Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Psychologica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actpsy

Cognitive capacity in self-directed learning: Evidence of middle school T

students’ executive attention to resist distraction
Õnne Uus⁎, Paul Christian Seitlinger, Timo Tobias Ley
School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Narva road 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Self-directed learning (SDL) is a rapidly developing trend in schools, although its prerequisites, such as children’s
Self-directed learning skills and abilities to plan and monitor their own learning, have not been investigated in detail. Due to additional
Working memory capacity cognitive load it induces, SDL has been in some cases found to be detrimental for learning, especially for students
Executive functions with a lower cognitive capacity. With this study, we explored some of the causes for the variability in learning
Long term memory
gains. We examined 111 middle school students' self-directed category learning using an exploratory web-task
Cognitive load theory
Concept formation
for autonomous learning, focusing on their information search (browsing a taxonomy of unknown dinosaurs)
Complex learning and their memorization of respective category labels. We were interested to detect whether students’ perfor-
mance in a complex span task (Ospan) was also reflected in their search and learning behavior. Results revealed
different learning gain trajectories in the latter task, where higher WMC students were more confident about
their learning. Also, the students with lower WMC were found to search the taxonomy by repeatedly searching
the same (basic type of) dinosaur exemplar. In line with prior findings about human mental capacity restrictions
and cognitive load theory, the present work evidenced the important role of students’ resistance to distraction,
and its relation to differences in self-directed search and memorizing. The results imply the need to teach me-
tacognitive skills and offer supportive scaffolding in order to avoid cognitive overload in SDL.

1. Introduction
A critical determinant of modern pedagogy is self-directed learning
(SDL) based on the active inquiry of the learner, where students
themselves control and make choices concerning their learning, au-
tonomously solve problems and form conceptual conclusions (de Bruin
& van Merriënboer, 2017; Thomas, Strage, & Curley, 1988). However,
to be successful in SDL one needs specific skills: to set learning goals,
plan what to learn more about, select strategies and also monitor
whether the goals are met (Van Deur & Murray-Harvey, 2005). As SDL
outcome, like any new knowledge acquisition, depend on human in-
formation processing constraints (Gyselinck, Jamet, & Dubois, 2008)
inextricably linked to individual memory functions: encoding, reten-
tion, retrieval, that expect a quick interplay of the learner's temporary
mental workspace and long-term memory (LTM) storage (Cowan, 2014;
Gilhooly & Logie, 2004). As a result, complex SDL requires a much
greater number of cognitive operations (compared to traditional
learning), such as to plan and search for learning items as well as to
monitor and evaluate one’s own current learning stage (Rutherford,
Buschkuehl, Jaeggi, & Farkas, 2018; Van Deur & Murray-Harvey,
2005). All those mental acts, however, add a heavy load on young
learners’ cognitive capacity, thus hampering effective memorising of
new information (Garner, 2009; Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016; Sweller, Van
Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998; Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019;
Zepeda, Richey, Ronevich, & Nokes-Malach, 2015). Cognitive load
theory (CLT) offers a convincing account of how learning tasks induce
processing load that directly affects the learner’s ability to construct
new knowledge in LTM (de Bruin & van Merriënboer, 2017). Particu-
larly important for high quality learning, especially when it involves
sequential subtasks, seems to be the interplay of working memory
(WM) supported by executive attention to resist distractions
(Schwaighofer, Bühner, & Fischer, 2017. p. 60). WM is conceptualized
as an “integral bottleneck” for the memorization system, as it is used for
registering, manipulating and shortly saving information that is then
stored in LTM (Baddeley, 1996; Cowan, 2014). Executive attention is
responsible for maintaining the present information despite inter-
ference and can be regarded as a higher order control process in making
decisions or for problem-solving (Coolidge & Wynn, 2005). Therefore,

Abbreviations: SDL, self-directed learning; WM, working memory; WMC, working memory capacity; EF, executive function; LTM, long-term memory; CLT, cognitive
load theory
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: onne.uus@tlu.ee (Õ. Uus), paul.seitlinger@tlu.ee (P.C. Seitlinger), tobias.ley@tlu.ee (T.T. Ley).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103089
Received 4 January 2020; Received in revised form 5 May 2020; Accepted 11 May 2020
Available online 03 July 2020
0001-6918/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Õ. Uus, et al.
any attentional insufficiency can cause errors that can lead to one's
biased judgment on own current learning state and thereby decision
about what to do next and how to do it (Roebers, 2017; Sprenger et al.,
2011). However, especially the latter lays the ground in SDL, and
substantial differences have been found in children's attention control,
especially in executive aspect, since there exist marked differences in
developmental maturing (Best & Miller, 2010; de Bruin & van
Merriënboer, 2017; Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). This may result in poor
metacognitive judgment on whether one has successfully learned and
render SDL as ineffective (de Bruin & van Merriënboer, 2017; Thomas
et al., 1988). This restriction manifests especially in unfamiliar topics,
where several unknown units interrupt processing in each momentary
processing step (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006; Roebers, 2017). This
is because the human cognitive architecture is severely limited, al-
lowing to include in WM only small amount of elements concurrently
(Cowan, 2014) to deal with visual, verbal or auditory material and save
it in LTM (Baddeley, 1996; Sweller et al., 1998). In other words, the
limited WM capacity restricts an “online” processing to quickly form
new links when too many new items are entering concurrently (Sweller
et al., 1998). At the same time, the multicomponent tasks accom-
panying SDL might cause cognitive overload that hampers executive
attention control (Best & Miller, 2010; Ecker, Lewandowsky, Oberauer,
& Chee, 2010; Sprenger et al., 2011), thereby failing to bring relevant
items into WM to link them with prior knowledge and then saving in
LTM (Sweller et al., 1998). Therefore, executive control and WM–LTM
interaction are the most important factors affecting one's mental op-
erations in memorizing new information (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016;
Sweller et al., 1998; Sweller et al., 2019; Unsworth, Fukuda, Awh, &
Vogel, 2014) that, however, is crucial for complex SDL. Schwaighofer
et al. (2017) have evidenced that the percentage of correctly recalled
items decreases, as cognitive load increases (see also Sprenger et al.,
2011). Yet, better initial executive control enables more efficient recall
later (Shipstead, Harrison, & Engle, 2015). This is because executive
attention enables to mentally highlight only those items needed for
efficient solution of the present processing task, so leaving additional
time for practicing to be learned items. Hence, students with poor at-
tention control are slower in concurrent processing which is one of the
primary reasons for the strong relationship between higher-order cog-
nition and complex learning (Unsworth, Redick, Heitz, Broadway, &
Engle, 2009). However, as the mental capacity of school-age children is
not yet fully matured (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016), they get even more
severely confined when dealing with novel information (de Bruin & van
Merriënboer, 2017). Though, to develop full understanding, it is im-
perative to direct one’s attention only to task-relevant items, to shift
attention from one item to another and establish links between them
and prior knowledge (Schwaighofer et al., 2017). Accordingly, as at-
tentional and shifting skills are based on executive control, they lay the
ground for one's progress in complex learning (Rutherford et al., 2018).
