Cognitive Perspectives on Online Learning Environments

Richard E. West (rickwest@byu.edu)

Brigham Young University

Michael J. Hannafin Janette R. Hill

University of Georgia

Liyan Song
Towson University

This is a pre-publication version of the chapter included in the Handbook of Distance

Education. Here is the full citation for the chapter:

West, R. E., Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. & Song, L. (2012). Cognitive perspectives on online learning
environments. In M. Moore (Ed.) Handbook of Distance Education (third edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 Cognitive Perspectives on Online Learning Environments

Cognitive psychology is a pervasive influence in teaching and learning research, theory, and
practice (see overview by Winn, 2004) and has shaped designs for technology-mediated teaching
and learning environments (see, for example, Koenig & Atkinson, 2009; Rieber, 2009; van
Merrienboer, Swell & Paas, 1998). As online learning environments have evolved, they have
generated a predictable but important debate: To what extent are empirically-derived, cognitive
principles applicable to online learning environments? Do alternative perspectives warrant, or
require, different approaches? How do the affordances of technologies and contextual demands
influence the applicability of cognitive principles?
Several principles have been extrapolated from past research to online learning
environments [see, for example, Clark & Hannafin, 2011; Doolittle, Terry, & Mariano, 2009;
Low, Jin & Sweller, 2009; Mayer, 2005], suggesting that many time-tested cognitive constructs
apply to online learning. At the same time, varied perspectives on the use of technology tools to
support individual processing indicate that our applications of many cognitive constructs may be
modified via technology’s affordances. For example, recent perspectives have departed
significantly from classic cognitive theory, leading some to suggest that the quest for a single,
“correct” psychological paradigm may be fruitless [see, for example, DeSchryver & Spiro, 2009;
Hannafin, West & Shepherd, 2009]. Rather, we suggest the utility and applicability of different
cognitive principles and perspectives must be aligned, or grounded, in corresponding
psychological and pedagogical approaches (Hannafin, Hill, & Glazer, 2011; Kim & Hannafin,
2008, 2009).
The evidence suggests potential variations in both the underlying assumptions about the
nature and mechanisms of cognition and their associated implications for technology-enhanced
teaching and learning. Since one chapter cannot address all possible cognitive psychology
variations, the purposes of this chapter are to: 1) introduce background related to information
processing-related perspectives; 2) review and critically analyze research on four specific
cognitive constructs in the context of online learning environments; and 3) describe implications
of these cognitive perspectives for online learning research, theory, and practice.
Information Processing Perspectives
Information processing perspectives, rooted in objectivist epistemology, assume meaning
exists independent of the individual; individuals acquire and comprehend this meaning to
become knowledgeable and productive with that knowledge. Historically, information
processing models were characterized as “mind as computer” (Atkinson & Schiffrin, 1968) and
“microscopes of the mind” (Massaro & Cowan, 1993). The individual mediates what is valued,
acted upon, remembered, recalled, and generalized based on unique prior knowledge, needs, and
interests. Information processing, in effect, involves the exchange of signals between external
stimuli and internal mental processes such as sensory registers, selective perception, short-term
memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM) (Doolittle, Terry, & Mariano, 2009).
Schema theory is commonly used to characterize how we presume information is
processed. Donald Norman (1982) described the organized networks of prior knowledge as
schemata, or variables, “slots,” and associations among knowledge that collectively define how a
given individual knows or performs a task. As we acquire, update, and revise new knowledge,
the number and strength of associations and representations increases. The process of updating
schema “spreads” as representations are retrieved and modified through activity (Anderson &
Pirolli, 1984).
 Accordingly, sensory registers detect external stimuli, which are then selectively filtered
(often with little or no conscious awareness). This culls the amount and type of information and
signals information to be processed more deeply. Information initially perceived is processed
temporarily in short-term memory (STM), where it is selectively filtered. Since STM, or working
memory, has limited capacity, much of the information is rapidly discarded while other data is
retained and selectively further processed based on prior knowledge and new incoming
information.
For information processing, therefore, durable learning is the transfer of encoded
information from STM to LTM (long-term, or permanent, memory). Subsequent retrieval
involves recalling “learned” knowledge from LTM to working, or short-term, memory where it
is compared with new information. Precisely what is learned and how well it is retrieved depends
on how knowledge is represented: the more richly knowledge is encoded, the more likely it will
be activated under appropriate conditions, retrieved (decoded), and applied or transferred to
related situations. Information processing theory hinges on several important and mediating
constructs, including the roles of prior knowledge, cues and cuing, coding and representing
knowledge, and acquiring and deploying knowledge.

Mediating Constructs

Prior Knowledge. Among cognitive theorists, Ausubel (1968) was among the first to
underscore the primacy of prior knowledge in learning. Prior knowledge provides both the
conceptual foundation (schema) and the links or associations between and among “nodes” or
discrete sets of ideas. As prior knowledge is more richly, deeply, and broadly connected, learners
more readily acquire new knowledge and integrate it with existing understanding. In effect, to
the extent an individual has acquired knowledge about a to-be-learned concept—even if naïve or
incomplete—a basis is established for selecting new stimuli, elaborating with current knowledge,
and refining existing conceptions. In addition, as prior knowledge and associations increase, the
more motivated, capable, and strategic learners become in seeking evaluating, and self-regulating
new learning (Tobias, 1994).

Prior knowledge has played a significant role in learning and retention across a wide
range of learning environments. For example, Clark and Mayer (2007) extrapolated “proven”
design and learning strategies and guidelines based largely on their analysis of prior research.
These authors cited numerous references to psychological research underlying their guidelines,
including, but not specifically related to, online learning. Other scholars also documented the
role of prior experience in influencing learning during online instruction. Song (2005), for
example, noted that experienced online graduate learners tended to be more strategic in time-
management and soliciting support, such as raising questions during online chats that the
instructor could address quickly. Experienced online learners also reported spending less time in
bulletin board discussions, focusing instead on their particular interests and discussions. In
contrast, first-time online learners reported reading nearly all bulletin board postings as they
attempted to stay current with and understand course content.

