-verbal coded symbols: hand movements and gait. These function alongside the spoken word to enhance the working memory of students. In short, students retain information if it is delivered alongside a visual stimulus (such as a hand gesture). On the other hand, Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer specialises in instructional design philosophy and has led research projects centred around cognitive load theories. As a professor of learning and instruction, Merriënboer’s interests are deeply embedded within this paper: a dichotomy between ‘biologically primary’ and manufactured ‘secondary’ knowledge (information we have evolved to obtain versus that which requires explicit guidance to understand), with both aspects assisting one another through the principles of Information Storage, Randomness-as-Genesis, and Borrowing-and-Reorganisation.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst the article only discusses one specific teaching practice in CLT, this is an area that I had experienced to a degree from a practical standpoint but was less knowledgeable from an academic standpoint.

I look forward to doing further research to inform my own teaching practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Whilst the article discusses several techniques/methods, there is only limited discussion of each technique/method covered in the sections compared to the more detailed discussion of the basics behind CLT.

It also highlights that there some techniques that were identified from outside of which require further investigation before they can be fully recommended or included in instructional guidelines.

# data[].attributes.body
The article takes the approach of a review of previous research instead of collecting primary data. It does this by citing a reasonable number of articles with at least one for each of the examples that it discusses.

The discussion is well structured with an initial overview discussing the basics of CLT before moving onto techniques/methods that can be used. This makes the article easy to digest and then identify areas for further reading.

# data[].attributes.body
The article presents a well-evidenced argument for how the learning task, stimulation for the learner, and the learning environment itself can all effect the efficacy of the individual's ability to process secondary knowledge. As Paas and Merrienboar (2020) state, facets of CLT research are still developing, which must be taken into consideration when formulating instructional guidelines. Thus, the article recommends this be taken into consideration when making instructional-design choices for learning.

The potential limitations to this article can be found in the data used to support it. Beyond the limitations of using secondary data only, which could impact the accuracy and quality of the data, the article relies heavily on Sweller (1998, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2011, 2018, 2019) which could suggest researcher bias and also a lack in contrasting opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
The article relies primarily on secondary resources to evidence its argument. Although the use of secondary resources offer a strongly evidenced argument of how an individual's cognitive load can be impacted, a potential limitation lies in the sole use of secondary data. For example, the use of secondary data can suggest researcher bias. This could be further evidenced in this article through the significant use of Paas and Sweller.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas and J.G. Van Merrienboer argue that cognitive-load theory (CLT) can be utilised to heighten learning; this could be achieved through consideration of the learning environment, the learner, the learning task and how efficiently these factors are stimulating the learner’s working memory resources. This article might prove useful for educators seeking to enhance learning through a better understanding of cognitive load.

The article uses Geary’s (2007, 2008) evolutionary theory and Sweller and Sweller’s (2006) evoultionary theory to support its discussion. A potentional limitation posed here could be how Paas and Merrienboer do not draw from any contrasting perspectives to extend the discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to reading this article, I did not know about CLT, however after reading this article I am interested to read and understand it more, as this article was an interesting read. A key message from the article was that those within the education sector should be purposeful in the way they provide instruction to aid in providing effective learning, stating that the learner, the learning task and environment are interlinked. Additionally stating that educators need to aid in managing working memory as it has a limited capacity.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides a basic summary of CLT using secondary resources and lacks the use of primary resources and new data. Briefly describing the effects of CLT but does not go into depth about how the research is conducted. The authors explain how the three learning characteristics are interlinked with each other and how they can impact CLT, potentially resulting in the whole system being implicated. Furthermore, the authors research is provided in a clear and concise way, allowing it to be a quick and easy read for the audience. However, within the discussion section a key limitation is identified, stating that further research needs to be conducted on the application of CLT in different learning context as some theories which are stated within the piece is not used in education sector. Ultimately questioning if it can be transferred into the classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
This article relies heavily on secondary sources, with no original data and a wide use of sources from the same author as well as their own. However, the secondary research is not backed up with any primary sources, not demonstrating how information was obtained. Thus, demonstrating how the article lacks depth within the data collection process, as it consists of previous and already existing studies in the field of CLT. As the article references secondary sources, there is no reference to the sample size or a certain setting when research CLT.