Still, children's abilities to perform in complex tasks improve until (at
least) the age 15 (Best & Miller, 2010).
The problem is that although the SDL paradigm needs proactive
students, who are able to flexibly select adaptive strategies (Garner,
2009) to monitor and control their own learning progress (Sweller
et al., 2019), this specific competency is rarely taught (de Bruin & van
Merriënboer, 2017). However, for basic functions (planning, mon-
itoring, evaluating), children first need to learn and practice their own
metacognitive strategies, since without such skills they face overload
that leads to insufficient or superficial knowledge (de Bruin & van
Merriënboer, 2017; Garner, 2009; Sweller et al., 2019; Zepeda et al.,
2015). The severe constraints in WM and executive functions (EF)
discussed above clearly relate to SDL: Students iterative search for in-
formation includes two core aspects which subjects them to a dual-
demand task: (a) to create conceptual relations of the learning domain,
(b) to simultaneously memorize gathered information (Sweller et al.,
1998. p 267). Hence, individual differences in those skills mainly ex-
plain the variance in cognitive achievements in complex learning
2
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
(Schwaighofer et al., 2017). Whereas SDL requires from the learner
even more efficient focusing (i.e., executive attention), concept-crea-
tion and assessment of their recently gained knowledge to make pro-
gress (Sweller et al., 1998). However, to our knowledge there is no
systematic research about the two coupled and mental capacity de-
pendent processes to form new concepts and search for new informa-
tion. In this regard, since cognitive load and abilities to allocate one’s
own cognitive resources across all the required acts are related – how to
help learners not to cognitively overburden is a continuing challenge.
Therefore, we need firstly to address SDL activities to optimize the
learner's intellectual load in order to gain the ultimate phenomena of
the learning (Sweller et al., 1998. p 251). Based on the aspects men-
tioned above, the current study examines complex learning in parti-
cular conditions: along the entire learning-session led by the learner (to
gather specific data related to individual cognitive variables) to con-
centrate on the specific attention control perspective of the learner
(Sweller et al., 2019) that can either aid or restrict school students'
learning progress in SDL. Our study design differs from prior work
exploring complex learning mainly by means of self-reporting (Garner,
2009; Rutherford et al., 2018). In this paper, we therefore follow a
different strategy, namely, we have created an environment where
some of the processes can be directly traced on a more fine-grained
level and related directly to cognitive capacity: students select the items
themselves, keep their attention on relevant info-pieces and integrate
them into LTM concepts. The current task is one example of how
complex learning can be used to study some of those fine-grained
processes which are typical in the majority of complex learning tasks
led by the student.
1.1. Present work
We addressed specific feedback on how the learners construct and
memorize (i.e., form their own new concepts) while learning an un-
familiar topic. To this end, we developed a novel search-and-learning
task (Dino), where to investigate learners’ step-by-step-measured pat-
tern to allocate their attentional capacity across animal category names
to be memorized within a given 3D-taxonomy. We designed such a
research scenario based on the aspect that, as generally in the tradi-
tional learning paradigm (e.g., in science disciplines) it is typical that a
novice learner gains already developed domain-specific classification
systems to-be-learned. However, in SDL, the learners have to be able to
form appropriate concepts by themselves, so sequentially constructing
their new knowledge. For instance, while acquiring a zoological tax-
onomy, it means getting to know its phylogenetic dimensions (e.g.,
locomotion) as well as every dimension’s feature values (e.g., “not able
to fly”/“able to fly”). Also, to identify the typical combination of spe-
cific features (in terms of which combinations belong to a particular set)
and then learn the respective category name. Doing so, learners form
their own mental representations via the exemplars (see Fig. 1) based
on what the respective category members look like. Therefore, one must
first create (in WM) their own needed links (into LTM) and only then is
able to mentally operate with them as associated representations.
However, the accompanying cognitive load can seriously influence such
initial processing, especially in case of lower mental capacity people
(e.g., children whose cognitive capability is not yet mature, nor do they
always have enough prior linking associations compared to adults).
Therefore, we set our research goal to find out the following: Does the
ecological character of individual cognitive capacity (i.e., the ability to
maintain information in the face of distraction) have an impact on
performance in the complex search-and-learning tasks in a classroom
setting? The rationale for this originated from the assumption that
complex learning imposes heavy loads on novice students’ WM to resist
distraction leading to high need for executive control. Whereas the
latter is not with equal spurt matured (due to a normal developmental
path as well as in terms of individual differences). Accordingly, we set
our specific research questions as follows:
Õ. Uus, et al.
Fig. 1. Dino taxonomy used in the present study.
Corresponding image (Fig. 2) assumed to “link” those three specific features to
create associations by displayed picture (as typical to this particular category
members) by note: “This is how such dinosaur, with those features you lastly
selected, look like”.
