In Part 1 of “Validation, Memorization, and Common Entrance”, I discussed how the drive for success in the National Grade Six Assessment (NGSA)—shared by students, parents, teachers, and education officials—has created an intense, demanding, and all-consuming preparation process. Starting as early as Grade One, this process burdens and oppresses young children and inhibits their ability to enjoy a balanced childhood. I argued that the focus on academic achievement and preparation for the NGSA does not permit a balance between nurturing children’s academic potential and safeguarding their well-being. Moreover, the assessment itself, along with the accompanying preparation, merely tests students’ ability to recall or engages students at the lower levels of the cognitive taxonomy.
That article took an opinion-based approach, looking at the immediate effects of these practices on students’ lives. In this second part, we will explore the issue through the lenses of Cognitive Load Theory and Developmental Theories to understand how those extended learning hours contribute to cognitive overload, reduce meaningful learning, and ultimately prove counterproductive.
Cognitive Load Theory: A Brief Overview
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), developed by John Sweller in the late 1980s, is based on the idea that our working memory has a limited capacity. When a task demands more than our working memory can handle, learning suffers. CLT breaks down cognitive load into three types:
- Intrinsic Cognitive Load: Related to the inherent difficulty of the content being taught.
- Extraneous Cognitive Load: Related to how information is presented; poorly designed materials can create an unnecessary burden.
- Germane Cognitive Load: The cognitive effort required to process, structure, and consolidate information, which supports long-term learning and comprehension.
Extended Learning Hours and Germane Cognitive Overload
Germane load is essential for effective learning. However, extended instructional hours—which for many Guyanese students includes regular class hours, afterschool lessons, homework, and at-home studies that add up to as many as twelve hours daily—impose excessive germane cognitive demands on students. While the intention is to reinforce knowledge through repetition, the duration and volume of study sessions force students to engage far beyond their cognitive limits. As a result, rather than building knowledge structures, students experience cognitive overload, where their capacity to process information effectively is diminished.
Imagine a student preparing for NGSA, studying for hours on end, with continuous exposure to information and content review. Although the goal is to deepen learning, excessive germane load accumulates, leaving the student fatigued and mentally strained. Instead of supporting knowledge acquisition and consolidation, the brain’s resources become depleted, making it difficult for students to retain even simple information. It’s similar to when you put too many appliances on your electrical outlet. It burns the circuit or shuts it down. This cognitive strain prevents meaningful schema building, critical for transferring knowledge to new contexts and achieving deeper understanding. It leads to decreased retention (so even basic recall suffers) and reduced motivation. Even more frightening is that it impairs higher-order thinking by taxing memory. As a result, students revert to surface-level processing, focusing on memorization rather than comprehension. This produces students who may succeed at passing the exam but lack critical thinking skills and adaptability.
If that does not convince you that we need to re-think our approach to instruction and assessment, let us consider insights from developmental theorists on stages of development and the nature of instruction best suited to each stage.
Developmental theorists like Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and Erik Erikson posit that instruction should align with children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development stages and needs. Piaget, for instance, identifies distinct stages of cognitive development, each requiring a specific approach to instruction. According to Piaget, children around the age of those preparing for the NGSA typically fall into the concrete operational stage, where they learn best through hands-on, concrete experiences rather than abstract concepts and rote memorization. Overloading students with extensive memorization exercises misaligns with their developmental needs, as it fails to build on the natural strengths of this stage, such as logical reasoning and concrete problem-solving.
Similarly, Vygotsky emphasizes the importance of scaffolding—where teachers provide support that gradually decreases as students gain independence. He also introduces the zone of proximal development (ZPD), suggesting that children learn best when challenges are just beyond their current abilities but still achievable with guidance. The NGSA’s heavy emphasis on memorization and repetitive learning overlooks opportunities to engage students within their ZPD, often leading to disengagement or burnout, rather than encouraging developmentally appropriate growth.
The Risks of Developmentally Inappropriate Instruction
When we emphasize long hours of memorization and high-stakes testing at an early age, we risk stifling curiosity and intrinsic motivation. We also risk creating a class of individuals whose self-conceptualization is not rooted in feelings of adequacy. According to Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development, children in middle childhood are in the industry vs. inferiority stage, where they need experiences that foster a sense of accomplishment and competence. Instructional approaches that prioritize rote learning over exploration and creativity can create feelings of inadequacy, making students less confident in their abilities and less likely to approach future learning with enthusiasm.
Moreover, nonperformance in high-stakes exams can intensify these effects, especially given the recognition, pomp, and ceremony afforded the outstanding performers. Students who experience failure or poor performance might internalize a sense of inferiority, which can lead to lasting negative impact on their self-worth and academic motivation. Research on high-stakes testing corroborates that such negative experiences can result in a heightened fear of failure and a diminished interest in school, contributing to a cycle of disengagement from learning. By aligning instructional practices and the NGSA goals with developmental needs, we could better support students’ confidence, curiosity, and long-term engagement with education.
Aligning Instruction with Developmental Needs
By considering these developmental principles, we can align instruction with students’ natural learning stages. Instead of prolonged study sessions focused on memorization, learning can be structured around activities that promote critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration—skills that not only align with cognitive and social development but also support long-term academic and personal growth. Doing so not only improves academic outcomes but also helps nurture a love of learning, setting children up for success beyond the classroom.
If we are serious about accomplishing SDG Goal 4.7—ensuring that learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development—then a shift towards pedagogy of inquiry, discovery and criticality is essential. Critical pedagogy, with its emphasis on questioning and understanding societal structures, empowers students to think critically about global issues, fostering the kind of awareness and agency necessary for sustainable development (Freire, 1970).
References
Cohen, L. J. (2016). Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. In The handy psychology answer book (2nd ed.). Visible Ink Press. https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6NDIwNjMxMw==?aid=107300
Darling-Fisher, C. (2018). Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation (Vol. 4, pp. -). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139
de Jong, T. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instr Sci 38, 105–134 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Dunkel, C. S., & Harbke, C. (2017). A Review of Measures of Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development: Evidence for a General Factor. Journal of Adult Development, 24(1), 58-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-016-9247-4
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder and Herder.
Longe, J. L. (Ed.). (2016). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. In Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (3rd ed.). Gale. https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6NDc3MTY4MQ==?aid=107300
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Sweller, J. (2019). Advances in cognitive load theory: Rethinking teaching. Taylor & Francis Group.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
rootsandeduculture 