Prior knowledge of the online system also appears to influence how available affordances
are accessed and used. In one study, prior system knowledge was found to have a stronger
impact on performance than prior subject knowledge. Hill and Hannafin (1997) examined the
decisions made by 15 current and future K-12 teachers enrolled in a technology for teachers
course who searched the Web to identify materials for a to-be-taught classroom topic of their
choosing. Novice users were far more likely than experienced system users to become frustrated
and disoriented in their attempts to locate resources, and thus less strategic and successful in their
searches. In contrast, those with high system knowledge reported more confidence, persistence,
and success in their search strategies.
Prior online learning experience also appears to influence how individuals perceive and
use online tools and resources. In a series of studies, Sharma and Hannafin (2004, 2005, 2007)
noted different patterns of use among college students who perceived online tools as helpful and
productive versus those who did not. Similarly, Song, Singleton, Hill, & Koh (2004) indicated
that whereas novices often struggle during their first online learning course, experienced online
learners tend to develop strategic knowledge about the use of system affordances, manifest
greater metacognitive awareness of their distance learning strengths and needs, and persist in the
face of confusion or frustration.
Cues & Cuing. The nature, content, and structure of cues are especially significant for
information processing. External cues both represent to-be-learned concepts and provide the
means through which internal mechanisms are invoked (selectively perceived), acted upon in
STM, coded richly and appropriately, transferred to LTM, and subsequently recalled and
transferred as needed. Gagne (1984)’s Events of Instruction linked external (instructional) events
to specific internal (cognitive) events to ensure a link between how external stimuli were
organized and presented and the associated requisite cognitive processes. The co-mediation
between external events and cognitive processes establishes a fundamental tenet of information
processing perspectives.
Coding & Representing Knowledge. Paivio’s (1971) believed in his dual coding
hypothesis that information coded multiple ways (e.g., verbal and imagery) is better stored and
retrieved. This has been empirically validated, but more stimulation does not necessarily improve
learning because it can often interfere as well. In a comprehensive review of numerous studies
involving school-aged students using multiple representations (such as pictures accompanying
text or video with accompanying narration), Pressley (1977) found that combined verbal-visual
representations improved learning when they were complimentary in nature, but interfered when
they were not. Similar research findings have repeatedly supported the complementary versus
competing potential of visual and verbal stimuli across ages, grades, and domains (Fleming,
1977). Cognitive resources are well-used and effective when complementary information is
conveyed simultaneously, but become quickly overtaxed when learners attempt to
simultaneously decode non-congruent information presented across modalities.
A variety of explanations have been tendered as to how knowledge is ultimately
represented (Rummelhart & Ortony, 1977). Representation is commonly characterized in terms
of propositions, productions, and associations. Knowledge representations comprise simple
propositions (knowing what) and productions (knowing what to do). Connections, both within
and between types of knowledge, are established during initial encoding and modified through
successive experience, creating associations of varied richness and depth based upon individual
differences.
Acquiring & Deploying Knowledge. According to information processing theorists,
encoding and retrieving are inextricably tied and influenced by factors such as depth of
processing, extensiveness of coding, and richness of association. Information that has been
processed deeply in STM—for example, by comparing and contrasting with similar information,
analyzing closely for similarities and differences, and relating to prior knowledge—tends to be
encoded more richly, activated more readily, and retrieved more quickly (Anderson, Reder, &
Lebiere, 1996). Craik and Tulving (1975) examined the time needed to answer “deep” (semantic)
questions as well as the retention of key terms to assess depth of processing effects. They
concluded the quality of a word's encoding determines retention at a comparable level to when
the questions were salient, suggesting that depth reflects the degree of elaboration during
encoding. Similarly, Anderson and Pirolli (1984) described “spread of activation” as the rate
with which knowledge can be associated according to relevancy. Simply summarized, where
relevancy is high, spread of activation is rapid; where low, activation is low and likely to decay
rapidly.
Cognitive Constructs & OLEs
Based on this understanding of basic cognitive perspectives, we now present recent
research evidence on how four specific information processing constructs apply to online
learning environments (OLEs). While there are other relevant constructs we cannot discuss in
this chapter, we will review research related to motivation, cognitive demands, metacognition,
and scaffolding.
Motivation
According to cognitive perspectives, motivation (classified as either extrinsic and
intrinsic) involves initiating and sustaining a desirable behavior in accordance with defined goals
(Driscoll, 2000; Schunk, 1990). Course requirements often serve as extrinsic motivation by
establishing an external incentive to which the learner strives (Laslo & Kupritz, 2003), while
intrinsic motivation pertains to goals unique to the individual because of personal interests (Lim
& Kim, 2003). In this section, we first discuss some of the research into motivation in online
learning, including the evidence that learners with different goal and self-regulatory orientations
have very different levels of learning motivation. We then discuss research indicating how
different technological and pedagogical approaches may affect a students’ motivation to learn.
Motivation has consistently been considered an important construct for successful online
learning, and has been widely studied. For example, Bures, Amundsen, and Abrami (2000, 2002)
examined student motivation and computer conferencing. During one study, they observed 167
students in 10 different courses using varying levels of computer conferencing technology and
found that both intrinsic (personal task relevance and beliefs) and extrinsic elements (task
attractiveness) predicted satisfaction. They further reported that students with a personal learning
orientation (intrinsic motivation) participated more in CC activities, had higher grades, and
benefited more from the CC environment.
In another study on goal orientations, Ng (2008) tested the hypothesis that learners with
various types of multiple goals would have different learning patterns. Ng surveyed 1,200 (797
responded) undergraduate distance learners at the Open University of Hong Kong on their
achievement goals, learning strategies, self-regulatory strategies, beliefs, and attitudes regarding
their courses. Cluster analyses categorized participants into four types of learners: mastery-
focused learners, multiple-goal learners with a work focus, multiple-goal learners with a
performance focus, and multiple-goal learners with multiple foci. MANOVA analyses indicated
that students with these different goal orientations differed in their use of various learning and
regulatory strategies (Wilks’λ=.82, F[24,2138]=6.19, p<.0001, ή²=.06), motivational beliefs
(Wilks’λ=.88, F[6,1520]=15.93, p<.0001, ή²=.06), and course attitudes (Wilks’λ=.68,
F[6,1506]=53.05, p<.0001, ή²=.17). In other words, students with different goal orientations
differed in how they learned online.
 Using naturalistic case methods to investigate the relationship between self-regulation
and motivation, Whipp and Chiarelli (2004) studied six graduate students using Lotus
Notes/Learning Space during an instructional technology and assessment course. Based on their
analysis of interview transcripts, course documents, and student reflective journals, the
researchers reported that students’ motivations for self-regulated navigation depended upon the
extent that they were able to manage both technical and social environments of the course.
Although the sample size was small, the findings from this study suggested that personal and
system-related aspects of experience may influence motivation in online environments and the
effectiveness of self-regulated learning.
Researchers have suggested various ways to increase students’ motivation in OLEs. For
example, Huett, Kalinowski, Moller, and Huett (2008) studied the use of attention, relevance,
confidence, and satisfaction (ARCS)-based emails to increase the motivation of undergraduate
students in an online computer application course. Student participants in the treatment group
received emails constructed according to Keller’s ARCS model, including the following
components: introduction, goal reminders, words of encouragement, and multiple points of
contact. These researchers found statistically significant differences in motivation between the
treatment group and the control group (p<.001), suggesting that well-designed communications
can help increase students’ motivation in online courses.
Emerging forms of technology can also increase motivation in OLEs (Mei-Mei, 2005).
Hee Jun and Johnson (2005) reported a significant difference in learners’ motivation for video-
based instruction and text-based instruction. In their quasi-experimental, posttest-only study, 16
online masters’ students were provided both video- and text-based instruction within an online
module, then asked for perceptions of understanding and motivation for each. Results indicated a
significant difference for perceived learning and motivation, with participants reporting that the
video-based instruction was more appealing and memorable. While Clark's (1994) cautions
concerning novelty effects must be heeded, these findings suggested that online, context-based
videos may provide additional extrinsic motivation for students to engage online instruction.
Some research has indicated that student perceptions of the OLE design structures can
influence their motivation. One study (Furnborough & Truman, 2009) shed light on the
relationship between students’ perceptions of assignment feedback and their abilities to maintain
their motivation. This qualitative study examined how distance language learners at the Open
University in the United Kingdom perceived assignment feedback and how this affected their
perceived achievement. From students’ interviews and surveys, Furnborough and Truman
concluded that the more students perceived feedback as a formative learning support, the more
likely they persisted to the next level. In cases where students considered feedback as a judgment
on their progress, they were less motivated.
Hsinyi, Chin-Chung, and Ying-Tien (2006) found gender-based differences in
motivation, reporting that male undergraduates demonstrated more positive Internet attitudes
than females. In addition, students who perceived the Internet as a leisure tool reported more
positive attitudes and higher self-efficacy than students viewing the Internet in only a functional
role. In effect, Hsinyi et al. suggested that fostering an informal, exploratory, and leisurely
attitude towards the Internet may improve students’ motivations toward learning in OLEs.
Others, however, have suggested motivation may actually decline following online
learning. For example, Schrum, Burbank, Engle, Chambers, and Glassett (2005) studied the
motivation and beliefs of 22 higher education faculty from eight different colleges and
universities enrolled in an online professional development course. They concluded that
difficulties sustaining the learning community and learning new technologies decreased learner
morale. Schmeekle (2003) also reported a significant negative impact on learner motivation in
quantitative studies where trainees in the classroom group reported both higher motivation and
more positive feelings about learning than did the online group.
These findings reinforce the conclusion that there may perhaps be nothing inherently
motivational about online learning. Indeed, evidence suggests that due to the increased technical
and interpersonal complexity of many systems, motivation to engage may decline in many
instances. Well-designed and supported instruction will generally increase motivation to engage
and learn, while cumbersome, problematic instruction will not. Consistent with general learning
environment research, several more fundamental cognitive and design factors seem to influence
student motivation (cf Clark, 1994).
Cognitive Demands

