This really captures what I think critics of CLT are getting at when they look at tightly managed classrooms and discussion of cognitive load and say "but you can't seriously think this is all that learning is, right?" I look forward to reading the paper and seeing how you bring these things together.
The idea of “productive friction” lands strongly too often we equate good teaching with making things feel easy, rather than thinking carefully about the kind of challenge that actually builds capacity over time. It’s a helpful reminder that while managing cognitive load matters, it can’t be the whole story. Learning is messier than that shaped by emotion, relationships, and the ability to grapple with complexity. The balance between support and challenge feels like the space we need to keep getting better at navigating.
Peter, your focus on Cognitive Reserve is a brilliant look at Systemic Redundancy. In aerospace, we don't just build a plane to fly in calm weather; we 'stress test' it to ensure it can handle turbulence. CLT-driven pedagogy, by aggressively minimizing load, is like testing a flight controller only in a vacuum. It ignores the Hysteresis Effect—how the brain’s history of overcoming difficulty creates a more stable 'operating point' for future learning. We need 'Productive Friction' to calibrate the system's sensors for reality.
CLT doesn’t sideline anything. Expertise reversal explains a lot of what you discuss. It’s worth diving a bit deeper into CLT (for example germane load is no more), and looking at it as a theory of instruction, not a theory of schooling or soft skills. These are all compatible. I sometimes present to schools and faculties on the limits of explicit instruction. I sometimes feel CLT is an imagined enemy. I see a lot of classrooms and I don’t see much if any evidence of the problems that seem to bother critics.
I am out of words to praise your approach. The education system must be renewed for the sake of optimizing a learning environment to hit the capacity of each single student. There is also the individuality that is different for each person, so you can't just have one model of teaching for everyone. Oh man, your reference to emotion really enlightened my day. the dynamic neural networks that adapt to the need of the moment must be cherished for its capability. The more challenge in the right areas will produce greater experience of learning. And keep in mind learning is not just memorizing, but understanding. The bigger problem in the system is the grades, and all students do is memorize to pass. Education must be a lifelong endeavor.
This really captures what I think critics of CLT are getting at when they look at tightly managed classrooms and discussion of cognitive load and say "but you can't seriously think this is all that learning is, right?" I look forward to reading the paper and seeing how you bring these things together.
The idea of “productive friction” lands strongly too often we equate good teaching with making things feel easy, rather than thinking carefully about the kind of challenge that actually builds capacity over time. It’s a helpful reminder that while managing cognitive load matters, it can’t be the whole story. Learning is messier than that shaped by emotion, relationships, and the ability to grapple with complexity. The balance between support and challenge feels like the space we need to keep getting better at navigating.
Cognitive load doesn’t aim to flatten everything so it’s easy. It’s about optimising.
Peter, your focus on Cognitive Reserve is a brilliant look at Systemic Redundancy. In aerospace, we don't just build a plane to fly in calm weather; we 'stress test' it to ensure it can handle turbulence. CLT-driven pedagogy, by aggressively minimizing load, is like testing a flight controller only in a vacuum. It ignores the Hysteresis Effect—how the brain’s history of overcoming difficulty creates a more stable 'operating point' for future learning. We need 'Productive Friction' to calibrate the system's sensors for reality.
That last statement beautifully encapsulates your argument Peter, and points to the current great-big-argument in education.
CLT doesn’t sideline anything. Expertise reversal explains a lot of what you discuss. It’s worth diving a bit deeper into CLT (for example germane load is no more), and looking at it as a theory of instruction, not a theory of schooling or soft skills. These are all compatible. I sometimes present to schools and faculties on the limits of explicit instruction. I sometimes feel CLT is an imagined enemy. I see a lot of classrooms and I don’t see much if any evidence of the problems that seem to bother critics.
I am out of words to praise your approach. The education system must be renewed for the sake of optimizing a learning environment to hit the capacity of each single student. There is also the individuality that is different for each person, so you can't just have one model of teaching for everyone. Oh man, your reference to emotion really enlightened my day. the dynamic neural networks that adapt to the need of the moment must be cherished for its capability. The more challenge in the right areas will produce greater experience of learning. And keep in mind learning is not just memorizing, but understanding. The bigger problem in the system is the grades, and all students do is memorize to pass. Education must be a lifelong endeavor.