The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
Rick L. Bunch
University of North Carolina Greensboro
Robert Earl Lloyd
University of South Carolina
Multimedia presentations that combine verbal and visual information are increasingly becoming important
methods for communicating geographic information. This article discusses literature related to cognitive load
theory (CLT) and offers ideas on how this theory might be used for geography education and research. By
considering the limitations of the human mind, CLT offers geographers a way to assess critical components
of the spatial learning processes. Methods for measuring cognitive load and reducing overloads are discussed
within a map context. It is argued that managing the cognitive load experienced by learners is the key to representing geographic information. Key Words: cognitive load theory, geographic education, maps, multimedia.
his article presents a review of recent
research on cognitive load theory (CLT)
and offers ideas on how CLT can be used to
complement research that involves maps, map
learning, and the representation of geographic
information. Particular importance is placed
on the implications of CLT and its potential
to contribute to research and educational practices that use maps as primary sources of information. Given the general goals of improving
the presentation, representation, and learning
of geographic information, many geographers
should find theoretically-based research on
CLT useful and practical.
Researchers and educators involved in geography have long studied ways to improve the
communication and learning of geographic information. Many of these efforts have placed
emphasis on the design of maps and understanding how users comprehend maps. A portion of
this research has also focused on the broader
goals of improving map learning and geographic education. Despite a less-than-complete understanding of how users read maps, technology
has moved forward and provided a dynamic way
for displaying interactive and animated maps
through the Internet and other digital media.
These multimedia presentations offer new ways
to provide spatial information and interesting
learning experiences to a wide range of people.
Not all graphic displays, however, are the same
T
(Lohse et al. 1991, 1994). Maps alone provide
large amounts of spatial information representing complex associations, and the use of multimedia adds further connections that are not yet
fully understood (Schwartz et al. 1998; Cartwright, Peterson, and Gartner 1999).
Professional geographers communicate geographic information to various audiences about
a wide variety of topics. People receive and
process this information using a number of verbal and visual cognitive systems (Verdi and
Kulhavy 2002). Some geographic facts can be
easily packaged as verbal information that can
be acquired through reading or listening; for
example, one could state that Atlanta is the
largest city in Georgia as well as its capital. Geographers, however, are fond of representing
spatial information on maps, and a map of
Georgia’s cities may represent Atlanta with a
symbol indicating both its relative size and its
status as the capital. Such maps have a storage
advantage in that they are able to visually and
efficiently represent large amounts of equivalent verbal information. Maps also simultaneously connect specific information to spatial
locations, allowing a relationship that not only
enriches the map communication process, but
also provides the ability to visually display
broader spatial patterns.
Language processing is generally made possible by systems in the left-hemisphere of the
The Professional Geographer, 58(2) 2006, pages 209–220 r Copyright 2006 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, October 2004; revised submission, March 2005; final acceptance, June 2005.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, U.K.
210
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
brain; visual and spatial information processing
is facilitated by systems in the right-hemisphere
(Geschwind and Galaburda 1987). The diverse
possibilities for learning are addressed by geography textbooks, Web sites, and other multimedia systems that combine verbal and visual
information to maximize the transfer of information. The experience of the learner, the
amount and nature of the information (visual
and verbal), and the combinations of cognitive
systems needed to process the information all
affect the learner’s cognitive load.
The term cognitive load can be thought of as
the amount of work needed to acquire and use
information. When the cognitive load is high
for a map task, it is more likely to be difficult,
take longer to complete, and impede efficient
learning. When the cognitive load of a map task
is low, it is more likely to be considered easy and
take less time to complete, but in some instances
this scenario may provide individuals with no
challenge or incentive to learn.
In recent years, there has been considerable
progress in the development of a theoretical
understanding of how cognitive load affects
people’s ability to learn (Sweller 1988; Kirschner 2002; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003, 2004).
Further research on CLT by geographers
can greatly contribute toward this development. For geographers, CLT can offer new
methodologies for understanding how map
readers successfully interact and learn with multimedia maps. This understanding is extremely
important as the use of computer technology for
displaying spatial information becomes increasingly prevalent; especially in the areas of
education and public dissemination of critical
spatial information. Cartographers, as specialists, could also develop more comprehensive
and robust methodologies to analyze and improve map construction and effectiveness by
incorporating CLT into cartographic research.
Such an approach would help theory meet practice, which has been a common obstacle plaguing cartographic research for many years
(Castner 1983; MacEachren 1995). The broader implications surround a deeper understanding of how maps as graphic displays can be
packaged to support geography research and
educators. This understanding will lead to robust approaches for assessing the effectiveness
of novel geovisualization media, and quite possibly spark new lines of research in cartography,
spatial cognition, and geographic information
system (GIS) interface design.
In the following section we provide background on different aspects of research in cartography. The next section is a discussion of the
conceptual components of cognitive load and
multimedia learning. We then consider how to
reduce cognitive load, the impacts of deliberate
practice in acquiring expertise, and the relevance of individual differences in learners. The
final section offers suggestions for future research that should have high priority for geographers.
Cartographic Research
Much of early cartographic research was related
to specific map design decisions that influenced
the types of maps produced, as well as the symbols and structure used. The emphasis was
clearly on the map and improving the transmission of intended messages (Flannery 1971;
Monmonier 1974; Kimerling 1975; Olson
1975). Critics pointed out that these methods
provided little theoretical understanding of the
interactions taking place between the map and
the map reader, and instead only determined
what worked best rather than why it worked.