Total cognitive load, or the demands on mental processing while attempting to learn, has
been conceptualized as comprising intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load (Gerjets &
Scheiter, 2003; van Merrionboer & Ayres, 2005). In this section, we first briefly define the three
different kinds of cognitive load, and then discuss basic approaches to researching cognitive
load, as well as studies into how to decrease extraneous load and increase helpful, germane load
in OLEs. We then conclude discussing the need for future research in the area of cognitive load
in online learning.
Intrinsic load, the number of elements that need to be processed in working memory
(STM), is influenced by individual expertise and the inherent task complexity in to-be-learned
material. For example, learning from a biology text may present a higher intrinsic load than
reading a children’s story to the everyday person, but not to a scientist (Pollock, Chandler, &
Sweller, 2002). Since a great deal of to-be-learned knowledge and skill made available at a
distance is designed for non-experts, intrinsic load is especially relevant to OLEs.
Extraneous load is influenced by the mental resources required to engage a learning
environment. Well-organized information, instructions, and tools tend to minimize extraneous
load, while poorly organized information and tools engender higher extraneous load. In effect, to
the extent the learner must expend cognitive resources simply to locate and access content,
extraneous load (and effort) increases, possibly leading to learner disorientation in online
environments, and the sense of being “lost in hyperspace.”
Germane load is defined as the amount of working memory needed to create new or
activate existing schemas to learn desired or required concepts (Gerjets & Scheiter, 2003; Renkl
& Atkinson, 2003). Germane load involves the allocation of cognitive resources that are
appropriate for processing the task. Increasing germane load may help improve the efficiency of
future learning, while increasing extraneous load may prove inefficient, ineffective, and
overwhelming (van Merrienboer, Schuurman, de Croock, & Paas, 2002).
Researchers have often studied cognitive load through post treatment questionnaires,
where learners self-report their mental effort (Paas, van Merrienboer, & Adam, 1994; Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003) or rate the difficulty of the material they learned
(Kalyuga, Chandler & Sweller, 1999). However, Brunken, Plass, and Leutner (2003) argued for
direct, objective measures of cognitive load. Thus far, few direct measures of cognitive load have
been developed, leaving us still unsure of how to improve helpful, germane load and decrease
inefficient, extrinsic load in online learning.
Researchers have suggested that hyperlinking may increase extraneous load (Oliver &
Hannafin, 2000). In a study of 39 undergraduate students in an educational computing course,
Niederhauser, Reynolds, Salmen, and Skolmoski (2000) tested the impact of different
navigational patterns on learning using hyperlinked text. They used surveys to assess students’
reading abilities, domain knowledge, and backgrounds using computers. Computer software
helped measure the time spent reading each screen and navigation patterns, and a posttest
questionnaire and essay assignment measured learning. As expected, they found that reading
comprehension, background knowledge, and reading time were positively related to learning.
They were surprised to learn, however, that using hyperlinked material to compare and contrast
concepts had a negative influence on learning. The authors concluded that the increased
cognitive load in the hypertext environment negatively impacted student learning.
Similarly, Eveland and Dunwoody (2001) divided 219 students into five groups taught
via different online materials. One group browsed a website using linear navigation buttons,
while another group browsed a site with links embedded throughout the material to encourage
students to explore the content nonlinearly. A third group used nonlinear links with linear
navigational guides; the remaining students served as a paper-based and independent task control
group. All groups were given 15 minutes to study the material, and then rated their motivation,
Web expertise, and the difficulty of the learning. The paper-based control group outperformed
two of the three Web-based groups, suggesting that Web-based hyperlinking, in the absence of
advice, increased extraneous cognitive load.
Consistent with Hill and Hannafin’s (1997) finding related to prior system knowledge,
limited technology familiarity may also increase extrinsic load. Clarke, Ayres, and Sweller
(2005) assigned 24 Australian 9 graders into four groups based on their experience using
th