(1) Does participants' cognitive capacity relate to their respective
confidence growth in complex task progress (i.e., to correctly
memorize features-specific category names – primary task, while
cumulatively forming additional concepts – secondary task)?
(2) What dynamics appear in students' hesitation patterns (“I do not
know”) in terms of WMC (i.e., primary task: memorization ability in
the face of secondary task distraction: to select further features-
combinations)?
We proposed the following hypotheses:
H1. There will emerge different trajectories of confidence growth in
newly acquired knowledge depending on learners’ cognitive capacity.
H2. Higher WMC enables more efficient concepts formation in
memorizing manifesting in lower hesitation (i.e., “I do not know”).
H3. There will emerge a preference for particular learning-exemplars to
study (with specific taxonomy-characteristics).
Our assumption was that depending on the individual cognitive
capacity, the learner will either benefit from resist distractors
(Unsworth & Spillers, 2010) that enables more efficient memorizing,
thus also more efficient recall, hence more steadily reach towards
surely learned gain. Or, when distracted to memorize (i.e., less able to
resist distractors), poorer in recall manifesting in alternating dynamics
towards surely learned. When trying to search, learn and memorize
several info-items simultaneously (Sweller et al., 2019), human cogni-
tive capacity limitations in terms of a cumulative overlap of previous
Table 1
Taxonomy to make binary decisions (in Dino task).
Dimensions 1 and 2
Locomotion and Body size
Can fly
Dimension 3 Is large
Skull shape Has a crest Pteranadon
Has no crest Istiodactylus
3
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
constructions, can diminish the present processing, thus restricting the
later recall of the last ones (Sweller et al., 1998).
2. Materials and methods
In order to detect participants' ability to memorize the needed info-
items while being “distracted” (see Section 2.2), we adapted the web-
based O-span (Unsworth et al., 2014; Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, &
Engle, 2005) task (ɑ = 0.83). We aimed to compare each participant's
Ospan results to another cognitively demanding task Dino directed by
themselves (see Section 2.1). It is worth noting that the experiment took
place in the format of all students together participating in the same
classroom (to replicate the daily lesson in a usual classroom environ-
ment as realistically as possible). Therefore, the social aspect might
have an impact on the results.
2.1. Exploration task Dino
We implemented the Dino as a simple web-based environment, in
which 3D taxonomy (size/flying ability/skull type) could be explored
along seven (~2 min) phases. The core difference in Dino (from pre-
vious studies) is that students self-direct the presentation of the learning
items, following a prompt: “The animal I want to see next” (1) “is
small”/“is large” (2) “can fly”/“can’t fly” (3) “has a crest”/“has no
crest” (see 2.1.1). Doing so, it was possible to reach (corresponding to
one's decided selection of the features) altogether eight dinosaur cate-
gories. Each binary decision within each selection-triple was in the
data-file automatically recorded either 0 – marking this selection as
without … (“large”, “flying ability and “crest”) then respectively: (1)
"small” (2) “running” and (3) “smooth-head”. Or recorded 1 – marking
as with … (together with these three features) then respectively: (1)
"large”, (2) “flying” and (3) “skull-crest”. The to-be-learned task here
was to find (according to features-selections) the relevant category
names (of dinosaurs). However, there were many different options to
relate those three features (reaching then different category-names of
respective animals). To track the participant's “learned” pattern, eight
judgments (see Section 2.1.2) were implemented: the first at the very
beginning of the task (where all students assumed to be not familiar
with the content) and then respectively one judgment after each study
phase (that should reveal the learning patterns).
2.1.1. Study phase
The Dino task consists of 8 learning phases (each of which reaching
the respective selection of a dinosaur category). Starting each cycle, a
learner is asked to make three binary selections (see Table 1) of preg-
iven features to be made sequentially (one by one on consecutively
presented pages).
Corresponding to the current selection from the taxonomy (as
shown in Table 1), the respective path (in Fig. 1) led to an image ap-
pearing on the screen (see Fig. 1).
After that, below the image students were asked to “choose the
correct category-label” from the names presented below (together with
five “distractor” labels), where they should click on the correct one,
Can’t fly
Is small Is large Is small
Scaphognathus Parasaurolophus Rinchenia
Dorygnathus Edmontosaurus Pisanosaurus
Õ. Uus, et al.
Fig. 2. The Dino image example corresponding to the selection of specific
features (“Small”/“Can't fly”/“No skull-crest”).
Fig. 3. The Dino image example corresponding to the selection of specific
features (“Large”/“Flying”/“With skull-crest”).
e.g., (Fig. 2) Pisanosaurus (i.e., Small/No wings/No crest in a skull) and
(Fig. 3) Pteranodontia (i.e., Large/Wings/Crest). It was possible to
reach many other dinosaur images corresponding to the selection of
other specific features set. After selecting one label of six, respective
feedback “right” or “wrong” was given. Right was highlighted by green
Table 2
Coding scheme to map each student's judgment on numbers (in Dino Task).
Note. Gray-shaded cells indicate correct response patterns
4
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
colour and wrong by red colour. To enhance one's memorizing, only the
correct category name together with the respective picture (one per/
page) were redisplayed (highlighted by green colour). Also, to motivate
learners, the current accuracy scores were shown, like in games: the
number of correct episodes divided by the total number of episodes
already passed. As one's cognitive burden in Dino might arise by the
competing associations interfering one's mental processing (e.g., Pisa-
nosaurus–“small” as well as Rinchenia–“small”), we therefore assumed
by giving constant feedback revealing only the correct label of that
category that it would help the learner to conform the preliminary
concept. That is, repeating this features-combination association to-
gether with the relevant name should enable the student to shape their
mental link between phylogenetic features and the correct category-
label, before starting a new learning-cycle. At the beginning of the Dino
task, the participants’ initial activities in terms of decision-making
cannot be expected to be very systematic yet. By giving continuous
feedback provided in every cycle, the categorization is expected to
become more accurate (not just “playing a game”). According to the
cognitive load theory, we had a reason to expect some differences re-
vealed in learners' behavioural pattern depending on their cognitive
capacity.
