{"id":6673130,"date":"2026-03-29T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-03-29T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/?p=6673130"},"modified":"2026-03-22T09:04:16","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T14:04:16","slug":"how-hard-should-students-think","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.learningandthebrain.com\/blog\/how-hard-should-students-think\/","title":{"rendered":"How Hard Should Students Think?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Researchers typically work by isolating<\/em> variables. If a research team wants to study — say — the effect of fluorescent light on learning<\/em>, they should compare close-to-identical students and close-to-identical lessons in close-to-identical classrooms. The ONLY difference should be the light.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here’s the catch: while researchers isolate<\/em> variables, teachers combine<\/em> variables. We have to think about the curriculum AND working memory load AND the upcoming fire drill AND the new daily schedule. And — who knows — the installation of new fluorescent lights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For that reason, teachers can be especially excited when we find researchers who COMBINE topics the way we do every day. For example, consider these two questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. How hard are my students thinking right now?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. How motivated are my students by the work they’re doing?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    To teachers, those sound like related questions. But researchers often study either<\/em> academic motivation or <\/em>cognition; the two fields are often siloed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I’ve recently been looking into a theory that combines those two topics; I think you’ll find that combination useful. Here’s the story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    “Load Reduction Instruction,” and Beyond<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Personal trainers want gym-goers to lift as much weight as they safely can. If I go to the gym and pick up paperclips, I’m not going to gain much muscle. If I carry a grand piano upstairs, I’ve got a trip to the ER in my near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Teachers, like personal trainers, want our students to lift an appropriate cognitive load<\/strong>. The work should be hard enough for them to gain mental muscle, but not so hard that their thinking collapses in frustration, despair, and apathy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    For several years now, scholar Andrew Martin has been researching cognitive load<\/strong> in the classroom. Specifically, as he argued in this 2016 talk<\/a>, we should be interested in the relationship between cognitive load and motivation<\/strong>. If I ask my students to solve excessively difficult problems, they’ll fail — and lose motivation. By making the cognitive load manageable, I can help them succeed…and thereby increase motivation. As that talk argues, load reduction instruction might boost motivation and engagement<\/em>. Simpler tasks allow students to succeed; success brings confidence; confidence results in motivation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So far, Martin’s argument sounds intuitively straightforward. But, as Martin acknowledges in that talk, he’s offering a theory — one that didn’t have direct classroom evidence to support it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So: what’s happened since 2016?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Singapore Study<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Good news: we now have some experimental data to consider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A study published in 2023<\/a> offers data to support our intuition. Dr. Munira Kadir and colleagues studied the classrooms of four 7th grade science teachers in Singapore. All four teachers worked within an “inquiry learning” paradigm; over the course of six weeks, two of them incorporated “load reduction instruction” (LRI) into their teaching.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Teachers in the LRI sections,<\/p>\n\n\n\n