spreadsheets and mathematics abilities. They compared one group that received technology
instruction prior to domain instruction with a second group that received simultaneous
instruction in both and measured their math and spreadsheet abilities as well as their subjective
ratings of cognitive load. These researchers reported that initial technology instruction followed
by domain instruction was most effective for students with low prior spreadsheet abilities, rather
than teaching both concurrently. Concurrent instruction in technology and domain content
apparently increased extraneous, while decreasing germane, cognitive load.
One way to reduce extraneous cognitive load is with graphic organizers. Chen, Hirumi,
and Zhang (2007) studied the use of two types of advanced organizers (graphic and text) on
undergraduate students’ performances in a fully online health-related ethics course. While no
statistical significant differences were found between these two types of advanced organizers,
participants reported that the advanced organizers helped scaffold the materials, indicating a
need for further research and clarification.
Many researchers reported benefits from providing students with worked examples
(problems showing an example along with the step-by-step solution process); likewise, self-
explanation may help to increase schema creation (Gerjets, Scheiter & Catrambone, 2004; Paas
& van Merrienboer, 1994; Paas, 1992; Reed & Bolstad, 1991; Renkl, Atkinson, & Grosse 2004;
Renkl, Stark, Gruber, & Mandl, 1998; Sweller, 1988). Other methods for increasing germane
load include the use of example elaboration and example comparison (Gerjets, Scheiter, &
Catrambone, 2004), and fading procedures (Renkl et. al., 2003; Renkl, et. al., 2004). As a result
of highly developed mental models, students may better transfer learning (Paas & van
Merrienboer, 1994). Since the goal is to minimize extraneous load while increasing germane
load, these strategies hold considerable promise for organizing, structuring, and supporting
online learning.
 Research on developing, instantiating, and inducing mental schemas may also influence
the cognitive load of to-be-learned concepts. In a study by Eveland, Cortese, Park, and
Dunwoody (2004), two groups of participants (college students and nonstudents) explored for 20
minutes health topic websites designed with either linear navigation or nonlinear navigation.
They then post-tested participant understanding of factual information using a questionnaire and
asked them to list and rate relationships among remembered concepts (knowledge structure
density). Whereas participants learned factual information best from linear websites, nonlinear
sites improved knowledge structure density, which they interpreted to be more transferable
knowledge. The researchers also suggested that nonlinear websites may increase germane load
(positive load). However, in a previous study by the same researchers, nonlinear websites
increased extraneous (negative) load (Eveland, et al. 2001), indicating this issue is not yet fully
understood.
Finally, some researchers have examined the specific relationship between cognitive load
and learners’ success online. For example, McQuaid (2010) found that learner’s confidence was
the single most important factor determining e-learning success. McQuaid focused on the
cumulative and task-specific cognitive loads experienced by e-learners resulting from the five
major tasks required in the asynchronous course. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) was employed to measure the cognitive load
experience by e-learners in this asynchronous course. The measured cognitive load was
compared against each of those five tasks. The correlational analyses indicated that the more
confident the learners were, the less cognitive load they would experience; the higher the
learners’ self-efficacy level, the lower their experienced cognitive load level. In other words,
learners’ self-efficacy and confidence were found to be critical factors affecting the level of
cognitive load that learners would experience in asynchronous courses.
The inconsistencies in some of these findings indicate that there is still much to be
learned and understood about managing extrinsic and germane load, particularly in online
learning. In addition, while several studies have examined extraneous load in OLEs, little
research exists about intrinsic load. However, research from information literacy studies may
provide interesting insights. Jones, Ravid, and Rafaeli (2004) reported a trend towards high
intrinsic load in informal online spaces based on an analysis of more than 2.65 million postings
in over 600 Usenet newsgroups over a six-month period. They found that the higher the intrinsic
load, the lower the participation by the users. In another study, Huang (2011) examined the
impact of online, game-based learning environments on learners’ goal-setting activities and
cognitive loads. The results from this study indicated that students reported significantly higher
levels of intrinsic load than the germane load due to the novelty of the subject matter, implying a
relationship between learners’ intrinsic load and the subject matter and/or instruction delivery
method. More research on how varying levels of expertise impacts intrinsic load in OLEs could
help understand learners’ adaptive learning in OLEs (Federico, 1999).
Metacognition
Metacognition refers to one’s awareness of, and ability to manage, one’s own cognitive
processes (Flavell, 1977) and involves the ability to anticipate, detect, and correct or “repair”
understanding needs as they emerge (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Like many cognitive
phenomena, metacognitive awareness and skill are influenced by prior domain knowledge,
experience, and expertise. As individuals become increasingly knowledgeable and experienced,
they increase in metacognitive awareness and skill. Metacognition may be especially relevant to
learning from and during OLEs. Indeed, Dobrovolny (2006) found in a phenomenological study
of seven participants in online corporate training that knowledge construction began with
metacognition as learners assessed their own knowledge gaps, and then was mediated by
metacognitive strategies. In this section, we first review some of the evidence connecting
metacognition to successful online learning, discuss some research into how to effectively
scaffold and improve online metacognition, and conclude with current efforts to develop ways to
measure metacognition in OLEs.
Zion, Michalsky, and Mevarech (2005) gave insights into why metacognition may be
particularly relevant online, as they argued that asynchronous learning networks (ALNs) allow
students to review digital records of constructed learning, enabling students to better monitor
their learning and making cognition more visible while they develop metacognitive skills. The
authors conducted a 2x2 experiment involving 407 Israeli 10 -grade microbiology students, and
th