Other researchers placed emphasis on the map
user. This research has been concerned with
understanding the cognitive processes associated with map users’ thought processes, prior experience, spatial abilities, and memory (Olson
1979; Gilmartin 1981; Blades and Spencer
1986). A number of more recent cognitive studies have used visual perceptual tasks to explore
the effects of symbols and color on maps (Brennon and Lloyd 1993; Nelson 1995; Lloyd 1997;
Bunch 1999; Bunch and Lloyd 2000) and others
have emphasized the effects of prior experience,
differences in spatial abilities, and memory on
various map-processing tasks (Montello et al.
1999; Bunch 2000; Lloyd, Hodgson, and Stokes
2002; Montello 2002; Lloyd and Bunch 2003).
Cognitive research on how people process
maps has also received criticism. Some researchers believe that much of this research
cannot translate into valid map design practices
because it focuses on only one part of a complex
process (Castner 1983). MacEachren (1995, 12)
argues that maps should be studied as ‘‘many
potential representations of phenomena in
space that a user may draw upon as a source of
The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
information or an aid to decision making and
behavior in space’’ and that ‘‘the map user’s interaction with the map should be viewed as a
complex information problem.’’
MacEachren’s (1995) insight on understanding how maps work rings especially true when
considering the complexities involved in using
multimedia cartography. Not only do designers
have to deal with the intricacies of map design
itself, but the map must be wrapped as a component within a much larger spatial information
interface. Multimedia, therefore, offers the ability to create a different map, one that ‘‘really
extends the technology and allows for a different
way of presenting geographic information
to change geographical information access’’
(Cartwright and Peterson 1999, 4). This difference has led to arguments that the word ‘‘map,’’
within the context of multimedia, should be referred to as an ‘‘interactive map display’’ ( Peterson 1999). Cartographers clearly recognize
these differences and have acknowledged the
need for methods and theories that consider not
only the map but all other media (Crampton
1999; Dransch 1999). Difficulties in dealing
with multimedia maps and geographic information are amplified in earlier work on designing, implementing, and assessing animated
maps and multimedia resources for geography
(DiBiase 1994; Krygier et al. 1997). We believe
that CLT, along with previous cartographic and
cognitive research, can contribute to the development of a much-needed theoretical foundation in multimedia cartography.
Cognitive Load Theory
By considering the limitations of the human
mind, CLT offers designers, such as cartographers, a way of assessing and affecting some
critical components of the learning process.
CLT assumes that learners have limited working memory, which is connected to unlimited
long-term memory (Baddeley 1986). Cartographers have intuitively understood that designers
of maps need to consider the working-memory
capacity of map users. The conventional wisdom of cartographers, for example, is to represent information on the typical choropleth map
as classes. Five shades of red might be used to
represent levels of population density, with the
lightest shade representing the lowest class and
the darkest shade representing the highest class.
211
For a map of the United States, this would represent states that have similar population density using the same shade of red. Although it
would be possible to represent each of the fifty
states with a unique shade of red and this would
produce a technically more accurate map, some
researchers have argued that unclassed maps are
too visually complex (Dobson 1979; Muller
1979).
Causal and Assessment Factors
Paas and van Merriënboer (1993) have suggested causal and assessment factors that are related
to cognitive load (Figure 1). Some causal factors
are expressed through the individual differences
of learners, such as between females and males
(Hardwick et al. 2000). More precise individual
differences in spatial abilities have been explained by theories related to brain organization
(Annett 1985, 2002), prior knowledge resulting
from domain experiences (Schwartz et al. 1998),
and their interaction (Casey 1996). Causal factors are also related to the nature of the task.
Identifying which city on a country’s map is the
capital city could be relatively easy, whereas determining if cities on a country’s map follow the
rank-size rule could be relatively difficult (Zipf
1941). Other causal factors relate to the environment. The environment in a typical multimedia presentation might include a static,
interactive, or animated map to be viewed, written text to be read, and spoken audio information or music to be heard. In many instances,
there are interactions between the map task and
learners that contribute to the cognitive load
Causal Factors
Map
Task
Task /
Learner
Learner
Assessment Factors
C
O
G
N
I
T
I
V
E
L
O
A
D
Mental Load
Controlled
Processing
Automatic
Processing
Mental Effort
Performance
Figure 1 The causal and assessment factors of
cognitive load. Based on Paas and van Merrienboer
(1993).
212
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
(Silverman and Eals 1992; Loring-Meier and
Halpern 1999).
Assessment factors, which include mental
load, mental effort, and performance, are the
three measurable dimensions of cognitive load.
Mental load is exclusively related to the demands of the task and environment (e.g., finding
a city on the map). Mental effort is the actual
cognitive capacity allocated to the given task.
This might include controlled processes used to
learn novel information, or automated processes used to access prior knowledge. Performance
is the end result that reflects mental load, mental
effort, and causal factors. Being able to measure
the fundamental influences on cognitive load
and being able to analyze their impacts on
learning success are keys to understanding how
people complete basic tasks and solve specific
problems ( Paas and van Merriënboer 1993).
Intrinsic, Extraneous, and Germane
Components
More recent discussions of cognitive load ( Paas,
Renkl, and Sweller 2003; Sweller 2004) divide
the load into three categories: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. Intrinsic cognitive load is
based on the demand made on working memory
by the interaction of elements present in learning materials. Since working memory can handle relatively few novel interacting elements,
working memory alone can support only very
simple learning tasks. Long-term memory,
however, can enhance this limitation by storing
schemata. Although schemata can hold a large
amount of information, they can also be processed as a single unit in working memory.