Furthermore, the article allows for easy accessibility for the reader with the use of clear headings and sub-heading, making it easy to follow on from each section. Clearly showing their methodology is divided into three focus sections; learning tasks, the learner and the learning environment.

# data[].attributes.body
The article provides a great introduction to CLT and the surrounding psychology. I was aware of a lot of the methods discussed in a classroom observation context, but I had not read about them from an academic perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
The article does not provide empirical data and is an overview of other studies. The methods it proposes are discussed to a limited extent. In some places a variable that may impact the effectiveness of a method is mentioned, but no attempt is may to provide this important information for all methods. In the discussion section the authors provide one example of how some methods can be impacted by others or environmental stimuli. The authors do not provide data on the evidence weight for each method, the reliability of the studies they have referenced, or the limitations of their own overview.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors do not provide the methodology they used to select the studies included in the article. They do not provide a list of studies produced from any literature searches. The authors seem to have hand picked the studies they wanted to include based on the findings that they wanted to write about. It is possible that by doing so the authors have omitted studies containing data that do not support their arguments. The sample size of studies is low and a large proportion of the studies share the same authors or research institutes. The geographical spread of studies seems to also lack studies from outside Western Europe and North America. The studies are all in English also so there is possible language bias in their literature selection.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors, Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, are educational psychology CLT researchers. The article is intended as an overview for other CLT researchers, educators and instructional designers. All the studies mentioned in the article are in support of CLT and its successes.  There are no studies referenced that provide a counter argument or evidence that the methods to manage cognitive load can have varied success. This article does not aim to provide empirical evidence or data, but instead collates studies that provide evidence of the effectiveness of methods to manage cognitive load derived from CLT. Only in the discussion do the authors suggest that some of the methods require further investigation before they can be written into practice guidelines.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors, Pass and Merrienboer are prominent researchers in the field of cognitive learning theory, who also both have professions which relate to education and children’s studies. The intended audience for the article are individuals who work in the education sector and researchers who want to enhance their practice by applying cognitive learning theory. However, it is evident throughout the piece that there is bias from the authors. Within the first paragraph, there is use of bias towards CLT, with reoccurring in-text citation of authors previous work in the field of CLT. Showing that both Pass and Marrienboer have researched CLT previous times, suggesting that their work is biased towards this theory as being the best way to optimize learning, by building on their previous research and their long-standing expertise in the area of CLT. However, there is minimal consideration for alternative theories and new data which could potential discredit the authors previous findings.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of this article, Pass and van Merriënboer, are researchers and educators with specific interested in the psychology of teaching and Cognitive Load Theory (CLT).

The article is primarily intended for educators, looking for methodology to improve their practice, and fellow researchers, as an overview on the topic. But as some methods reference being found outside of the education space, it could also be applied to any profession where instruction takes place.

Whilst there is a wide range of references, suggesting the article has been well researched, they are all in support of CLT showing bias towards its use.

# data[].attributes.body
Key themes include CLT as a systems-based framework, emphasizing the interplay between task, learner, and environment. The article highlights the importance of adapting instruction as expertise grows, using collaboration to expand cognitive capacity, and leveraging emotional and physical environments to reduce cognitive load. It also distinguishes between biologically primary and secondary knowledge, advocating for interactive methods like movement and group work. These insights encourage holistic, adaptive, and emotionally aware instructional design that supports learner motivation, engagement, and cognitive efficiency.

# data[].attributes.body
The article does not present new empirical research but synthesizes findings from decades of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) studies. It draws on peer-reviewed, well-established research in educational psychology, including foundational CLT work, cognitive load measurement, and instructional design. Evidence from related fields, such as forensic psychology and motivation research, is also referenced. While the paper is conceptual and generates no new data, its findings are evidence-informed and grounded in reliable, theoretical, and empirical literature.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors conclude that effective instructional design must holistically address task complexity, learner characteristics, and the learning environment. Instruction should minimize extraneous cognitive load, optimize intrinsic load, and promote germane processing. They recommend evidence-based strategies like worked examples, integrated information, and collaboration, along with environmental supports such as reducing distractions. While grounded in the well-established Cognitive Load Theory, the article is conceptual and lacks new empirical data. Some proposed methods from non-traditional fields (e.g., eye closure) need further research. CLT principles are broadly applicable, but certain strategies may not generalize across all ages, cultures, or task types.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, authored by Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, explores how Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) can guide effective instructional design by helping learners manage complex tasks without overloading working memory. Targeted at educators, instructional designers, and cognitive scientists, it synthesizes decades of CLT research without presenting new empirical data. The authors emphasize foundational concepts like intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load, as well as evolutionary cognitive architecture. While the article mainly cites CLT-aligned work—including their own—it acknowledges other fields and calls for further research, adding some balance. Though not directly policy-driven, it offers practical, evidence-informed insights relevant to curriculum design, educational technology, and inclusive learning environments.