found that ALN students with metacognitive scaffolding performed significantly better than
those in the face-to-face group with no scaffolding. No significant differences were found
between the ALN students without metacognition help and the face-to-face group with the
scaffolding, indicating that metacognition was the most effective method. This finding is in
accord with authors such as Workman (2004), who suggested that the repetitive nature of self-
paced computer-based education, where learners interact with material presented via CD-ROM
and structured sequentially with multi-model instruction followed by review, provides cognitive
cueing and supports metacognitive awareness “by prompting learners to reflect on their learning
progress and allowing them to repeat material at critical junctures if needed” (p. 520).
Metacognitive proficiency in OLEs may be related to ability and prior knowledge, or at
least intrinsic motivation for the learning material. Oliver and Hannafin (2001), for example,
reported that middle school students lacked even basic metacognitive activity while attempting to
solve science problems using Web-based resources. In their study, students aged 12-14 years of
age relied on scaffolds to provide explicit direction rather than to induce metacognitive reflection
as designed.
Smidt and Heigelheimer (2004) conducted a qualitative study of nine adult English as a
Second Language (ESL) learners as part of a larger study on the use of Web-based video for a
vocabulary and listening comprehension course. The researchers interviewed high, middle, and
low-performing students regarding their learning strategies, which were categorized as either
cognitive or metacognitive. Advanced learners exhibited both metacognitive and cognitive
learning strategies, but intermediate and lower-level learners used mainly cognitive strategies,
suggesting greater metacognitive awareness and utilization among advanced students. They also
reported that males were more likely to use metacognitive strategies, while females used more
cognitive strategies in their learning. However, a later study (Tsai, 2009) found no gender
differences, leaving the question unanswered.
Besides ability and prior knowledge, Artino (2009) found in his study of 481 service
academy undergraduates that students’ perceptions about a course and their motivations for the
material was related to their metacognition. Through logistic regressional analysis, Artino
reported that students who completed an online course in aviation physiology, and who were
planning to become aviators themselves, reported a greater use of metacognitive strategies.
Land and Greene (2000) found that metacognitive knowledge can sometimes compensate
for limited system or domain knowledge. In their qualitative study, the authors studied
undergraduate preservice teachers working alone, in pairs, or in groups in an online instructional
technology course. For two of the four cases studied, metacognitive knowledge seemed to build
off of system and domain knowledge. However, for teachers who struggled with low
domain/system knowledge, their metacognitive knowledge compensated and helped them
complete tasks successfully. This suggests the importance of providing scaffolds to develop and
regulate metacognitive knowledge and support ongoing reflection. Similarly, Conrad (2009)
found in her qualitative study of six online learners that strong metacognitive skills were
essential in helping students compensate for needing to be absent from their online course for an
extended period of time.
Schwartz, Anderson, Hong, Howard, and McGee (2004) suggested that individuals often
fail to regulate meta-comprehension during online hypermedia learning because some mental
resources must be used to interpret the material, thereby increasing extraneous cognitive load.
They recruited 28 students between the ages of 9 and 17 to freely explore a science website in
one of two formats: a conventional, linear outline format or a nonlinear format. They found that
metacognitive skill was not a good predictor of retention for students using an outline structure,
but it was for students using the nonlinear websites. The authors concluded that metacognitive
skills are necessary but not sufficient for learning from hypermedia, and that well-designed
OLEs need to provide familiar structures and conventions to reduce metacognitive demands.
In a study of 119 undergraduate students in educational psychology and child
development courses, Kaufman (2004) asked online learners to take notes using either a freeform
method or strategically with the aid of a matrix. While taking notes, some students received
prompts to reflect on their learning and notetaking. Students that received metacognitive prompts
and took notes using a matrix performed significantly better on post-experiment achievement
tests; significantly, only three prompts per hour of notetaking yielded this improvement.
Similarly, in Bannert’s (2003) study of 40 university students where the experimental group was
prompted only three times to review their learning, those who received prompts performed better
on post-experiment performance assessments. These findings suggest that seemingly modest
attempts to scaffold metacognition in OLEs can improve learning—especially for students who
attempt to be strategic during their learning.
The Web, with its connecting nodes of information, has been characterized as a metaphor
for human cognition (Mayer-Kress & Barczys, 1995); accordingly, OLEs might support the
mapping and enactment of metacognitive scaffolding. Using a neural network model, Yeh and
Lo (2005) developed a system for assessing students’ metacognitive knowledge based on their
Web browsing abilities. They assigned 146 students enrolled in a freshman English course to a
Web-based learning activity. Prior to and following the activity, the researchers administered a
metacognitive awareness inventory comprising 52 self-report items, thus allowing for self-
reports to be compared with the system’s assessment. The researchers reported that their system
accurately assessed metacognitive knowledge, which could potentially benefit students with
language barriers or limitations, such as those learning language online, who might experience
difficulties reporting their metacognitive knowledge through typical questionnaires. Though
these findings have not yet been widely replicated, the capacity to identify and address
metacognitive knowledge needs may prove helpful in mitigating problems associated with
limited prior domain and system knowledge.
Because of the importance of metacognition for successful online learning, many scholars
have investigated additional methods for assessing students’ metacognitive abilities online
(Pimentel & Omar, 2008). Tsai (2009) revised an earlier version of the Online Learning
Strategies Scale (Tsai, 2007) for evaluating student online learning strategies, including their
metacognitive strategies. The metacognitive portion of Tsai’s 20-item instrument included four
items, with a reliability alpha of .67—the lowest of all subscales in the instrument, though still
considered acceptable, indicating perhaps that metacognition can be assessed through a self-
report instrument, but with lingering reliability challenges.
Scaffolding
Scaffolding is an important consideration in open-learning environments. According to
Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976), scaffolding is the support given to assist individuals as they
engage in a task. Support could include but is not limited to responding to questions, providing
resources, and providing access to experts. Over time, this support is reduced, or faded, as
individuals become more skilled. Scaffolding has been used in a variety of contexts, but
Dabbagh (2003) provided examples of how scaffolding could be used effectively in online
learning environments, ranging from just-in-time support to fading of support over time. In this
section, we briefly review the concept of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, and its
relationship to scaffolding, and review a few studies into online scaffolding, specifically in