‘‘Schemata can integrate information elements
and production rules and become automated,
thus requiring less storage and controlled
processing’’ (Kirschner 2002, 3). If a schema
can be automated so it can be run unconsciously,
it can further reduce the load on working memory ( Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003).
Prior knowledge stored in schemata should
be a great aid to map reading (Schwartz et al.
1998). Reference maps, for example, typically
provide names for locations; for example, names
of European countries may be connected
to each shape. A person who has sufficiently
processed such a reference map could have a
schema in long-term memory that associates
the names, shapes, and locations for the countries of Europe. Such an automated schema
could be a great advantage when processing a
novel thematic map without names, depicting
population change as meaningful colors assigned to country shapes.
A second component of cognitive load—the
extraneous load—can interfere with learning.
The way information is presented and the
activities required of learners can impose an
extraneous cognitive load ( Paas, Renkl, and
Sweller 2003). Ambiguous task instructions
(vague descriptions that require map readers
to unnecessarily search for needed information)
would be an example of an extraneous cognitive
load. An interactive map connected to instructional information could guide attention to the
needed information, causing a reduction in
search time and in extraneous cognitive load.
The third type of cognitive load, germane
cognitive load, can enhance learning ( Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003). Germane cognitive load
is related to working-memory resources being
used for schemata acquisition and automation.
The process of learning is iterative: increases in
germane cognitive load develop schemata, and
increases in schemata enhance germane cognitive load. The way information is presented and
the activities required of learners can affect levels of germane cognitive load. An increase in
effort caused by higher emotional motivation
can bring fresh resources to a map-reading task
and can be used to increase the germane cognitive load.
Intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive
loads are additive, provided they stay within the
limits of the working-memory resources. Intrinsic cognitive load is constant since it relates
to inherent demands of the material being
learned. Extraneous and germane cognitive
loads can fluctuate: an increase in one results
in a decrease in the other. There is no empirical
evidence or method that allows discrimination
between the two. Only the total cognitive load
(and how it has been affected) can be determined
(Kirschner 2002).
Multimedia Learning
Mayer and Moreno (2003, 44) have proposed a
theory for multimedia learning based on three
assumptions about brain processes. (1) The
dual-channel assumption is that ‘‘humans possess separate information processing channels
for verbal and visual material.’’ This assumption
The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
Multimedia
Presentation
Sensory
Memory
Words
Ears
Working
Memory
Selecting
Words
Sounds
Organizing
Words
Long-Term
Memory
Verbal
Descriptions
Integrating
Map
Eyes
Selecting
Images
Images
Organizing
Images
213
Prior
Knowledge
Cognitive
Map
Figure 2 A cognitive theory of multimedia learning adapted for map reading. Based on Mayer and Moreno
(2003).
is based on dual-coding and working-memory
theories ( Paivio 1986; Baddeley 1998). (2) The
limited-capacity assumption is that ‘‘there is
only a limited amount of processing capacity
available in the verbal and visual channels.’’ This
assumption is based on cognitive load and
working-memory theories (Sweller 1988; Baddeley 1998). (3) The active-processing assumption is that ‘‘learning requires substantial
cognitive processing in the verbal and visual
channels.’’ This assumption is based on Mayer’s
(1999, 2002) selection-organizing-integrating
theory of active learning. ‘‘These processes include paying attention to the presented material, mentally organizing the presented material
into a coherent structure, and integrating the
presented material with existing knowledge’’
(Mayer and Moreno 2003, 44).
We have adapted Mayer and Moreno’s theory
of multimedia learning to fit the specific case of
learning with maps (Figure 2). The rows of
boxes in Figure 2 represent two informationprocessing channels: the top row is the auditory-verbal channel, the bottom row is the visualmap channel. A multimedia presentation is represented in the first column of boxes as words
(top) and a cartographic map (bottom). The
words represented in the sensory memory column could be processed as sensory representations by either the audio channel if spoken (top)
or the visual channel if read (bottom). If a typical
map, one with symbolic information as well as a
title and other labels, is presented with printed
explanatory text, all information is processed
through the visual channel. If the same map is
presented along with a spoken text, then the
spoken words are processed through the audio
channel and all information on the map is processed through the visual channel. The learner’s
attention selects words and images for processing (first set of arrows on the left). The cartographer and multimedia designer can affect this
bottom-up process by producing materials that
attract the learner’s attention to important information. In addition, attention might be
influenced by top-down processing of prior
knowledge from long-term memory. The working-memory column represents the selected
sounds and images being organized into coherent verbal descriptions of spatial information,
which aids in the formation of a cognitive map.
The black circle represents the merger of the
verbal descriptions, the cognitive map, and any
relevant prior knowledge accessed from longterm memory. A viewer’s ability to integrate
these elements would impact his or her relative
success at acquiring information from a multimedia presentation (Mayer and Moreno 2003).
Reduction of Overload
Mayer and Moreno (2003) identified five overload scenarios that can be related to learning
with maps and offered solutions to typical problems. The first overload scenario occurs if onscreen text and a map are presented together
such that the visual channel is overloaded with
essential processing. Learning in this instance is
improved if the text is removed and replaced by
equivalent spoken information. Related studies
on navigational guidance systems use a similar
technique by off-loading spatial information
from the visual channel to the audio channel
(Streeter, Vitello, and Wonsiewicz 1985; Streeter and Vitello 1986). This technique reduces
the visual competition of driving while using a
map, and improves the performance of drivers
who are required to navigate intricate routes.
