Is the work of developmental psychologists and developmental neuroscientists irrelevant for schools, because they are only talking about learning which is hardwired (or biologically primary, as Geary would say)? Does the science indicate that cognitive load theory is ‘the science of learning’ and any other evidence on learning can be ignored in school? No, and here’s why not. Cognitive load theory is a a theory of information processing. It is a model which suggests how information can be processed and retained in the brain. It is mostly based on experimental studies with adults, learning lists of information. There are, as far as I know, almost no studies on younger children and very few in areas outside maths and science with teenagers. Learning - and particularly children’s learning - is about an awful lot more than information processing. For a start, an information processing model is silent on motivation. All information is equal, according to the model. It doesn’t matter what you put in. Whereas when it comes to real life learning, motivation is fundamental, particularly for children. A child learns about something which interests them with alacrity, whilst if you try to teach them about something which has no interest to them it is like wading through treacle. The developmental psychology research into children’s learning indicates that learning is an interactive process, where children are driven by their desire to participate in the world. They form hypotheses and use the information they already know. This is not just about learning things which are ‘hard wired’. Very little is hard wired into human brains. Human brains are born with enormous flexibility, able to adapt to different environments and cultures. This is one of the things which makes humans different to other animals. Developmental psychology is about how children learn when they are in environments which enable them to use their strengths - environments like good early years classrooms. Early years teachers share content, and children acquire knowledge and skills. Including a lot of new information which is culturally specific and could not be ‘hard wired’ in. There is no research which shows that children’s learning changes in quality at age five, and that they are no longer able to learn in this way. In fact, quite the opposite, there is a lot of evidence that children find formal learning at five very difficult and that it causes many of them to become distressed and to show this through their behaviour. That’s because they are not just information processors. They are young humans who need to move their bodies, who find it hard to concentrate and whose strengths do not lie in sitting still and listening. Children are learning how to manage themselves in the world, and this will be fundamentally important to their future - but isn’t captured by cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory is silent on how to get children to stay still long enough and listen - and that’s because cognitive load theory is not a theory of education or child development. It’s a theory of information processing. As a theory of education, it lacks complexity, and it has nothing to say about child development and motivation. That’s because it’s a cognitive model, and it doesn’t set out to cover all those different aspects of learning. Cognitive load theory is not the only theory of learning that matters, nor is it the dominant theory of children’s learning. Children aren’t just novice-adults, any more than they are information processors. Ignoring child development and the way in which children learn best will inevitably lead to more unhappy children and less effective learning.