asynchronous and virtual world environments.
Vygotsky’s (1978) work with the zone of proximal development is often associated with
scaffolding. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) refers to an individual’s ability to do
increasingly difficult work with assistance. According to Vygotsky (1978), ZPD is “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the
level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or
in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). As the individual becomes more
knowledgeable and/or experienced, the ZPD changes, allowing for continual growth and
development. Scaffolding and ZPD helps to explain how information chunking enables the
instructor to support students with deepening their skills and knowledge. For example, a
beginner may need more scaffolding early on as s/he is at one end of the ZPD continuum. Over
time, the beginner would become more knowledgeable and/or skilled, progressing along the ZPD
continuum and therefore would need less scaffolding.
A variety of scholars in different fields have explored the use of scaffolding in the
learning process, including those who research online open-ended learning environments.
Zumbach, Reimann, and Koch (2006) explored the use of scaffolding within the context of
computer-mediated collaborative problem solving. The researchers were specifically exploring
how to apply design- and management-based scaffolding techniques to enhance cooperation
amongst learners. Several feedback-based techniques were embedded in the learning
environment to provide information to learners about their interactions in the environment,
including participation and collaboration levels. Feedback was provided in real time as dyads
worked together to solve a problem. While the results of the research related to the scaffolds
were not as strong as the authors hoped, several areas were positively influenced by the
scaffolding including collaborative behavior and facilitated problem-solving processes. The
group climate also appeared to have been enhanced in terms of their ability to work together.
While the studies did include small sample sizes (study one: 18; study two: 40), initial results
indicated several positive outcomes, making this an area for continued exploration.
Zheng, Flygare, and Dahl (2009) explored scaffolds in an asynchronous online learning
environment. Their research investigated scaffolding as a strategy to improve the cognitive
abilities of field-dependent (FD) learners (n=74) when working in ill-structured environments.
Specifically, they hypothesized that scaffolding would assist FD learners to better analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate information in ill-structured and well-structured asynchronous online
learning environments. The scaffolding model involved the teacher initially working with the
students and then fading participation and assistance over time. Results from the study indicated
a strong effect for scaffolding on FD learners in ill-structured environments. The researchers
concluded that “developing FD learners’ cognitive abilities in analyzing and synthesizing what
has been presented and flexibly deploying appropriate cognitive strategies to deal with the
evolving content could alleviate their uncertainty and improve their performance in ill-structured
learning” (p. 220). These findings are particularly important within the context of online learning
that is often ill-structured by nature.
Salmon, Nie, and Edirishingha (2010) looked at scaffolding within a Second Life®
context. Salmon et al. designed “SL-tivities” to align with Salmon’s (2004) five-stage model for
scaffolding in an asynchronous learning environment [i.e., (1) access and motivation, (2) online
socialization, (3) information exchange, (4) knowledge construction, and (5) development]. A
structured approach to scaffolding was followed with results indicating, “confidence in the
environment and in each other builds up in a productive way” (p. 180). In particular, results from
the study indicated that online socialization is a key scaffold that contributes positively to
subsequent group learning.
Implications for Online Learning Research, Theory, and Practice
Research related to cognitive perspectives has several important implications for OLEs. It is
apparent that motivational factors are as critical for online as for other learning environments.
Importantly, both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of motivation can be addressed in well-crafted
OLEs. The initial, and to some extent continuing, assumption that technology provides inherent
motivational benefits has been widely debunked. Individuals hold different values, draw from
diverse backgrounds and experiences, and vary in their goals and expectations. Identifying
individual differences across learners may well increase our capacity to accommodate diverse
learner needs. Likewise, the affordances—available features, structures, and supports—will
influence the extrinsic motivation potential of an OLE. Research clearly indicates that
extrinsically-mediated motivation to engage and succeed increases as technical and navigation
requirements decrease.
Scholars have underscored the need to assess and balance how cognitive resources are
allocated. While the findings appear obvious, we rarely design or evaluate online learning
environments based on cognitive processing requirements. Often, OLEs provide extensive sets of
links, supplementary information, and tools presumed to support cognitive processing, but these
are not always as effective as desired. Many structural organizers and scaffolds found helpful in
text-based learning research have also proven valuable in mitigating extraneous load during
online learning. Given wide variations in how online learning environments are organized and
supported, the need to simultaneously maximize germane load and minimize extraneous load
requires particular attention in OLE research and design.
While metacognition principles are perhaps the most intuitively relevant among OLE
researchers, theorists, and practitioners, they are also among the least employed. Virtually all
learning involves metacognitive regulation to some degree, but the cognitive demands associated
with online learning can be especially formidable. Since metacognitive knowledge and skill are
highly correlated with prior domain knowledge, and online learners often do not have extensive
domain knowledge, they are often forced to make metacognitive judgments for which they are
ill-prepared. Research has indicated that online novice learners benefit from even occasional
metacognitive prompts, suggesting that modest efforts to scaffold understanding may help to
compensate for limited background as well as system knowledge.
Finally, the study of scaffolding in online environments, particularly with some of the
Web 2.0 technologies, is still at an exploratory stage. While some have noted results that have
assisted learners, others have indicated a need for continued exploration. As more learning shifts
to online contexts, continuing to build our understanding of how scaffolding can contribute to the
success of the learners is critical.
Closing Comments
We have advocated that design practices be grounded in defined epistemological and
foundational roots, based on research (see, for example, Hannafin, Hannafin, Land, & Oliver,
1997; Hannafin & Hill, 2007; Kim & Hannafin, 2008). Information processing perspectives
provide a well-articulated and richly studied knowledge base related to cognition, relationships
between and among cognitive processes, methods to stimulate mental activity, and techniques to
compensate for background and experiential differences among learners. Although information
processing principles may not universally apply to all online learning experiences, we recognize
its relevance to many individual cognitive dilemmas and design issues. While this chapter
represents a relatively narrow and selective sample of available research and theory, it is
apparent that cognitive psychology has significant, though as yet largely untapped, potential to
improve online learning.

