Productive struggle and Cognitive Load Theory

A philosophical clash of idealism and pragmatism

In amongst the pedagogy wars, there is a significant clash between two opposing theories. These theories are duelling in the halls of academia, with deep and ranging implications for student achievement and motivation. These two theories are Productive Failure and Cognitive Load Theory. While these two theories struggle to align themselves with the truth, unfortunately, there can only be one victor.

The grandiosity of Productive Failure proponents champions this theory amongst others as their claim to learning shirks the very reasonable outcome of learning and decries that learning is more about the thinking of learning, the process. Proponents of this theory argue with a near-religious zeal that learning transcends the realms of the natural and occurs in the complexities of the supernatural. To falter, fall and stumble with information is where the enlightenment of learning occurs and becomes embedded deep within the psyche of the learner.  It is this view that disposes of the seemingly blunt tools that Cognitive Load Theory uses to support student learning. Tormented students who show resilience to adversity and unwavering motivation in the face of repeated failure will reach the golden fleece at the end of the lesson. It is a test of fortitude, emotional management and determination which underpins this theory of learning, until the answer has been captured, as elusive as it might be. Once the answer has been caught like the Golden Snitch, students are capable of instantly remembering this process and magically applying to all contexts. It is through this theory that students must traverse the bleak landscape of error, endure the lashes of confusion, and emerge from the ashes, with a fragile, yet profound grasp of truth.

Yet, there is a hollowness that echoes through the productive struggle edifice. Listening to a gap-toothed charlatan whose thinly veiled self-referenced attempts at persuading the education caucus has drawn intense scrutiny. The fallacious claims which diverge from the truth is deeply concerning. Fastidious sleuths who are immersed in motivational literature are shaking their heads and hands at the very prospect of encouraging this exorbitant view of failure. The grand promises of enlightenment through error often crumble under the weight of their own idealism and unformed knowledge. In the labyrinth of failed attempts and misguided efforts, many do not find enlightenment, but despair. The despair of placing trust in teachers, the despair of wasted effort and the despair of repeated attempts only to achieve failure and low levels of confidence. This can only lead to one horrible and heinous thought: “it must be me”. It seems the cognitive strain of grappling with the unfamiliar leads to a hellish descent into fire and flames of confusion and disillusionment. The mind, burdened by the sheer weight of unstructured challenge finds itself adrift, a lost soul in the sea of half-formed concepts and fragmented knowledge.

There is a beacon of hope, however, for these unfortunate, lost and wondering souls in the purgatory of learning. In stark contrast, we find the sangfroid approach of the veridical Cognitive Load Theory. Here, we are not sycophants for failure, we deal with the facts. Each granule of sand builds the impregnable fortress of evidence, which guides cognitive load theory. From this, a rather acute, cutting, and clinical perspicacity has been developed. Clarity. Pragmatism. Learning. Drenched in punctiliousness and humility, meticulous attention has been given to the limitations of human memory and processing, offering a sobering vision of learning as a structured, deliberate and effortful process.  We are, at our core, creatures of finite capacity, constrained by the boundaries of our own cognition. To overload the mind, to expect it to navigate the chaotic wilderness of unstructured learning, is to benightedly invite failure of a more profound and irrevocable kind. Cognitive load theory, in its sober pragmatism, acknowledges the need for order, for structure, and for the gradual accrual of understanding.

The conflict between these philosophies is not merely academic; it is a reflection of the perennial struggle between idealism and pragmatism, between the romanticisation of the human condition and the harsh realities of our finite nature. In the end, the failure of productive failure is not just a failure of pedagogy, but a failure of the conceptions informing romanticised idealism itself.

As we stand at the crossroads of these philosophies, history will, and rightly, judge us very harshly for the choices we make. In this choice, we are faced with a decision that may well echo through the halls of time, a choice between the seductive allure of struggle and the sobering recognition of our own limitations.