Ever wonder why students disengage halfway through a course module, even when the content is solid? It might not be the material itself, but the cognitive load.
Cognitive load refers to the mental effort required to process new information. In accelerated minimester courses, students are already grappling with a high volume of content in a compressed timeframe. When course design adds unnecessary complexity through unclear structure, uncurated resources or disorganized navigation, it increases their cognitive load.
The result is often superficial learning or difficulty transferring knowledge, not because students are not trying, but because the course is unintentionally overloading their working memory.
What Is Cognitive Load
John Sweller developed Cognitive Load Theory in the late 1980s, arguing that instructional design should minimize unnecessary mental effort, allowing students to focus on learning. Working memory can only handle a limited amount of information at a time.
If the material is too dense or poorly structured, the brain's processing power is spent just trying to make sense of the content, reducing retention and engagement.
Cognitive and Asynchronous Instruction
Not all students experience cognitive load in the same way. However, some patterns consistently create friction in asynchronous courses. These include:
- Long unstructured videos with no introduction, purpose, or transcript
- LMS modules with unclear order or inconsistent naming
- Assignments that do not explain how they connect to learning outcomes
- Readings embedded without context or time estimates
These design missteps can lead to confusion, low engagement and even attrition. Effective asynchronous design is not about simplifying content. It is about structuring it in ways that support the way people learn.
Practical Fixes: Instead of… Try…
Mitigation Strategies
Below are eight instructional design strategies that can reduce extraneous cognitive load in asynchronous courses
1. Grouping
Organize content into meaningful categories to enhance comprehension. Working memory can hold five to nine elements (Miller, 1956), so grouping helps prevent overload.
Example: In anatomy, grouping by body region rather than system can help students master one area thoroughly before moving on.

2. Chunking
Break large blocks of content into smaller sections with clear subheadings. This improves processing and retention. This strategy aligns with Schema Theory, which suggests learners build knowledge by connecting new material to mental models (Anderson, 1977).

3. Consistency
Use consistent templates, formats, and language across modules. Predictability helps students focus on content, not navigation (Sweller, 1988).
4. Hierarchy
Structure material from general to specific. Clear headings, nesting, and ordered lists make relationships between concepts easier to grasp (Mayer, 2001).
5. Anchors
Use headers, icons, lines, and visuals to help students orient themselves. Anchors support navigation and reduce frustration in long asynchronous pages (Mayer, 2001).
Example: In anatomy, labeled diagrams or color-coded sections guide the eye and reinforce structure.

6. Visual Representation
Incorporate diagrams, concept maps, and infographics. Visuals leverage Dual Coding Theory, aiding memory by engaging both visual and verbal systems (Paivio, 1971).
This infographic utilizes visual representation, chunking, and anchors.

7. Compare and Contrast
Highlight similarities and differences between concepts to deepen understanding and help learners form connections. Comparative analysis supports deeper processing and schema development (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000).

8. Narrative or Storytelling
Use real-life scenarios or case-based narratives. Stories create context, support sequencing, and enhance recall (Bruner, 1961).

Final Thoughts
Designing for reduced cognitive load is not about simplifying content. It is about making it more accessible, digestible and engaging for the learner. In a fast-paced minimester, your students do not need less to learn.
They need less to decipher. Small shifts in design can make a big difference in how deeply students engage and retain what you are trying to teach.
Resource List
- Anderson, J. R. (1977). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
- Bruner, J. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21 to 32.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d). Sequence for Putting on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) [Infographic]. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/images/infographics/PPE-SequencePage1.jpg
- Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
- Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81 to97.
- Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt Rinehart and Winston.
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving Effects on learning. CognitiveScience, 12(2), 257 to 285.
- Editorial support provided by ChatGPT, an AI language model developed by OpenAI (June 2025version).