References
Anderson, J., & Pirolli, P. (1984). Spread of activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, memory, and cognition, 10(4), 791-798.
Anderson, J., Reder, L., & Lebiere, C. (1996). Working memory: Activation limitations on
retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 221–256.
Artino, A. R. Jr. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation
and self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(3): 191-202.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and
motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic
Press.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehard &
Winston.
Bannert, M. (2003). Effekete metakognitiver lernhilfen auf den wissenserwerb in vernetzten
lernumgebungen. German Journal of Educational Psychology, 17(1), 13-25. [English
translation]
Brunken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in
multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.
Bures, E. M., Amundsen, C. C., & Abrami, P. C. (2002). Motivation to learn via computer
conferencing: Exploring how task-specific motivation and CC expectations are related to
student acceptance of learning via CC. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
27(3): 249-264.
Chen, Hirumi, & Zhang (2007). Investigating the use of advanced organizers as an instructional
strategy for web-based distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3),
223-231.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on
learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 53(3), 15-24.
Clark, R.E., & Hannafin, M.J. (2011). Debate about the benefits of different levels of
instructional guidance. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (3 ed.) (pp. 367-382). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
rd

Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Clark, R.C. & Mayer, R. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning (2 Ed.). New York: Wiley
nd

Conrad, D. (2009). Cognitive, instructional, and social presence as factors in learners' negotiation
of planned absences from online study. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning. 10(3): 1-18.
Dabbagh, N. (2003). Scaffolding: An important teacher competency in online learning.
TechTrends, 47(2), 39-44.
DeSchryver, M., & Spiro, R. (2009). New forms of deep learning on the Web: Meeting the
challenges of cognitive load in conditions of unfettered exploration in online multimedia
environments. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 134-152).
New York: Information Science References.
Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-pace, technology-based corporate training:
New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance Education, 27(2): 155-170.
Doolittle, P., Terry, K., & Mariano, G. (2009). Multimedia learning and working memory
capacity. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 17-33). New
York: Information Science References.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Eveland, W. P., Cortese, J., Park, H., & Dunwoody, S. (2004). How Web site organization
influences free recall, factual knowledge, and knowledge structure density. Human
Communication Research, 30(2), 208-233.
Eveland, W. P., & Dunwoody, S. (2001). User control and structural isomorphism or
disorientation and cognitive load? Communication Research, 28(1), 48.
Federico, P.-A. (1999). Hypermedia environments and adaptive instruction. Computers in
Human Behavior, 15(6), 65392-65392.
Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fleming, M. (1977). On pictures in educational research. Instructional Science, 8, 235-251.
Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions
and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 30(3), 399-418.
Gagne, R. (1984). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York :
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators
between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based
instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33-41.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce
intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures.
Instructional Science, 32(1), 33-58.
Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice in the design
of learning systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-
117.
Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In
R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(2 ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
nd

Hannafin, M.J., Hill, J., & Glazer, E. (2011). Designing grounded learning environments:
Linking epistemology, pedagogy, and design practice. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Past, present, and future (3 Ed.) (pp. 179-189). Santa Barbara, CA:
rd