2.1.2. Testing phase
To get a gradual overview of the participants’ knowledge gain (i.e.,
they learned indeed), one's learning progress was systematically tested.
For this, six picture-label pairs on the screen appeared (one after an-
other), where the students had to judge whether each picture (with
specific feature-sets) and the label below the image matched, an-
swering: “Surely yes,” “Probably yes,” “I do not know,” “Probably no,”
or “Surely no”. The answers were mapped to numbers with “I do not
know” always coded 0. The response “Surely yes” was determined by
value 2 and “Probably yes” by value 1 respectively. Table 2 shows the
coding system. This enabled to analyse the participants’ real knowledge
gain (at that moment). It is worth noting that in the Dino experimental
task an interference (similarly to any complex learning) could arise
along cumulatively selecting alternative feature-triple combinations, as
the overlap of the features could hamper one's processing per/moment
to (i) relate with an appropriate name, and at the same time (ii) com-
pare with all other (previously chosen) feature-triple combinations to
make a “link” to be memorized.
2.2. Complex WM tasks O-span
We adapted the validated O-span (with good internal consistency
0.78) by Unsworth et al. (2005) that includes the dual paradigm in
which to-be-remembered items are interspersed with “deliberately
distracting activities” (Unsworth et al., 2014). To-be-remembered items
were letters {F, H, J, K, L, N, P, Q, R, S, T, Y} appearing at the centre of
the screen (one after another for 1 sec each). After each letter, a “dis-
traction” appeared by the math equation (each on a separate page)
asking to be checked as true or false (e.g., 3 × 7 = 22). In every trial,
the letters and equations alternated until the last letter was presented,
then students were asked to recall all presented letters in the same
Õ. Uus, et al.
order. The scores of (a) correctly judged equations (mean = 91.37%;
standard deviation [SD] = 0.05) and (b) correctly recalled letters
(dependent variable) (ranging between 0 and 75; mean = 54.92; SD =
10.93) were involved into the analysis. Following Ospan authors’
(Unsworth et al., 2005; Unsworth et al., 2014) suggestion, we included
only the math achievements with minimum rate of 85% into the ana-
lysis. The latter approach was implemented as a “proving” indicator
(i.e., the respective student contributed equally in both) of the dual
demand (e.g., not just repeated only those items to be memorized –
sequential letters, while not calculating in order to “save energy”) with
proper math equations to be judged (Unsworth et al., 2005).
2.3. Participants and study design
Participants were Estonian-speaking students of Grades 7 and 8
(altogether 228 initially starting the experiment tasks) from four dif-
ferent high schools in Tallinn, Estonia (average age = 15.1 years; SD =
0.61). They were not compensated financially. Their performance was
not disclosed to their teachers. Exclusions were made from the initial
sample on the basis of the following exclusion criteria: (i) In O-span –
not adequate contribution (fostering in only one direction from the
dual-task), (ii) In Dino (study phase) – searching for only one feature-
combination, (iii) In Dino (testing phase) – predominantly answering “I
do not know”, (iv) Identification problem – many participants' data-files
had to be excluded due to invalid personal identification code (although
they were initially asked to add the same code in both tasks), (v)
Technical obstacles – some of the classroom computers did not display
the images correctly, couple of those unexpectedly just shut down
during the tasks (not saving data), (vi) There were also students, who
(although contributing) did not click until the very last page of the task,
hence their (respectively one or the other) data was not saved auto-
matically. Additional aspect should be considered here, namely social
noise (i.e., working together with the entire class-set in the same
classroom), which could hamper individual mental operations (espe-
cially in conditions of already high cognitive load while self-directing
their complex learning). Indeed, these were difficult trade-offs between
ecological (classroom setting) and internal validity. Correspondingly,
the final number of the students involved was 111.
2.3.1. Procedure
We first asked for permission from school directors and then tea-
chers. A letter describing the study, its aim, data management and
confidentiality ensurance was sent to the parents, where we asked for
their consent (to allow their children to participate in the study).
Participants provided their personal consent in entering experiment
(after being informed that they could quit at any moment). All sessions
took place in their everyday class groups administered as daily “les-
sons” (duration 45 min) starting with brief instructions, then followed
by O-span and Dino tasks. Every student worked on a personal com-
puter and was asked to find a place in the classroom (as separate as
possible from others) to ensure individual contribution. Telephones,
pencil/paper and/or other helping tools were not allowed. Instructions
and demonstrations were performed by the first author. Two assisting
teachers gave personalized instructions (if needed) and ensured that the
students stayed focused and did not engage in task-irrelevant activities.
Students who finished quickly were allowed to leave as quietly as
possible.
3. Results
First of all, participants´ Ospan scores were analysed by the pro-
portion of memorized capital letters (the first task) in light of math
calculations (as the second task of the dual demand). We included into
examination (to define the proportion of correct memorization) of min.
85% appropriate math rate (as determined by the Ospan authors). To
avoid a strict estimation of “High” or “Low” WMC (since many different
5
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
reasons can have impact on school-students’ mental contribution, hence
possibly not honest if labelling categorically). Instead, we used either
continuous variable (i.e., the memorization proportion in Ospan) to
compare participants' performance in another (i.e., self-directed task
Dino) learning scenario; or the Ospan's quartiles, then conditionally
comparing "lower WMC" (quartile 1, who kept in mind fewer to-be-
learned items) and "higher WMC" (quartile 4, who kept in mind more
items). Mean scores were 39.81 (SD = 4.47) for the “lower” and 66.87
(SD = 3.62) for the “higher” WMC group t36.7 = −17.1; P < 0.001).