# data[].attributes.body
This article, by Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, explores how Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) can guide effective instructional design by helping learners manage complex tasks without overloading working memory. Targeted at educators, instructional designers, and cognitive scientists, it synthesizes decades of CLT research without presenting new empirical data. The authors emphasize foundational concepts like intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load, as well as evolutionary cognitive architecture. While the article mainly cites CLT-aligned work, including their own, it acknowledges other fields and calls for further research, adding some balance. Though not directly policy-driven, it offers practical, evidence-informed insights relevant to curriculum design, educational technology, and inclusive learning environments.

# data[].attributes.body
The key messages within this article discuss effective management through the task, the learner and the environment. Using these to demonstrate how we need to reduce unnecessary load to manage and optimise the working memory due to its strict limits that constrain certain learning. (e.g. Germane processing).

This article has shown me key concepts of how cognitive learning theory works that I will consider within my career and practice. Highlighting the importance of considering different factors, not just the task at hand. For example, practical strategies like reducing classroom distractions, using gestures and promoting collaboration. While also reinforcing awareness of learner differences, such as novice/expert, this can be done through structuring specific lesson materials that target each group's working memory.

# data[].attributes.body
This article gives us a great introduction to the Cognitive Load Theory. Informing us on the importance of including not only the instructional design of the task, but also learner characteristics and the learning environment. They recommend minimising extraneous cognitive load while maximising productive cognitive load using methods like collaboration, distraction reduction and motivational cues.

The article does not present any new data due to its use of secondary sources, which can be viewed as a limitation, as there is limited contrasting views and no evidence of sample sizes or methods which questions the validity of the previous studies.

# data[].attributes.body
The main focus of article is to advise how to manage cognitive load and lessen the extraneous factors that pull focus from processing information in the WM. Through doing this, educators are able to adapt their way of teaching to allow the greatest benefit for their students.

This has widened my own understanding of the limits of WM and the most effective ways to maximise the intellectual profit, namely through modes of collaboration, gestures, and recognising motivational cues.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the principles of transferring WM to LTM is ‘environmental-organizing-and-linking principle’ and they discuss the benefits of ‘positive emotional design’, but they later go on to critique and talk to the disadvantages of external distractions in the learning environment (attention-capturing-stimuli). They do not address how these can be used to the advantage of this principle, which suggests slightly contrasting findings.

While the outcomes that are discussed regarding the learner seem to be generally applicable to most students and learning environments, some of the findings in the ‘learning tasks’ section are very generalised and do not take into consideration or address the limitations of these particular models. There is no attempt to address the shortcomings of these models and how they may be inapplicable for students with different learning needs, and how these practises can limit the learning by offering generalised solutions that do not account for personal conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
It is unclear as to the actual method of research and kind of sample-sizes used to make these conclusions. The findings are seemingly evidence based but the article does not clarify where the findings are being taken from – if this is done solely in educational settings such as schools, and what age ranges are being researched. It is not stated whether this is applicable to school-aged students, of if this is also deemed to be true of adult learners.

It is stated that some methods have been identified outside of an educational setting, but it is not clarified which methods this applies to, making it difficult to know if they are to be applicable in a classroom setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas quoted a lot of his own work seemingly, and a lot of repeats of certain authors suggests a level of bias due to limited range of contributions, particularly in the stages of outlining the theory model. In the findings section, there are a larger range of authors cited, which suggests that the research itself is quite extensive and well-rounded.

The intended audience of this article is researchers over educators, as a lot of the lexis is complex and requires a prior understanding of the terminology and theory that favours researchers of the subject as opposed to those looking to use it in practise.

The closing line also suggests that this is aimed more at fellow researchers as opposed to educators as it calls for further research to be done before the findings can be properly applied to an education setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Pass and van Merriënboer (2020) form more of a theoretical discussion/review rather than empirical research. The article is made of secondary data from existing research. This research method means there is a lack of methods and sample size used however, it does cite many psychological research studies.