Libraries Unlimited.
Hannafin, M.J., West, R., Shepherd, C. (2009). The cognitive demands of student-centered, web-
based multimedia: Current and emerging perspectives. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive
effects of multimedia learning (pp. 194-216). New York: Information Science
References.
Hee Jun, C., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). The effect of context-based video instruction on learning
and motivation in online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 215-
227.
Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (1997). Cognitive strategies and learning from the World Wide
Web. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(4), 37-64.
Hsinyi, P., Chin-Chung, T., & Ying-Tien, W. (2006). University students' self-efficacy and their
attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students' perceptions of the Internet.
Educational Studies, 32(1), 73-86.
Huang, W-H. (2011). Evaluate learners' motivational and cognitive processing in an online
game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 694-704.
Huett, J.B., Kalinowski, K.E., Moller, L., & Huett, K.C. (2008). Improving the motivation and
retention of online students though the use of ARCS-based emails. American Journal of
Distance Education, 22, 159-176. DOI: 10.1080/08923640802224451.
Jones, Q., Ravid, G., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). Information overload and the message dynamics of
online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information
Systems Research, 15(2), 194-210.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in
multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
Kaufman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: Instructional tools
designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational
beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 30(1 & 2): 139-161.
Kim, H., & Hannafin, M.J. (2009). Web-enhanced case-based activity in teacher education: A
case study. Instructional Science, 37, 151-170.
Kim, H., & Hannafin, M.J. (2008). Grounded design and Web-enhanced, case-based reasoning.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 161-179.
Koenig, A., & Atkinson, R. (2009). Using narrative and game schema acquisition techniques to
support learning from educational games. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of
multimedia learning (pp. 312-339). New York: Information Science References.
Land, S. M., & Greene, B. A. (2000). Project-based learning with the World Wide Web: A
qualitative study of resource integration. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(1), 45-67.
Laszlo, F., Jr., & Kupritz, V. W. (2003). The identification of online learning motives in use by
undergraduate students. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(1), 63-72.
Lim, D. H. & Kim, H. (2003). Motivation and learner characteristics affecting online learning
and learning application. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 31(4), 423-439.
Low, R., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (2009) Cognitive architecture and instructional design in a
multimedia context. In R. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 1-
16). New York: Information Science References.
Massaro, D. & Cowan, N. (1993). Information Processing Models: Microscopes of the Mind.
Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 383-425.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer-Kress, G. & Barczys, C. (1995). The global brain as an emergent structure from the
worldwide computing network, and its implications for modeling. The Information
Society, 11(1), pp.1-27.
McQuaid, J. W. (2010). Using cognitive load to evaluate participation and design of an
asynchronous course. American Journal of Distance Education, 24, 177-194. DOI:
10.1080/08923647.2010.519949
Mei-Mei, C. (2005). Applying self-regulated learning strategies in a Web-based instruction: An
investigation of motivation perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3),
217-230.
Ng, C.C. (2008). Multiple-goal learners and their differential patterns of learning. Educational
Psychology, 28(4), 439-456.
Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. J., & Skolmoski, P. (2000). The influence of
cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
23(3), 237-255.
Norman, D. (1982). Learning and memory. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M.J. (2001). Developing and refining mental models in open-ended
learning environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 49(4), 5-33.
Oliver, K., & Hannafin, M.J. (2000). Student management of Web-based hypermedia
resources during open-ended problem solving. Journal of Educational Research,
94(2), 75-92.
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in
statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84(4), 429-
434.
Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and
transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
Paivio, A (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Pimentel, E. P. & Omar, N. (2008). Formative assessment in distance learning education with
cognitive and metacognitive measurements. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 4(3): 39-58.
Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and
Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.
Pressley, M. (1977). Imagery and children’s learning—putting the picture in developmental
perspective. Review of Educational Research, 47, 582-622.
Reed, S. K. & Bolstad, C. A. (1991). Use of examples and procedures in problem solving.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 17(4): 753-766.
Rieber, L. (2009). Supporting discovery-based learning within simulations. In R. Zheng (Ed.),
Cognitive effects of multimedia learning (pp. 217-236). New York: Information Science
References.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem
solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 15-22.
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Grosse, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A
cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1), 59-82.
Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The
effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 23, 90-108.
Rummelhart, D., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R.C.
Anderson, R.J. Spiro & W.E. Montague (Eds), Schooling and the acquisition of
knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Salmon, G., Nie, M., & Edirishingha, P. (2010). Developing a five-stage model of learning in
Second Life. Educational Research, 52(2), 169-182.
Schmeeckle, J. M. (2003). Online training: An evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of
training law enforcement personnel over the Internet. Journal of Science Education &
Technology, 12(3), 205-260.
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognition. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Schrum, L., Burbank, M. D., Engle, J., Chambers, J. A., & Glassett, K. F. (2005). Post-secondary
educators' professional development: Investigation of an online approach to enhancing
teaching and learning. Internet & Higher Education, 8(4), 279-289.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 25,71-86.
Schwartz, N. H., Andersen, C., Hong, N., Howard, B., & McGee, S. (2004). The influence of
metacognitive skills on learners' memory information in a hypermedia environment.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 77-93.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M.J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning
environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27-46.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Learner perceptions of scaffolding in supporting critical
thinking. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(1), 17-42.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M.J. (2004). Scaffolding critical thinking in an online course: An
exploratory study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 181-208. Shuell,
T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(4),
411-436.
Simon, H. (1979). Information processing models of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,
30, 363-396.
Smidt, E., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening
comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 17(5), 517-556.
Song, L. (2005). Adult learners' self-directed learning in online environments: Process, personal
attribute, and context. Unpublished Dissertation, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student
perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet & Higher Education, 7(1),
59-70.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational
Research, 64(1), 37-54
Tsai, M.-J. (2007). A pilot study of the development of the Online Learning Strategies
Scale (OLSS). Paper presented in ICALT2007 conference, July 18-20, Niigata,
Japan.
Tsai, M-J. (2009). The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating
student e-learning from metacognitive perspectives. Educational Technology and Society,
12(1): 34-48.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002).
Redirecting learners' attention during training: Effects on cognitive load, transfer test
performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11-37.
van Merrionboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design
implications for E-Learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(3), 5-
13.
Van Merrienboer, J, Sweller, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-regulation in a web-based course: A case study.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(4), 5-22.
Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspective in psychology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (2 ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
nd

Erlbaum.
Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Psychology and Psychiatry. 17.
Workman, M. (2004). Performance and perceived effectiveness in computer-based and
computer-aided education: do cognitive styles make a difference? Computers in Human
Behavior, 20(4), 517.
Yeh, S.-W., & Lo, J.-J. (2005). Assessing metacognitive knowledge in web-based CALL: a
neural network approach. Computers & Education, 44(2), 97-113.
Zheng, R. Z., Flygare, J. A., & Dahl, L. B. (2009). Style matching or ability building? An
empirical study on FD learners’ learning in well-structured and ill-structured
asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 41(2), 195-226.
Zion, M., Michalsky, T., & Mevarech, Z. (2005). The effects of metacognitive instruction
embedded within an asynchronous learning network on scientific inquiry skills.
International Journal of Science Education, 27(8), 957-983.
Zumbach, J., Reimann, P., & Koch, S. C. (2006). Monitoring students’ collaboration in
computer-mediated collaborative problem-solving: Applied feedback approaches.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(4), 399-424.