214
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
The second overload scenario occurs if spoken text, on-screen text, or a map overloads both
channels with essential processing demands.
Two solutions to this problem are offered. The
first involves presenting the text and information on the map in small successive segments.
For example, geographic information could be
presented by themes, similar to the conceptual
organization of geospatial datasets in geographic information systems. Themes, such as points
representing cities and lines representing roads,
could be presented separately and later integrated—once sufficient learning has taken
place. The second solution involves learning
the roads and cities prior to performing the
map-reading task.
The third overload scenario occurs if extraneous text or mapped information is overloading the verbal or visual channel, or both.
Examples of extraneous information may be
the inclusion of names and linear features for
rivers that are unnecessary, given that the task
involves learning route distances among cities.
Two solutions are offered: (1) identify the extraneous information and remove it; for example, simplify the text and the map without
removing necessary information; (2) direct the
learner’s attention to the critical information by,
for example representing critical information in
the text using bold or italic lettering. This solution could be extended if rolling a mouse directs attention to critical locations on the map
by pointing to them or changing their color.
The fourth overload scenario occurs if learners are confused by the way essential material is
presented. Confusion may occur in the visual
channel if a map is poorly designed or has visual
clutter. In this case, ambiguous representations
on the map should be corrected. In the verbal
channel, confusion might occur if on-line text
and spoken text are simultaneously presenting
information. Deleting the text and relying only
on the spoken word could remove redundant
information.
The fifth overload scenario occurs if learners
are required to hold essential text describing
characteristics of countries in memory while
looking at a map, or vice versa. Individual learners may vary in their ability to hold information
in working memory. Well-designed instructional material may work successfully with students possessing higher spatial ability, but may
not be successful with students having lower
spatial ability. This critical distinction is crucial
to variation in performance for a map-reading
task. A solution to this type of problem would be
to reduce the need to hold information in working memory by presenting the text together
with the map. This may require a reduction of
map size, and may also require the map to be
simplified. This could also be accomplished by
integrating map text with pop-up windows that
appear as rollover connections to map locations.
Gaining Expertise
Managing the cognitive load experienced by
learners is a key to successful map learning.
Given that total cognitive load is the sum of
extraneous, intrinsic, and germane cognitive
loads, and that this total cognitive load must be
less than the working-memory capacity of the
learner, a number of strategies can be employed
to encourage learning. Many of the earlier studies on cognitive load focused on eliminating
extraneous cognitive load. Cartographers can
accomplish this by making maps that focus the
map-reader’s attention only on the information
to be learned, excluding any information that
the learner does not absolutely need to process.
This is a simple proposition if the cartographer
knows who will be using the map as a source of
information. When maps were produced only
on a paper medium, cartographers were forced
to design the map for a ‘‘typical’’ map reader.
Depending on the assumptions made about the
nature of this typical map reader, such an approach might not have served either a novice or
advanced learner very well.
Novices may require maps that are as simple
as possible in order to manage cognitive load;
but, as expertise increases, a simple map may not
allow learning to continue for advanced learners. This problem has been called the expertise
reversal effect. It has been demonstrated in a
number of studies (Kalyuga, Chandler, and
Sweller 1998, 2001; Kalyuga et al. 2003), and
the idea is expressed in Figure 3. The same data
could be used to construct a simple map for the
novice learner or a complex version of the map
appropriate for the expert learner. For any given
learner, the intrinsic cognitive loads provided by
various map designs are also a consideration. A
complex map design generally provides a higher
cognitive load than does a simple map design.
Designs that reduce unnecessary map complex-
The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
Measuring Cognitive Load
If designers of maps and multimedia presentations are to consider the effects of cognitive load
on learners, they have to be able to quantify the
load. Paas, Renkl, and Sweller (2003) offered a
method for measuring cognitive load using the
computation and visualization of z-scores from
subjective and objective measurements. Subjective measurements are gathered through the
mental effort required for a task, typically measured by asking participants to rate the difficulty
of a task. The objective measurement represents
the performance of participants as they deal
with a secondary task that is unrelated and runs
concurrent with a primary task. If students are
presented with a primary task of learning, for
example, the population sizes of European cities
from a map displayed on the computer screen, a
secondary task could be introduced where they
are asked to click a button whenever they detect
a change in the color of a letter located on the
computer screen (e.g., the letter A changing
from black to red). The responses would show
reaction times, and thus an objective measure
related to how quickly learners are able to engage and disengage between secondary and primary tasks. The effect of cognitive load has also
been simply measured as the error rate for secondary tasks ( Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003).