This approach is more selective as it highlights key theories and approaches. For example, worked examples, collaboration and attention-capturing stimuli reduction.

# data[].attributes.body
The article, written by Pass and van Merriënboer (2020), is aimed primarily at psychologists, educators and academics rather than a general audience. This can be shown through its publication in the 'Current Directions in Psychological Science' and the language and references used within the article. The article focuses on cognitive-load theory and integrates methods of managing working memory load.

The article is clear and well-structured, while predominantly being based on psychological theory.

There is some evidence within the article of researcher bias, as both authors are leading contributors to Cognitive Load Theory. They build on their own previous work and frequently reference past research, potentially showing confirmation bias. However, they do acknowledge that some methods need to be further 'investigated systematically' Pass and van Merriënboer (2020). Confirming that more research could be completed.

# data[].attributes.body
The main theme and takeaway of this article is to be meaningful and purposeful about how, where and what you're teaching. It shows how learning isn't just about the specific task it depends on the learner themselves and their environment and how it can change and alter how well something is learned if one of those three things is changed. It also discusses how working and long term memory work and how best to utilise them when teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.body
The overall analysis is mediocre and limited due to there being no new/ primary data collected for this study. However each study does not need to have primary data but there can be a wide range of secondary data, but in this study there is not enough secondary data to provide a full and detailed analysis. It does provide a comprehensive view on Cognitive Learning Theory but by including primary data that can then be supported by the already present secondary data would have strengthened any analysis or conclusions made. In addition by including evidence to contrast CLT it means that any analysis c an be more developed as there can be an argument for both sides as well as providing a full view of any learning theories. It would also benefit any educators or researcher that read the article that there are other learning theories but that CLT is better or has more of a benefit to teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the papers that are referenced and used for analysis in this article are written by the same group of authors and are papers written by the authors of this article. This makes the sample size of papers small and therefore can have limitations. There is not a clear methodology to how the different papers were selected, and as this study does not include any primary data and any analysis is done from secondary data we can assume that a meta-analysis was done to select relevant papers. However there is no evidence included to show how these papers were selected. This is a limitation of the paper due to a limited viewpoint and limited opinions on the subject matter, to combat this the sample size of papers could be increase and/or primary data could have been collected. In addition a full and detailed evaluation and analysis cannot be done if there isn't a wide range of data to feed into the conclusions and discussion. There was also analysis of each of the papers and conclusions of the papers in the discussion, this individual conclusions were good and the content was useful to provide support to the Cognitive Learning Theory.

# data[].attributes.body
This study was written by research psychologists as well as a variety of educators. This study was aimed towards researchers to encourage them to increase and widen research into different methods and factors that affect the pillars of learning (learner, learning environment and the learning task). It is also aimed at educators to utilise the findings of the study to improve their teaching to maximise the amount of content learned as well as improve the learning environment. The conclusions made are supported by a range of articles and theories that look at and target specific areas of Cognitive Learning Theory however these items referenced are mainly works of the same authors and are works from the authors of this particular article. Therefore this could imply some research bias as they haven't utilised any research of a wider variety or any research that could potentially challenge CLT, subsequently limiting any analysis and conclusions made.

# data[].attributes.body
With the themes being around the use of teaching techniques to aid in students learning, I found the discussion external distractions quite compelling, with the example of decorated classrooms affecting the WM of learners being something I had not taken into consideration before. The study also helps frame lesson planning as physical exercise as well as a mental one.

# data[].attributes.body
The analysis of the data is strong at surface level however there is a distinct lack of examples to show the contrary of certain points made. For example, there appears to be a large gap in the ways that CLT could be useful for those who are excelling within the classroom. This could be to give the intended audience an overview of CLT as opposed to show the pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.body
The data collection of this study appears to be picked from other sources which may support their argument however does not appear to show a thorough and well tested methodology. The lack of primary data collection does create a difficulty around the reliability of this paper to be used as a guide to a CLT driven approach in a classroom, however, it is a useful tool to those starting out in an educational setting to implement some of the recommendations in a classroom to observe their usefulness.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of the study, Paas & Merriënboer, have likely intended this piece to be aimed at those in the educational field with context being the approach of Cognitive-load theory (CLT) being used in a learning setting to aid in memory retention of students. When looking through the references there appears to be a lot of reference to Paas own works which could show a researcher bias.

