Redesigning Blended Lessons in the Learning Management System
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
บทคัดย่อ
Students are confronted with a myriad of tasks and activities during their studies. The difficulty of these can be impacted by the students’ background, the difficulty of the tasks and how the task is presented. Cognitive load theory suggests that the language, previous schemata and complexity of the subject matter may impact on student processing (Intrinsic Cognitive Load). How the task is presented, including the instructional language and the software being used may also impact on task competition (Extrinsic Cognitive Load). Finally, the germane cognitive load, moving information from short term to long term memory, may also hamper student progress. Students may also be affected by other factors, such as distractive devices or personal issues. Additionally, tasks should be scaffolded (presenting work to students in a simple to more difficult/controlled to freer production manner) moving through a series of Zones of Proximal Development progressively towards the Learning Outcomes. This article was borne out of a desire to support teaching staff in a small to medium sized tertiary institution in the Middle East. Four ‘Re-Jigs’ (course materials presented in a different manner with a consideration of Cognitive Loading and Scaffolding) were provided to staff and their reactions are detailed below. The conclusions were positive although the development time was a major factor.
Article Details
อนุญาตภายใต้เงื่อนไข Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ข้อความและความคิดเห็นที่แสดงในบทความ เป็นแนวคิดของผู้เขียน มิใช่ความรับผิดชอบของกองบรรณาธิการ และคณะผู้จัดทำแต่อย่างใด
บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารวิเทศศึกษา ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารวิเทศศึกษา หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใด ๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรจากวารสารวิเทศศึกษา ก่อนเท่านั้น
เอกสารอ้างอิง
Articulate Global. (2015). E-learning heroes: Get to know the four levels of e-learning. Articulate.
https://community.articulate.com/blog/articles/get-to-know-the-4-levels-of-e-learning/1081372
Baxter, K. A., Sachdeva, N., & Baker, S. (2025). The application of cognitive load theory to the design of health and behavior change programs: Principles and recommendations. Health Education & Behavior, 52(4), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981251327185
Bruner, J. S. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, Communication, and Cognition: Vygotskian Perspectives. (pp. 21–34). Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0
Frein, S. T., Jones, S. L., & Gerow, J. E. (2013). When it comes to Facebook there may be more to bad memory than just multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2179–2182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.031
Gathercole, S., & Alloway, T. (2007). Understanding working memory: A classroom guide. Harcourt Assessment. https://pdnet.org.uk/media/WM-classroom-guide.pdf
Mayer, R. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
Medical College of Wisconsin. (2022). Cognitive load theory – A guide to applying cognitive load theory to your teaching. https://www.mcw.edu/-/media/MCW/Education/Academic-Affairs/OEI/Faculty-Quick-Guides/Cognitive-Load-Theory.pdf
Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive Load Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Shibli, D., & West, R. (2018, February 22). Cognitive load theory and its application in the classroom. The Chartered College of Teaching. Retrieved January 1, 2025, from https://my.chartered.college/impact_article/cognitive-load-theory-and-its-application-in-the-classroom/
Smith, D. (2011, July 27). Drag and drop file upload – new block [Online forum post]. Moodle. Retrieved January 1, 2025, from https://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=181988
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Sweller, J. (2024). Cognitive load theory and individual differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102423
Wali, F., Scampton, D., Alesh, R., Ebrahim, K., Tammam, Z., Abdulnabi, H., & Huijser, H. (2023). Developing and evaluating blended learning environments in English courses based on Quality Matters standards. In E. Meletiadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on redesigning teaching, learning, and assessment in the digital era (pp. 287-303). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-8292-6
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Zuo, M., Kong, S., Ma, Y., Hu, Y., & Xiao, M. (2023). The effects of using scaffolding in online learning: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070705