Collected measurements for the mental effort
and performance are standardized to produce a
High
Efficiency
E=
0
ity and have lower intrinsic cognitive loads are
ideal, even for advanced learners, as simplicity
allows for a higher proportion of the total cognitive load as long as the map design imposes
germane cognitive load.
set of z-scores for each learner (Burt and Barber
1996). These individual z-scores for each group
(mental effort and performance) are averaged to
produce sample means that are plotted on a
Cartesian graph against a diagonal line, where
mental effort and performance are in balance
( Paas, Tuovinen, et al. 2003, 68; Figure 4). Any
pair of z-score means for a task falling into the
second quadrant (top left) is considered high
efficiency; a pair of z-score means for a task
falling into the fourth quadrant (bottom right) is
considered low efficiency (Brunken, Plass, and
Leutner 2003). This methodology could be
used while designing maps to determine if
specific maps are associated with high or low
cognitive loads. In this case, dark and light
locations would represent two possible designs
for the map (Figure 4), allowing the cartographer to determine the appropriate map for an
intended audience. This information is also
useful in experimental task design, or when
interpreting how subjects respond to various
experimental conditions. The dark and light
locations, for example, could represent novice
and expert learners working with the same map.
Tuovinen and Paas (2004) have also shown that
efficiency can be represented in a three-dimensional space, where the third dimension could
be a different measurement of performance,
such as reaction time or mental effort while
learning the task as opposed to doing the task.
Performance
Figure 3 The expertise reversal effect related to
map design.
215
Low
Efficiency
Mental Effort
Figure 4 Cartesian graphic used to visualize instructional efficiency. Group z-score means are
plotted against the diagonal line (E ¼ 0). Based on
Paas, Tuovinen, et al. (2003).
216
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
Individual Differences
The success of any educational experience involving learning with a map also needs to take
into consideration the innate differences among
the individuals doing the learning. A map reader’s ability to execute those cognitive processes
needed to acquire information from a map may
depend on factors external to the immediate
educational experience. Researchers have argued that spatial abilities are a function of both
biological and environmental factors (Halpern
1992; Vlachos, Andreou, and Andreou 2003;
Weiss et al. 2003). Biological arguments have
generally been centered on brain structure and
hormones; environmental arguments have usually been related to social factors.
A number of studies have identified the biological sex of learners as a significant variable in
spatial abilities. Sex can be easily coded as an
independent variable for any learning study, but
the actual causes of individual differences may
be more complex. Research on the relationship
of spatial abilities to sex typically use standardized tests that relate to a person’s ability to
process spatial information (Shafer and Thomas
1998; Stumpf 1998; Dunn and Eliot 1999).
Most of these tests focus on the ability to process
spatial information in working memory. Other
tests have considered ability to recall spatial information from long-term memory (Silverman
and Eals 1992; Barnfield 1999; Silverman et al.
2000). Although psychometric tests of spatial
ability have generally reported sex-related differences favoring males (Maccoby and Jacklin
1974; Harris 1981; Dunn and Eliot 1999), it has
also been argued that the sexes have aptitudes
for specific types of spatial tasks. Males appear to
have an advantage for tasks that involve processing visual images in working memory (Linn and
Petersen 1985; Halpern and Crothers 1997;
Jordan et al. 2002), such as tasks involving the
rotation of mental images (Masters and Sanders
1993; Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden 1995). In contrast, females appear to have an advantage for
tasks requiring the acquisition of spatial information from long-term memory (Galea and
Kimura 1993; Birenbaum, Kelly, and Levi-Keren
1994; Choi and Silverman 2003), such as recalling objects located in a spatial array (Eals and
Silverman 1994; James and Kimura 1997).
Loring-Meier and Halpern (1999) examined
sex differences related to specific tasks that re-
quired subjects to process images in working
memory. Results of the study indicate that males
are significantly faster but not more accurate
than females when performing tasks related to
visual image generation, maintenance, scanning, and transformation. Being able to process
information quickly is an advantage on many
standardized spatial skills tests that present
more questions than most subjects are able to
answer in a fixed amount of time. With this type
of test, being able to process questions quickly
in working memory without sacrificing accuracy can be a significant factor in achieving a high
score. Since females did not appear to be able to
enhance accuracy by using more processing
time, the male advantage on this type of test
might be explained by males’ faster processing
of visual imagery. Stumpf (1998) suggested that
females are in the habit of using more time to
respond to spatial tasks, and that the perceived
difficulty of the task and the level of self-confidence might explain differences, rather than
the actual time spent processing the information. Higher self-confidence and opportunities
have generally been suggested as social influences that explain male advantages in spatial
processing. Females have been reported to produce higher self-confidence ratings for specific
nonspatial tasks (Clifton and Gill 1994; Lee et
al. 1999). Some researchers have suggested that
a difference in self-confidence is more related to
identifying with a gender than biological sex
(Kempf, Palan, and Laczniak 1997; Johnson and
McCoy 2000).
How brains are organized has also been
considered as an explanation of individual
differences. Sweller (2004, 9) argues that ‘‘Instructional design issues and human cognitive
architecture are inseparably intertwined.’’ A
major example of this connection for cartographers is the effect of the limited capacity of
humans’ working memory on their ability
to acquire information from maps. This connection has been a central and frequently
researched theme in the CLT literature (Kirschner 2002; Paas, Renkl, and Sweller 2003, 2004).
Another potentially key human architecture issue that could significantly influence a specific
person’s performance on a map-reading task is
innate spatial ability. Annett’s (1985, 2002)
Right Shift Theory offers a genetic explanation
of asymmetric brain organization that can be
connected to human speech, handedness, and
The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
differences in spatial ability between human females and males. She hypothesized a gene for
brain lateralization that controls the probability
that a person will be left-hemisphere dominant
for speech, and right-handed. By this theory,
those who are more right shifted for handedness
tend to have better-than-average verbal abilities
and tend to prefer using verbal strategies for
problem solving; but they also tend to have
worse-than-average spatial abilities. The theory
predicts that people who are right-handed and
have non-right-handed immediate relatives will
have a higher probability of possessing enhanced spatial abilities. This puts them nearer
the center of the population distribution for
handedness because they inherited the right
shift gene (RS þ ) from one, but not both parents. They are said to have the heterozygotic advantage in spatial abilities associated with the
RS þ genotype.