# data[].attributes.body
A key message from the article is for educators to be purposeful in the way the deliver instructions in order to create effective episodes of learning. Educators have a range of methods to utilise, listed within the article. Greater information, practical guides and subject specific examples would be useful to aid understanding of how to apply the methods in the real world.

# data[].attributes.body
No new data is presented within the article. Within the discussion, the authors highlight how the three learning task characteristics: the learning tasks, the leaner and, the learning environment, are interconnected. A key limitation highlighted is that some of the methods included have been identified outside of the field of learning and education meaning that they may not transfer into the classroom. Furthermore, the field of learning and education is a wide and diverse one meaning generalisability is weak as certain methods may be better suited to certain subjects or situations.

# data[].attributes.body
The article does not provide any outline of the methodology used. As a result, the article is neither a meta-analysis or literature review of methods to manage working memory load. Consequently, the reader may question why the authors used certain references and whether other studies support the arguments made. Furthermore, the authors did not report the effect size of the studies referenced therefore it is difficult to know if the methods had a significant and observable impact on learners.

# data[].attributes.body
The article describes ways in which educators can manage their classrooms, lesson plans and learners to more effectively aid their students in the understanding and retention of new, complex information. For example, the use of example work in a new task can save their cognitive resources for learning, as opposed to depleting resources on problem solving. It also explains how the CLT can be further developed by academic researchers in the field. This is an interesting area of study, and is something I would like to look further into, as well as implement in the classroom, in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
No fresh data is collected for this article. Instead Paas and Merrienboer compile and summarise findings from various other studies, including multiple from the aforementioned Sweller. They divide their findings of methods for managing cognitive load into three sections: the learning task, the learner, and the learning environment. There is very little exploration into the various methods mentioned. And Paas and Merrienboer do explain that some methods they have discussed are not as thoroughly researched as others, and recommend other researchers investigate those areas. For some users, such as psychologists who’s aim may be to gain a deeper understanding of a complex concept, this may render the article as insufficient, requiring further work and research to gain a deeper understanding of the concept. But for other users, such as teachers who may not have a great deal of time available to research alongside planning and marking, Paas and Merrienboer provide a concise explanation of CLT, and numerous ways a teacher may optimise the teaching, reception and retention of information in a classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is essentially a report summarising some of the key theories and ideas around CLT. It is not an analysis of any original data or hypotheses. Paas and Merrienboer report that a number of the theories they have described were “identified outside the field of learning and education” and may require further exploration before being relied upon to heavily in an educational setting. Though they make no attempts at such investigations themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Paas and Merrienboer are academics who study educational and developmental psychology, and learning and instruction respectively. Their article is likely intended for in and around educational environments, including teachers, researchers, even psychologists. While no new data is collected or analysed for this article, Paas and Merrienboer draw from a range of studies from various researchers, including various articles by Sweller, who first coined ‘Cognitive Load Theory’ in the eighties.

# data[].attributes.body
The summarising nature of the article with brief explanations and examples plus recommended reading at the bottom of the article suggests that the author’s intended audience perhaps is other researchers interested in cognitive-load theory. The lack of detailed examples may result in educators who are not previously conversed with the methods struggle to apply them in practice. Rather than producing new insights into cognitive-load theory the main intention of the article is to categorise methods of managing working memory load. The lead author, Fred Paas, is a well-established researcher in the field of cognitive-load theory therefore the article may be intended to summarise this particular area within the research field at the point of publication. Within the article, the authors have attempted to mitigate bias by calling for further research into managing cognitive load but do not acknowledge alternative theories for optimising learning.

# data[].attributes.body
The overall theme of the article is cognitive learning theory. It extends knowledge by linking intrinsic and extraneous characteristics to working memory. The article discusses how different people show different ways to reach maximum efficiency of the working memory, to be able to store more knowledge in long-term memory. The article also explores other contributing themes, such as biologically secondary knowledge and how we can use primary biological knowledge to facilitate this. These themes are considered when using different methods, such as the worked example effect or collaboration, to support the learners' full potential.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is considerably lacking in depth regarding analysis and discussion, but this could be because of the targeted audience. As stated earlier, the targeted audience is new learners to the topic of CLT or people in education who want to incorporate research into their practice. Therefore, showing overly in-depth information in the analysis and discussion could be confusing and contradict what the article is about. Leaving the reader to be able to complete further and more specific research.

