Numerous contradictions of cognitive load theory’s predictions have been found, but with germane cognitive load, they can still be explained away.&nbsp; de Jong does not use this term (unfalsifiable) but instead states that germane cognitive load is a <em>post-hoc</em> explanation with no theoretical basis: “there seems to be no grounds for asserting that processes that lead to (correct) schema acquisition will impose a higher cognitive load than learning processes that do not lead to (correct) schemas” (2009).

2. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Poor external validity of lab-based studies</span>.&nbsp; Moreno doesn’t touch on something in the de Jong article – the fact that most cognitive load (and multimedia learning) studies are conducted in labs that “includes participants who have no specific interest in learning the domain involved and who are also given a very short study time” (de Jong, 2009), often only a few minutes.&nbsp; Quite a number of findings from these studies have not held up as strongly when tested in classrooms or real-world scenarios, or have even reversed (<a href="http://www.txwes.edu/professionaldevelopment/materials/Multimedia%20Instructions.pdf">such as the modality effect</a>, but see <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010">this refutation</a> and this <a href="http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&amp;cpsidt=5135499">other example of a reverse effect</a>).

One thing that was surprising to the students and to me was the comments thanking the students. I think that was new for them, having someone appreciate that they did this work.

Speaking from both his head and heart, Dan makes he compelling case that it is <strong>no longer is it enough to show that you are great, you have to show why you are a great</strong> match for a culture and brand of the company you want to work for. You have to be able to sell yourself, your talents, your passions, your uniqueness. (<a href="http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=261&amp;Itemid=120">Aren't these Key 21st Century Skills?</a>)

The idea embedded in this approach is that if students make errors, they will learn the errors and be prevented (or slowed) in learning the correct information. But <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&amp;id=2009-09620-017&amp;CFID=24407194&amp;CFTOKEN=49068829"> research </a> by Nate Kornell, Matthew Hays and Robert Bjork at U.C.L.A. that recently appeared in <em>the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition</em> reveals that this worry is misplaced. In fact, they found, learning becomes better if conditions are arranged so that students make errors