Casey (1996) developed a Bent Twig Theory
partially based on Annett’s Right Shift Theory.
Casey’s theory predicts that individuals with the
most enhanced spatial abilities should be those
who have inherited a higher probability of having superior spatial abilities, and have improved
these abilities through frequent spatial experiences. Data gathered from female students
who had the heterozygotic advantage (were right
handed and had immediate family members
who were not right handed), and had a math/
science college major, supported the prediction
that they would perform better on a spatial rotation task than other female subjects without
these characteristics. An individual difference
variable based on family handedness and academic experience can easily be encoded for any
map reader with a few simple questions. As surrogate measures for spatial abilities, this information can be used to explain performance
measures for map-reading tasks. A significant
interaction effect is predicted between brain
organization and experience so that people with
occupations requiring spatial processing (e.g.,
professional geographers), who also have a heterozygotic advantage, are predicted to have the
best performances.
Discussion and Future Research
This review of the CLT literature offers possibilities for researchers and educators in geog-
217
raphy who wish to merge theoretical research
and practical solutions. CLT is concerned with
providing guidelines for optimizing learner performance during the presentation of information. The cognitive architecture consists of a
limited working memory, which interacts with
an unlimited long-term memory, and receives
information from visual and auditory processing units. As outlined in this review, recent research has identified cognitive load as a major
consideration in instructional design for a
number of educational areas (Yeung, Jin, and
Sweller 1997). This work has clearly emphasized solving applied educational problems
through the development of cognitive theory.
CLT and its applications can be adapted to
design a variety of novel studies for understanding how humans process and learn geographic
information. Cartographers could use CLT to
understand the effects of specific map design
decisions, such as the effectiveness of unclassed
and classed maps. These decisions could be examined by a study that measures the effects of
increasing the number of classes on a choropleth map for audiences of different skill levels.
Studies of this nature could produce a set of
efficiency measurements that differentiate the
cognitive load of each map by different skill
levels. It would also be possible to identify factors associated with cognitive load, make map
design decisions to adjust the cognitive load for
each factor, and compute and visualize the results. This type of research could make an important contribution to cartographic and CLT
literature by considering the relative importance of effects related to the map design process and the interaction of biological and
environmental differences for individuals as
they learn with maps of varying cognitive loads.
Geography educators could also benefit from
research based on CLT. The map has been the
fundamental and traditional source for learning
geographic information in the classroom. The
use of maps can be very constructive in classrooms because maps can communicate information that is often too complex to easily
express in words. Maps, however, can also impede learning if too much information is presented, such that the cognitive load capacity of
the learners is exceeded (Mayer and Moreno
2003). The identification of instructional methods designed to accommodate cognitive load
capacities of diverse learners could help
218
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
improve learning of geographic information
(van Merrienboer, Kirschner, and Kester 2003).
As an example, lesson plans centered on map use
and reading tasks could be created from results
generated by theoretically-based experimental
studies that examine the cognitive load of materials prior to presentation to students. Such a
study could produce instructional methods and
efficiency measurements for presenting geographic information that can ultimately be
assessed in the classroom through traditional
performance tests. The cycle of experimentation and classroom assessment could continue
until desired results are achieved. Such an
approach brings forth the value of theoretical
research to practitioners involved in geography
education, and it also provides much needed
flexibility for addressing different learning styles.
The use of multimedia technology and multimedia cartography has become popular for
presenting geographic concepts and ideas. Thus
far, research on the effectiveness of multimedia
presentation has largely ignored geographic information and has instead placed heavy emphasis on understanding pictorial representations
accompanied by words (Mayer and Moreno
2002). This leaves ample opportunity for geography researchers to explore the use of multimedia techniques that use maps as the central
focus of learning (Cartwright, Peterson, and
Gartner 1999).
The ability to understand and communicate
geographic information is fundamental to the
discipline of geography. CLT has great potential for providing an overarching theoretical
context for understanding how geographic information is represented and learned. Experimentally-based research grounded in theory
that fully explores these issues from an integrative view should have a prominent place on the
agendas of researchers in geography.’
Literature Cited
Annett, M. 1985. Left, right, hand and brain: The right
shift theory. London: Erlbaum.
———. 2002. Handedness and brain asymmetry: The
right shift theory. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Baddeley, A. 1986. Working memory. Oxford, U.K.:
Clarendon Press.
———. 1998. Human memory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barnfield, A. 1999. Development of sex differences in
spatial memory. Perceptual and Motor Skills 89:339–50.
Birenbaum, M., A. Kelly, and M. Levi-Keren. 1994.
Stimulus features and sex differences in mental
rotation test performance. Intelligence 19:51–64.
Blades, M., and C. Spencer. 1986. The implications of
psychological theory and methodology for cognitive cartography. Cartographica 24:64–75.
Brennon, N., and R. Lloyd. 1993. Searching for
boundaries on maps: The cognitive process. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 20:222–36.
Brunken, R., J. Plass, and D. Leutner. 2003. Direct
measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38:53–61.