# data[].attributes.body
The article lacks depth in terms of data. The information used is contemporary secondary data, expressed qualitatively. The article successfully provides an overview of the secondary sources; however, it does not clearly demonstrate connections to the primary data used to obtain the information.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of this article, Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer, have done extensive research into cognitive load theory in the past, and this article is evidence of their expertise. The article is targeted towards those who want to consider wider perspectives on the topic of cognitive load theory, or for those in education who aim to implement research methods into their practice. Paas, working in the department of Psychology and including many examples of his own work, is a huge bias, but not necessarily a negative one. Paas has shown his deep understanding of CLT, which has resulted in advancing the theory. Further, Paas incorporates other researchers, such as Sweller, to strengthen the reliability of the article. Paas also explains how he hopes the article sparks further research into other fields of practice.

# data[].attributes.body
I do find the CLT really interesting as I didn’t know anything about this prior to reading this article. I do think some of the point are very well explained however a lack of data / the bias from the references does make it harder to trust – I feel more date and also some clear methods on how this can be used in the classroom could really make this article more useful and could be integral to teaching in the future.

The research behind the split-attention effect is really interesting and makes complete sense to me, however, learning one from specific source I feel can be detrimental as yes one source may be incredible to one student but maybe not another student who finds it easier learning a different way / from a different source.

# data[].attributes.body
As previously stated, most of this article is an introduction to the CLT and methods on how we can manage this. There is no direct methods for how we do this in the classroom but it gives us a wider scope of the working memory.

Although this theory is good there is no comparing or any use of other theories along with it, again making it more bias to the one theory that they have presented.

The discussion section, does offer a small amount of benefits of the thoery they have provided but I feel not enough solid research in the article hinders it, yes it's a great introduction to CLT however, I feel more research needs to now be done to support the theories.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article specifically there is no original data shown – it’s all secondary data by other researches or from the authors previous work. However this article is very useful for people who are brand new to learning about CLT and how it could be used within teaching to provide students the best outcome. It’s laid out very well with heading for different areas and it separates the characteristics into three main sections the learning task, the learner, and the learning environment – these can all effect the brain and how much information it might receive, so learning about the Cognitive Load and how we can manage this is imperative to teaching.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of this article are Fred Paas, Jeroen J. G and van Merriënboer. This article is aimed at Researchers who look at Cognitive Load on a wider spectrum but also for Educators who may want to implement some of their research methods in the classroom to help with their students Working memory. Although there is many references in this article a lot of them come from their own articles that they have previously written about showing a huge bias as they clearly have a strong belief behind CLT so this doesn’t allow for something fully authentic.

# data[].attributes.body
Key message is that working memory has a limit in capacity and duration and therefore we need to help manage this while learning complex concepts.

I found this article interesting with how it talked about the environment and the learner could have a impact on the cognitive load. Especially with the idea of attention capturing stimuli reduction as most classrooms are decorated and naturally distracting.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is more of an introduction into cognitive load theory and gives useful ways to reduce the strain on the working memory, than a data backed discussion.

The lack of primary evidence limits the discussions and analysis.

Every exemplary method is supported with previous evidence, however not support with data. As well as each method’s limitations are not discussed.

The limitations of the article is mainly the lack of primary evidence and the use of the authors’ previous research as supporting evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
No primary evidence is presented in the article instead it looks at collecting evidence that support the authors and builds on their previous research.

The article is set in three main sections: Cognitive architecture, Exemplary methods to mange cognitive load and Discussion. The use of headings and sub headings allows the article to follow from one  section into the next.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors are Fred Paas and Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, both are researchers in education and psychology.

The intended audience is researchers look into cognitive load theory and how to reduce strain.

The authors use a wide range of evidence from their previous research, suggesting a bias. However there is still supporting evidence from others. The references spans large period of time.

# data[].attributes.body
The aim of the article is to improve and maximise the experience of learners which is a positive and appealing idea.

I have been challenged to think more methodically about my teaching practice than perhaps I might have previously. I can be more detailed and intentional in how I impart information.