Secondly, participants´ responses in Dino task (see coding scheme
Table 2) were analysed in two aspects: (1) expressing the dynamics of
their learning progress (i.e., their self-estimated learned state per/mo-
ment given either under high confidence “Sure”; or under low con-
fidence “Probably” respectively); (2) their hesitation dynamics (i.e., “I
do not know”) exposing their dynamics of either becoming more con-
fident (i.e., gaining total confidence) or not (in lately acquired knowl-
edge).
3.1. Hypothesis control
H1. There will emerge different trajectories of confidence growth in
newly acquired knowledge depending on learners’ cognitive capacity.
We included into the analysis the following self-estimated responses
that we interpreted respectively: “Sure yes” given under high con-
fidence (i.e., totally confident), and “Probably yes” given under low
confidence (i.e., not confident).
The growth of confidence pattern (Fig. 4) presents that some par-
ticipants (i.e., quartile 4 as “higher WMC”) started with their higher
rate of confidence already at the beginning of the task and continued
with their cautious and steady (i.e., more linear) dynamics reaching a
considerably higher level of surely confident, than others (e.g., quartile
1 as “lower WMC”).
Based on this overview we defined the calculated proportion ratio of
the “Sure yes” towards the “Probably yes” (see Fig. 5), that enabled us
to determine the participants' index of self-estimated general con-
fidence level to examine its dynamics. We see (Fig. 5) that “lower
WMC” students' (i.e., quartile 1) general confidence trajectory was ra-
ther intermittent (although, fragmentarily raising, still lowered again,
especially towards the end of the task). While “higher WMC” partici-
pants' (i.e., quartile 4) general confidence graphs show rather calm
dynamics (in contrast to the latter, especially raising at the end of the
task).
We performed a linear regression of the criterion Confidence on Test
phase (categorical predictor: Phases 1–8) and Ospan performance (con-
tinuous predictor: nCorrect), explaining about 6 % of the variance in
the criterion (adjusted R2 =.05, p<.001). As Table 3 shows, both
predictor variables contributed significantly to predicting the criterion,
where the impact of time appears to be stronger than the impact of
students’ performance in the Ospan task (see the beta coefficients).
H2 Higher WMC enables more efficient concepts formation in
memorizing manifesting in lower hesitation (i.e., “I do not know”).
Fig. 6 gives an overview of the number of “I do not know” answers
for each learning phase.
Average proportion of judgments “I do not know” (Fig. 7) by each
learning phase shows clear differences:
Average of self-estimated judgments “I do not know” by partici-
pants’ WMC quartiles (Fig. 8) presents a clearly different proportion
between the “higher” and “lower” WMC participants. An analysis of
variance confirmed the existence of a statistically significant difference
between the quartiles F(3.28) = 3.866, p = 0.02. The following Tukey
post-hoc test highlighted the different groups: 4 vs 1 and 4 vs 2
(p<0.05).
H3. There will emerge a preference for particular learning-ex-
emplars to study (with specific taxonomy-characteristics).
We calculated the average occurrence (i.e., images appeared on the
screen) proportion of each dinosaur within each WMC quartile that
Õ. Uus, et al. Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089

Fig. 4. "Total confidence" and "low confidence" trajectories (in Dino task).

revealed differences. A more detailed analysis shows that among all
options of dinosaur types, the appearing frequency of category-image
Pisanosaurus emerge from others, as revealed by ANOVA F(1,90) =
8,053, (p<0.01). Therefore, since the Dino task environment was
programmed to show an equal distribution of image presentation (in
the judgment phase) across all animal category names involved in the
task, it was reasonable to conclude from this result that some of the
participants (more than others) have chosen a respective combination
of characteristics that led to this particular image. Kruskal-Wallis test
confirms this image to be of the category of Pisanosaurus, χ2 = 8.9532;
degree of freedom [df = 3]; P < 0.05). The following Tukey post-hoc
test confirms that in the latter finding exists a statistically significant
difference (see Fig. 9) in the comparison pair between the groups 4 vs 1,
p=0.029 (p<0.05).
Based on the Dino task preprogrammed 3D characteristics system,
we can conclude that in such a different frequency aspect (of the
Pisanosaurus images) for to reach this particular category-name, those
participants in “lower WMC” group (quartile 1) consequently had to
prefer respective heuristics more often in the study phase (i.e., con-
structing the learning samples) that corresponds to this image ac-
cording to specific features-combination “Small”/“No wings”/“No
skull-crest” (as shown Fig. 1 as well as Fig. 2: on the left).
4. Discussion
The main aim of this study was to examine two basic cognitive
processes needed in complex SDL in general: information search and
memorizing. We found that cognitive capacity relates to the

Fig. 5. Confidence (“Sure yes” towards “Probably yes”) ratio dynamics (across Dino task).