Bunch, R. 1999. Searching for color boundaries on
maps. Southeastern Geographer 34:220–34.
———. 2000. GIS and the acquisition of spatial information: Differences among adults and young adolescents. Research in Geographic Education 2:67–97.
Bunch, R., and R. Lloyd. 2000. The search for boundaries on maps: Color processing and map pattern
effects. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 27:15–29.
Burt, J., and G. Barber. 1996. Elementary Statistics for
Geographers, 2nd edition. New York: Guilford.
Cartwright, W., and M. Peterson. 1999. Multimedia
cartography. In Multimedia cartography, ed. W.
Cartwright, M. Peterson, and G. Gartner, 1–10.
New York: Springer.
Cartwright, W., M. Peterson, and G. Gartner, eds.
1999. Multimedia cartography. New York: Springer.
Casey, M. 1996. Understanding individual differences
in spatial ability within females: A nature/nurture
interaction framework. Developmental Review
16:241–60.
Castner, H. 1983. Tactual maps and graphics: Some
implications for our study of visual cartographic
communication. Cartographica 20:1–16.
Choi, J., and I. Silverman. 2003. Processes underlying
sex differences in route-learning strategies in children and adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences 34:1153–66.
Clifton, R., and D. Gill. 1994. Gender differences in
self-confidence on feminine-typed tasks. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology 16:150–62.
Crampton, J. 1999. Online mapping: Theoretical
context and practical applications. In Multimedia
cartography, ed. W. Cartwright, M. Peterson, and G.
Gartner, 291–304. New York: Springer.
DiBiase, D. 1994. Designing animated maps for a
multimedia encyclopedia. Cartographic Perspectives
19:3–7.
Dobson, M. 1979. Visual information processing during cartographic communication. Cartographic
Journal 16:14–20.
Dransch, D. 1999. Theoretical issues in multimedia
cartography. In Multimedia cartography, ed. W.
Cartwright, M. Peterson, and G. Gartner, 41–50.
New York: Springer.
The Cognitive Load of Geographic Information
Dunn, A., and J. Eliot. 1999. An exploratory study of
undergraduates’ attributions of success or failure on
spatial tests. Perception and Motor Skills 89:695–702.
Eals, M., and I. Silverman. 1994. The hunter-gatherer
theory of spatial sex differences: Proximate factors
mediating the female advantage in recall of object
arrays. Ethnology and Sociobiology 15:95–105.
Flannery, J. 1971. The relative effectiveness of some
common graduated point symbols in the presentation of quantitative data. The Canadian Cartographer
8:96–109.
Galea, L., and D. Kimura. 1993. Sex differences in
route learning. Personality and Individual Differences
14:53–65.
Geschwind, N., and A. Galaburda. 1987. Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, associations, and pathology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gilmartin, P. P. 1981. The interface of cognitive and
psychophysical research in cartography. Cartographica 18:9–20.
Halpern, D. 1992. Sex differences in cognitive abilities.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halpern, D., and M. Crothers. 1997. The sex of cognition. In Sexual orientation: Toward biological understanding, ed. I. Ellis, 181–97. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hardwick, S., L. Bean, K. Alexander, and F. Shelley.
2000. Gender vs. sex differences: Factors affecting
performance in geographic education. Journal of
Geography 99:238–44.
Harris, L. 1981. Sex variation in spatial skill. In Spatial
representations and behavior across the life-span, ed. L.
Liben, A. Patterson, and N. Newcombe, 83–125.
New York: Academic Press.
James, T., and D. Kimura. 1997. Sex differences in
remembering the locations of objects in an array:
Location-shifts versus location-exchanges. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:155–63.
Johnson, W., and N. McCoy. 2000. Self-confidence,
self-esteem and assumptions of sex roles in young
men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills 90:
751–56.
Jordan, K., T. Wüstenberg, H. Heinze, M. Peters, and
L. Jäncke. 2002. Women and men exhibit different
cortical activation patterns during mental rotation
tasks. Neuropsychologia 40:2397–408.
Kalyuga, S., P. Ayres, P. Chandler, and J. Sweller. 2003.
The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist
38:23–31.
Kalyuga, S., P. Chandler, and J. Sweller. 1998. Levels
of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors
40:1–17.
———. 2001. Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology 21:5–23.
Kempf, D., K. Palan, and R. Laczniak. 1997. Gender
differences in information processing confidence
in an advertising context: A preliminary study.
Advances in Consumer Research 24:443–49.
219
Kimerling, A. J. 1975. A cartographic study of equal
value gray scales for use with screened gray areas.
The American Cartographer 2:119–27.
Kirschner, P. 2002. Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of
learning. Learning and Instruction 12:1–10.
Krygier, J., C. Reeves, D. DiBiase, and J. Cupp. 1997.
Design, implementation, and evaluation of multimedia resources for geography and earth science
education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education
21:17–39.
Lee, A., K. Fredenburg, D. Belcher, and N. Cleveland.
1999. Gender differences in children’s conception
of competence and motivations in physical education. Sport Education and Society 4:161–74.
Linn, M., and A. Petersen. 1985. Emergence and
characterization of sex differences in spatial ability:
A meta-analysis. Child Development 56:1479–98.
Lloyd, R. 1997. Visual search processes used in map
reading. Cartographica 34:11–32.
Lloyd, R., and R. Bunch. 2003. Technology and maplearning: Users, methods, and symbols. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 93:828–50.