# data[].attributes.body
Without detailed information about the data collection methods of each individual article, we cannot analyse their reliability. This in turn, leads to the main article becoming unreliable as a source of data. The secondary sources need to be individually analysed.

The authors pull from a broad range of works which suggests the view we are being given is not narrow, however, each article seems to fit the idea they would like to portray and discuss. There are no contrasting views presented.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors are not presenting empirical evidence or quantative research. They are collating and presenting a body of secondary works about CLT to suggest a need for further research in certain areas.

There is no reference to the data collection methods, only a reflection on the outcomes.

In the abstract, it is clear that this was their objective: to highlight methods rather than to conduct research themselves in this instance. This is not necessarily a shortcoming of the article, but the measures used against it here.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is primarily for educators and researchers with a view to improving educational outcomes.

The authors use a wide range of supporting evidence, however, they often reference their own research. This suggests researcher bias, which could imply their expertise and/or lack of further research in the field. It should be noted that all the recommended reading is their own work.

There is no evident criticality of other research in this article, each reference supports the central idea.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally liked how the article addressed how the learner and their environment could change how well different applications of CLT work. I am interested to learn more about CLT, and how it may be applied in the classroom. I enjoyed the article, and thought that it was a good introduction to CLT for anyone unaware of it, particularly in education.

# data[].attributes.body
In the discussion section of the article, the authors make it clear that some methods listed need more research applied to them before being used, and that each characteristic that impacts CLT should be considered with other elements in mind, as affecting one characteristic could affect the whole system. The study is limited in that there are no other theories to compare CLT to, and that some of the theories listed have not been used in education, however the authors do address this.

# data[].attributes.body
The article relies on secondary sources, some of which come from the same author as this article. It provides an overview of the secondary sources before further analysing them, however it does not have a primary source connected to it. There is also little discussion regarding the methodology of the past studies, perhaps affecting reliability.

# data[].attributes.body
The authors of the article are Fred Paas and J.J.G Merrienboer. The article was written with other researchers of cognitive load theory in mind, as it expands upon their work while also suggesting that more research should be done. However, the primary audience appears to be those working in education, due to the breakdown of the prior knowledge you need to understand the research. As CLT is the main theory analysed in the article, this shows elements of researcher bias as there are no other theories presented.

# data[].attributes.body
As someone who is new to CLT I found this an interesting read. I will absolutely need to look further into CLT as I do not know much about it but this article has sparked interest in me. It’s inspiring to think about the different manners of teaching and how we can adapt to help engage learners.

Overall I though the article was laid out well and easy to follow.

# data[].attributes.body
The article is a theoretical review that draws on existing research in educational psychology to explore Cognitive Load Theory. It doesn’t present new data but analyses prior studies. While conclusions support practical teaching strategies, limitations include reliance on secondary sources, affecting reliability and generalisation across diverse learning contexts.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout this arrival no empirical research is presented. Therefore the article is a theoretical review using findings from existing research and analysis previous studies. Due to this there is not a specific setting, sample size when they’re researching CLT.

# data[].attributes.body
The article by Fred Paas and Jeroen J.G van Merriënboer is aimed primarily at educational researchers and policy makers who are wanting to research and improve learning outcomes through evidence based strategies.

Throughout the article they look into the limitations of working memory and how important it is to manage one’s cognitive load.

Both authors are well known in the education research field and present strong theoretical foundations in CLT. This could present an opportunity for researchers bias however they mitigate this by acknowledging the need for further studies to take place.

# data[].attributes.body
The article does include ways in which the relationship between the task, learner, and environment interact to create a specific learning environment which impacts the way children process and retain information. It gave some useful information about ways in which children learn and how to best support their learning. Going forward, I would like to apply this to my own teaching, making sure the students I teach can grasp and retain the knowledge taught within the classroom to the best of their ability. Moving further forward I will consider this information when designing the layout of my own classroom, making sure to create a positive and productive learning environment for the class.

# data[].attributes.body
As someone who has never had a psychology lesson before, I initially found this article overwhelming but after reading it through a few times and undergoing my own research everything seemed to fall into place. Explaining CLT and how to implement this in a classroom was the overall message of the article. The section titled ‘Exemplary Methods to Manage Cognitive Load’ read more like a literature review rather than a methodology due to the fact that the main focus was on other people’s research and theories.