6
Õ. Uus, et al. Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089

Table 3 they are still developing (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). Nonetheless, in-
Summary of linear regression of Confidence on Test Phase and Ospan perfor- trinsic cognitive load (that involves information complexity as well as
mance the present knowledge of the individual) makes it possible to change
Criterion Predictor variable β SE t value only when changing what needs to be learned or when changing the
learner’s expertise (Sweller et al., 2019). While extraneous cognitive
Confidence Intercept −.20 .247 −0.79 load (that encompasses how the information is presented and what the
Phase 2 .39 .161 2.41⁎
learner should do) can be changed when instructional procedures
Phase 3 .45 .168 2.65⁎⁎
Phase 4 .65 .173 3.76⁎⁎⁎ change to reduce element interactivity (Sweller et al., 2019). Therefore,
Phase 5 .52 .174 3.00⁎⁎ germane cognitive load “redistributes” WM resources (for to get
Phase 6 .63 .175 3.59⁎⁎⁎ learned) from extraneous activities how? to deal with intrinsic mental
Phase 7 .77 .175 4.37⁎⁎⁎
activities via the effort to acquire knowledge to increase one’s expertise to
Phase 8 .90 .174 5.19⁎⁎⁎
Ospan nCorrect .01 .004 2.53⁎
gain solutions to problems (Gyselinck et al., 2008). However, the more
resources a learner devotes to dealing with extraneous cognitive load,
⁎⁎⁎
p<0.00. the fewer remain for managing intrinsic cognitive load, leading to less
⁎⁎
p<0.01. learning, therefore, germane and intrinsic cognitive loads are tightly
⁎
p<0.05. interrelated (Sweller et al., 2019). As such, the task presentation as
extraneous load what to do? is especially important in the context of
participants’ confidence growth trajectory of its progress to correctly complex SDL, where intrinsic cognitive load is already high because of
memorize features-specific category names, while cumulatively con- the task novelty and/or lack of pre-knowledge within the domain. As a
structing additional features-set combinations. We conclude that result it will be difficult for the learner to encode and save in parallel,
“higher-WMC” participants more efficiently resisted distractions to because of the problem to divide executive attention at the same time
process current learning-items to be memorized. This result is in line (1) to resist distractions and (2) to control the WM content as updating
with previous findings pointing at the risk of overload especially in (Gyselinck et al., 2008). The latter constraining aspect was also mani-
novel multitasking situations, where must ensure that relevant goal is fested in the present study, instanced here by the dual-task paradigm,
being maintained through resistance towards an interference, that where two tasks involve (or compete for) the same limited cognitive
might interrupt the processing (Cowan, 2014; Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016; resources: the secondary task performance is affected by the cognitive
Unsworth & Spillers, 2010). The latter directly relates to SDL, where load induced by the primary task (Gyselinck et al., 2008). Which, ac-
one's iterative search of information includes two core aspects: (a) to cording to the second research question about the dynamics in students'
create conceptual relations, (b) to simultaneously memorize sequen- hesitation patterns “I do not know” got an answer that Higher WMC
tially gathered information (Sweller et al., 1998). Hence, as human enables more efficient concept formation (manifested in lower rate of
cognitive capacity lays the ground for one’s conceptual memorization, hesitation). We propose that higher-WMC shielded those students
individual differences in those skills mainly explain the variance in change in their expertise via more efficient binding of learning-items
cognitive achievements in complex learning (Schwaighofer et al., (so constantly lowering their intrinsic cognitive load as their expertise
2017). Especially in terms of cognitive load perspective that is related raised). That is, they did not get distracted, which is needed for bene-
(a) to the difficulty of the task; (b) information complexity; (c) initial ficial memorizing (Sweller et al., 2019) while forming their own con-
knowledge in this field. Whereas, the cognitive load theory (CLT) ex- ceptual links due to which such linked connections were later more
plains how learning tasks can induce processing load, affecting the easily reachable for them (Ecker et al., 2010; Miyake et al., 2000;
learner’s ability to construct their knowledge into LTM, in particular, Shipstead et al., 2015) during recall. The latter seemingly gave them the
when the elements must be maintained simultaneously (de Bruin & van benefit of increasing their sense of confidence with a rather steady
Merriënboer, 2017). While human limited WM “space” can process only trend. That is, germane cognitive load “redistributed” their WM re-
small amounts of information per/time (Cowan, 2014; Kirschner et al., sources from extraneous activities how to do it? to intrinsic effort to
2006; Schwaighofer et al., 2017; Shipstead et al., 2015; Sweller et al., elaborate their own knowledge enabling them to sequentially create
2019). Moreover, children’s cognitive capability is even more limited as quality memory schemas (Gyselinck et al., 2008) as seen by their

Fig. 6. “I do not know” judgments overview (in Dino task).

7
Õ. Uus, et al.
Fig. 7. “I do not know” judgments by learning phases (in Dino task).
judgments towards “Sure yes”. On the other hand, our results revealed
(by Hypothesis 4) that lower-WMC participants more often met a par-
ticular type of learning examples. They had seemingly constructed re-
spective characteristics leading to a specific image such as "small”/
“running”/“smooth-head” corresponding to the category of Pisano-
saurus. We propose that using such a strategy, lower-WMC students
either assumingly tried to keep their cognitive load as low as possible,
e.g., as Pisanosaurus involves quite basic and more easily remembered
features to-be-learned thereby not overburdening own cognitive cap-
ability for one’s concurrent processing. Or, it is also possible that, since
such self-helping method is the easiest way to differentiate between the
animals within taxonomy, they may repeat just in case the same char-
acteristic-construction without daring to explore other alternatives.
Understandably, as we cannot claim this but only assume by our results,
this would be an interesting topic for further studies. Hence, we can
only hypothetically propose that lower-WMC students facing intrinsic
cognitive load and realizing that it is only possible to solve this task
Fig. 8. Average of "I do not know" judgments by quartiles (in Dino task).
8
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
when changing one's expertise "understood" that their only option to
achieve the goal is to reduce own mental load (i.e., to “redistribute”
WM resources) from extraneous load to deal with intrinsic load (Sweller
et al., 2019). As such, they put their effort helping themselves to gain
the knowledge keeping mental load as low as possible (preferring the
easiest taxonomy-combination "Small"/"Running"/"Smooth-head" as
without distracting features as possible). Doing so they might hope to
increase their expertise to get this task done as solution to problem
(Gyselinck et al., 2008). Since the more resources a learner devotes to
dealing with extraneous cognitive load, the fewer remain for managing
intrinsic cognitive load, leading to less learning (Sweller et al., 2019).
The latter is confirmed also by the finding in this work that lower-WMC
participants were more hesitating (as seen by their “I do not know”
pattern) than higher-WMC students. This is in line with the prior sug-
gestion that, as concept formation (i.e., schema construction) involves
two basic functions: (1) the storage organization in LTM and (2) re-
duction of the WM load, therefore those two should “constitute the
Õ. Uus, et al.