Lloyd, R., M. Hodgson, and A. Stokes. 2002. Visual
categorization with aerial photographs. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 92:241–66.
Lohse, G., K. Biolsi, N. Walker, and H. Rueter. 1994.
A classification of visual representations. Communications of the ACM 37:36–48.
Lohse, G., N. Walker, K. Biolsi, and H. Rueter. 1991.
Classifying graphical Information. Behavior and Information Technology 10:419–36.
Loring-Meier, S., and D. Halpern. 1999. Sex differences in visuospatial working memory: Components of cognitive processing. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review 6:464–71.
Maccoby, E., and C. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex
differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
MacEachren, A. 1995. How maps work. New York:
Guilford.
Masters, M., and B. Sanders. 1993. Is the gender difference in mental rotation disappearing? Behavioral
Genetics 23:337–41.
Mayer, R. 1999. The promise of educational psychology:
Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
———. 2002. The promise of educational psychology:
Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mayer, R., and R. Moreno. 2002. Aids to computerbased multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction
12:107–19.
———. 2003. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologists 38:
43–52.
Monmonier, M. 1974. Measures of pattern complexity for choropleth maps. American Cartographer
1:159–69.
220
Volume 58, Number 2, May 2006
Montello, D. 2002. Cognitive map-design research in
the twentieth century: Theoretical and empirical
approaches. Cartography and Geographic Information
Science 29:283–304.
Montello, D., K. Lovelace, R. Golledge, and C. Self.
1999. Sex-related differences and similarities in geographic and environmental spatial abilities. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 89:515–34.
Muller, J. 1979. Perception of continuously shaded
maps. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 69:240–49.
Nelson, E. 1995. Colour detection on bivariate
choropleth maps: The visual search process. Cartographic 31:33–43.
Olson, J. 1975. Cognitive cartographic experimentation. The Canadian Cartographer 16:34–44.
———. 1979. Autocorrelation and visual map complexity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 65:189–204.
Paas, F., and J. van Merriënboer. 1993. The efficiency
of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort and performance measures.
Human Factors 35:737–743.
Paas, F., A. Renkl, and J. Sweller. 2003. Cognitive
load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist 38:1–4.
———. 2004. Cognitive load theory: Instructional
implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science 32:1–8.
Paas, F., J. Tuovinen, H. Tabbers, and P. Van Gerven.
2003. Cognitive load measurements as a means to
advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 38:63–71.
Paivio, A. 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding
approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, M. 1999. Elements in multimedia cartography. In Multimedia cartography, ed. W. Cartwright, M. Peterson, and G. Gartner, 31–40. New
York: Springer.
Schwartz, N., L. Ellsworth, L. Graham, and B. Knight.
1998. Accessing prior knowledge to remember text:
A comparison of advanced organizers and maps.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:65–89.
Shafer, P., and J. Thomas. 1998. Difficulty of a
spatial task and sex differences in gains from practice. Perceptual and Motor Skills 87:56–58.
Silverman, I., J. Choi, A. Mackewn, M. Fisher, J.
Moro, and E. Olshansky. 2000. Evolved mechanisms underlying wayfinding: Further studies on
the hunter-gatherer theory of spatial sex differences. Evolution and Human Behavior 21:201–13.
Silverman, I., and M. Eals. 1992. Sex differences in
spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data. In
The adaptive mind: Evolutionary psychology and the
generation of culture, ed. J. Barkow, L. Kosmides, and
J. Tooby, 533–49. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Streeter, L., and D. Vitello. 1986. A profile of drivers’
map-reading abilities. Human Factors 28:223–39.
Streeter, L., D. Vitello, and S. Wonsiewicz. 1985.
How to tell people where to go: Comparing navigational aids. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies 22:549–62.
Stumpf, H. 1998. Gender-related differences in academically talented student’s test scores and use of
time on tests of spatial abilities. Gifted Child Quarterly 42:157–71.
Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12:257–
85.
———. 2004. Instructional design consequences of an
analogy between evolution by natural selection and
human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science
32:9–31.
Tuovinen, J., and F. Paas. 2004. Exploring multidimensional approaches to the efficiency of instructional conditions. Instructional Science 32:133–52.
van Merrienboer, J., P. Kirschner, and L. Kester. 2003.
Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional
design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist
38:5–13.
Verdi, M., and R. Kulhavy. 2002. Learning with maps
and texts: An overview. Educational Psychology Review
14:27–46.
Vlachos, F., G. Andreou, and E. Andreou. 2003. Biological and environmental influences in visuospatial abilities. Learning and Individual Differences
13:339–47.
Voyer, D., S. Voyer, and M. Bryden. 1995. Magnitude
of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis
and consideration of critical variables. Psychological
Bulletin 117:250–70.
Weiss, E., G. Kemmler, E. Deisenhammer, W.
Fleischhacker, and M. Delazer. 2003. Sex differences in cognitive functions. Personality and Individual Differences 35:863–75.
Yeung, A., P. Jin, and J. Sweller. 1997. Cognitive
load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 23:1–21.
Zipf, G. 1941. National unity and disunity. Bloomington, IL: Principia Press.
RICK L. BUNCH is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Geography at the University of North
Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402.
E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests
include GIS, cartography, and spatial cognition.
ROBERT EARL LLOYD is Distinguished Professor
Emeritus in the Department of Geography at the
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208.
E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include
spatial cognition, cartography, and quantitative
methods.