Fig. 9. Frequency of Pisanosaurus.
primary role in education as well as training systems” (Sweller et al., 1998.
p 256). Since one’s ability to form new concepts directly depends on
cognitive load (Schwaighofer et al., 2017), the percentage of correctly
recalled items decreases as cognitive load increases (Shipstead et al.,
2015; Sprenger et al., 2011). Whereas, the most critical aspect in
complex learning is to maintain information despite interference, yet
individual differences in the ability to block distractors (which is highly
interdependent of executive attention) form the basis of WMC
(Coolidge & Wynn, 2005). Therefore, WMC is a rather domain-free
process, since any mental task requires the use of at least some domain-
specific stimuli, while the processing skills work in conjunction with
WMC. Thus, no single psychological measurement can capture only the
sole executive section of WMC yet taps the both: the domain-free WMC
as well as the required domain-specific skills (Coolidge & Wynn, 2005,
p. 9). However, executive control depends on the cognitive maturity to
enable the EF’s foundational components: WM retention, inhibition,
and shifting (processes needed for goal-directed behaviour) orche-
strated by the human prefrontal cortex, which development continuing
still throughout childhood, adolescence, and even young adulthood
(Best & Miller, 2010; Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). Whereas, inhibitory
control in particular prevents a person from accepting inappropriate
solutions (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). At the same time, we have many
students in the classrooms, who are due to different reasons and in spite
of their cognitive ab abilities level, even more vulnerable to high cog-
nitive load because of anxiety, emotional (Visu-Petra, Stanciu, Benga,
Miclea, & Cheie, 2014) or motivational issues (Zepeda et al., 2015)
directly hampering executive control (Schwaighofer et al., 2017).
Thereby, the inhibitory control, that forms a precondition over the
possible lures, shapes the most crucial aspect for complex learning,
especially for school-age children (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). Conse-
quently, as SDL expects specific activities requiring internal application
of proper skills and strategies from the learner (Rutherford et al., 2018;
9
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
Schwaighofer et al., 2017; Sweller et al., 2019). To be efficient in im-
plementing the approach of SDL, we should first focus on the learner’s
WM–LTM interaction (Sweller et al., 2019), especially in terms of the
executive aspect in it (Schwaighofer et al., 2017). Since, the latter en-
ables the interrelated searching and learning acts, which are central in
various SDL scenarios, where the learner has to connect collections of
interacting items (Sweller et al., 2019) that often cannot be learned in
isolation creating an even heavier load on executive functioning until
the most suitable solution can be found (Best & Miller, 2010;
Schwaighofer et al., 2017). This is why an expert can quickly re-link the
elements, so freeing up the processing “space” to find a solution
(Cowan, 2014), whereas from the novice, it requires high demand on
executive control that leads to a heavy cognitive load (Kirschner et al.,
2006; Roebers, 2017; Sweller et al., 2019). Consequently, the capacity
of the WM is not simply a matter of how much information a person can
hold temporarily, it is also one’s ability to put that information to use
(Shipstead et al., 2015). All those aspects are especially crucial for
school-age children, whose cognitive mechanism is more limited than
in adults (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016). Thereby, our empirical findings are
in line with prior work related to one’s cognitive capacity core aspects:
the span to hold current items active and the effectiveness to bind
elements into task-relevant structures (Nęcka & Lulewicz, 2016;
Shipstead et al., 2015). Once information has been efficiently saved in
LTM, it can be more easily transferred back to be reused (Sweller et al.,
2019). In which, as shown by our results, there is a more efficient trend
of knowledge gain revealed in higher-WMC participants' learning pat-
tern. Although our results were not so surprising (prior findings have
also concluded different outcomes of learning as well as differences in
cognitive capacity), they shed clear light, especially in the complex SDL
context. Moreover, as instanced by our example (of learning and search
activities), the school students’ (whose higher-order abilities develop
with unequal paths) mental interaction between WM and LTM fostered
Õ. Uus, et al.
by executive attention can either support or delay the progress in SRL
gain. The latter is important to foresee before implementing learning
scenarios directed by school students themselves, as well as in guiding
the learning material presentation in a proper way that would optimize
all learner's cognitive load for his/her efficient intellectual perfor-
mance.
5. Limitations and future work
This study had a few limitations. All conclusions here were drawn
on the basis of a sample of data collected using a particular method
under specific, controlled conditions. However, the main construct, the
moderating role of executive attention additionally depends on the
context characteristics, such as social noise in the classroom and time
constraints creating additional cognitive demand. Therefore, our future
work will focus on different samples, designs, and settings. We had to
exclude many participants, yet, this fact shows vividly the different
skills or will of students in the same age group. Similar restricting re-
sults were also reported by Nęcka and Lulewicz (2016), where a pro-
portion of the sample did not fulfil the established accuracy criteria. In
the current work by the O-span’s accuracy criterion (Unsworth et al.,
2005; Unsworth et al., 2014), we excluded 15 participants. In addition,
in Dino, participants were excluded if their data clearly showed no
contribution. Here, the aspect of motivation (i.e., willingness to con-
tribute) might have played a major role, where many students mono-
tonously responded only “I do not know”. In a way it should be taken
into account that especially in case of teenagers, the students’ interest,
mood, and will to contribute are, indeed, hectic.
This study also had a few positive aspects: (1) a setting similar to
real SDL were used. (2) Data which was gathered moment-to-moment
allowed us exploration along the entire learning process in order to
analyse and make valid conclusions about the dynamics and trajectories
of learning behaviour. (3) Highlighting the role of WM and executive
attention in higher-order cognition in general, particularly in complex
SDL (de Bruin & van Merriënboer, 2017; Schwaighofer et al., 2017), our
results are in accordance with earlier findings, especially in terms of
cognitive load theory (Sweller et al., 2019). Hence it inspires us to
further develop suggestions for more specific metacognitive skills in
order to facilitate the SDL approach, as specific scaffolding strategies
are highly needed until school students' (as still children's) own skills
are acquired and/or their cognitive mechanism is sufficiently mature.
In line with Nęcka and Lulewicz (2016) suggestion that particular ex-
ecutive control of inhibitory function prevents one from accepting in-
appropriate solutions, it might be less important for an adult because of
already matured capabilities, but in school-age children, the attention
control aspect seems crucial. This study gives value especially in terms
of complex learning as well as SDL paradigm, where learning outcomes
unequivocally depend on one’s active contribution to maintain atten-
tion control. Even more, students with under-performance or low
achievement might lose their last motivation to learn, if faced with
learning problems for a long time already (i.e., due the difficulties of
overload, even possible dropout in the case of too high cognitive load).
The latter, however, can lead to academic burnout, which, in turn, leads
to other mental health problems. Therefore, children’s complex
learning skills should be treated carefully and their limited, often fragile
cognition should not be overloaded, because this directly influences
their overall functioning capability. Instead, we need to focus on laying
the groundwork in children mental capacity at an early age, helping
them gain, develop, train and improve their universal metacognitive
skills that enable to know on “how my cognition and mental – as well as
learning – operations are manageable at all” and are usable in different
circumstances.
6. Conclusion
Mental acts, learning and cognitive capability differ among
10
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
individuals. Consequently, while integrating the learning methods led
by the school-students themselves, we cannot take for granted that all
learners perform gaining similar results. Therefore, an assistive meth-
odology is required in order to efficiently scaffold the progress of
learning led by oneself, especially for students with lower capability to
optimize their cognitive load. Also, it is needed to help learners to ac-
quire their own multifunctional metacognitive competencies for effec-
tive learning as today students should become critically thinking citi-
zens with proper strategies in order to prevent burnout, especially in
light of the 21st century's need for quick reorientation in rapidly
changing circumstances expecting fast adaptation. When provided with
more sophisticated preparing, the school students’ benefit will be
multiple: they should succeed academically in school by resisting cog-
nitive overload and also remain motivated to continue education. So
being up for lifelong learning, this will give them the advantage of
resilience, which, in turn, will support their long-term overall well-
being.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Õnne Uus: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft. Paul
Christian Seitlinger: Methodology, Resources, Software, Data
curation, Writing - review & editing. Timo Tobias Ley: Project ad-
ministration, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation program [grant agreement number
669074, project CEITER: http://ceiter.tlu.ee].
Ethical approval
Informed consent was obtained for experimentation. All procedures
performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of
the institutional research committee. The privacy rights were carefully
followed, no any harm caused, no additional accompanying aspects
observed.
References
Baddeley, A. (1996). The fractionation of working memory. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 93(24), 13468–13472 References.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A Developmental Perspective on Executive Function.
Child Development, 81(6), 1641–1660.
de Bruin, A. B., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2017). Bridging cognitive load and self-regu-
lated learning research: A complementary approach to contemporary issues in edu-
cational research. Learning and Instruction, 51, 1–9.
Coolidge, F., & Wynn, T. (2005). Working Memory, its Executive Functions, and the
Emergence of Modern Thinking. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 15(1), 5–26.
Cowan, N. (2014). Working Memory Underpins Cognitive Development, Learning, and
Education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 197–223.
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Chee, A. E. H. (2010). The Components
of Working Memory Updating: An Experimental Decomposition and Individual
Differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36,
170–189.
Garner, J. (2009). Conceptualizing the relations between executive functions and self-
regulated learning. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 405–426.
Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. H. (2004). Working memory and thinking: Current issues in thinking
and reasoning. Psychology Presshttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203346754.
Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in
multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the
Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 22(3), 353–374.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why Minimal Guidance During
Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery,
Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist,
41(2), 75–86.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.
(2000). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to
Complex ““Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis” Cognitive Psychology, 41,
49–100.
Nęcka, E., & Lulewicz, A. (2016). Capacity, Control, or Both–Which Aspects of Working
Õ. Uus, et al.
Memory Contribute to Children’s General Fluid Intelligence? Polish Psychological
Bulletin, 47(1), 21–28.
Roebers, C. M. (2017). Executive function and metacognition: Towards a unifying fra-
mework of cognitive self-regulation. Developmental Review, 45, 31–51.
Rutherford, T., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Farkas, G. (2018). Links between
achievement, executive functions, and self-regulated learning. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 32(6), 763–774.
Schwaighofer, M., Bühner, M., & Fischer, F. (2017). Executive functions in the context of
complex learning: Malleable moderators? Frontline Learning Research, 5(1), 58–75.
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Working memory capacity and the
scope and control of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(6),
1863–1880.
Sprenger, A. M., Dougherty, M. R., Atkins, S. M., Franco-Watkins, A. M., Thomas, R. P.,
Lange, N., & Abbs, B. (2011). Implications of cognitive load for hypothesis generation
and probability judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(JUN), 129.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and in-
structional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 1–32.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and in-
structional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251–296.
Thomas, J. W., Strage, A., & Curley, R. (1988). Improving students’ self-directed learning:
Issues and guidelines. The Elementary School Journal, 88(3), 313–326.
11
Acta Psychologica 209 (2020) 103089
Unsworth, N., Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2014). Working memory and fluid
intelligence: capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cognitive
Psychology, 71, 1–26.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of
the operation span task. Behavior research methods, 37(3), 498–505.
Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex
working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of
the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17(6), 635–654.
Unsworth, N., & Spillers, G. J. (2010). Working memory capacity: Attention control,
secondary memory, or both? A direct test of the dual-component model. Journal of
Memory and Language, 62(4), 392–406.
Van Deur, P., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2005). The Inquiry Nature of Primary Schools and
Students' Self-Directed Learning Knowledge. International Education Journal, 5(5),
166–177.
Visu-Petra, L., Stanciu, O., Benga, O., Miclea, M., & Cheie, L. (2014). Longitudinal and
concurrent links between memory span, anxiety symptoms, and subsequent executive
functioning in young children. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 443.
Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction
of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in
vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954.