Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2016.20.6.655

The Effects of Supportive Information Types in Web-Based Learning Using 4C/ID Model  

Kim, Kyung (Hanyang Women University)
Kim, Kyung-Jin (Hanyang University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education / v.20, no.6, 2016 , pp. 655-672 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of prior-knowledge level and supportive information types in web-based learning using 4C/ID model(Four-Components Instructional Design model) on cognitive load and schema acquisition. To achieve the purpose, this study applied a web based learning. 166 university students participated in web-based learning for 4 weeks. After web-based learning, they checked self report for cognitive load and made concept map for schema acquisition and the datum from them were used for 2 ways ANOVA. According to the findings, groups in prior-knowledge level invested significantly differences on cognitive load and a question group in case of supportive information types didn't invested significant differences on cognitive load with statement group. Second, groups in prior-knowledge level invested significantly differences on schema acquisition and a question group in case of supportive information types invested significantly higher schema acquisition than a statement group. Furthermore, it happened interaction effect between supportive information types and prior-knowledge level on schema acquisition. This research has several implications with regard to suggesting the guidelines and conditions for the authentic task of the novice.
Keywords
4C/ID Model; Supportive information types; Cognitive load; Authentic task; Schema acquisition;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and instruction, 12(1), 1-10.   DOI
2 Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses?. Studies in higher education, 30(3), 257-274   DOI
3 Lee, T. D., Chung, W., & Haley, E. (2011). Adherence of retirement mutual fund providers to the securities and exchange commission (SEC)'s advertising guidance: provision and readability of advertising disclosure. Journal of consumer policy, 34(4), 455-474.   DOI
4 Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 49-63.   DOI
5 Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning(2nd ed.). NY: Cambridge University Press.
6 Mayer, R. E. (2011), Instruction based on visualizations. In R. E. (2011). Mayer, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 427-445). NY: Routledg.
7 Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
8 Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Educational Technology.
9 K. S. Wang. (2009). Cognitive load & Instructional design. Elementary educational research, 22(1), 491-522.58
10 Munbong Lee. (2010). The effect of types of test information on learning performance in the e-Learning contents. Journal of the Korea industrial information systems society, 15(5), 211-219.
11 Nenkov, Inman, Hulland, Morrin(2010)
12 Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 84(4), 429.   DOI
13 Paas, F. G., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.   DOI
14 Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.   DOI
15 Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 1-8.   DOI
16 Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27-45.   DOI
17 Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brunken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.
18 Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive science, 21(1), 1-29.   DOI
19 Renkl, A. (2011). Instruction based on examples. Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 272-295.
20 S. A. Oh., H. S. Kim. (2003). Differences in Working Memory Load between Split and Integrated Presentations of Visual and Verbal Information in Multimedia-Aided-Instruction. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 9(2), 71-99.
21 Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. Cognitive load theory, 29-47.
22 Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E. and Marangoni, A. 2003. Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness, and the learning curve. Management Science, 49(1): 39-56   DOI
23 Scouller, K. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students' learning approaches: Multiple choice question examination versus assignment essay. Higher Education, 35(4), 453-472.   DOI
24 Seunghee Lee. (2000). Research of teaching method. Seoul: Wangseowon. Press.
25 Sim, H. A. (2008). Effects of presentation timing of supportive information and sequencing of practice problems in complex cognitive task practice for novice learners(Doctoral dissertation). Hanyang University.
26 Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138.   DOI
27 Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469-508.   DOI
28 Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). 2 Cognitive Load Theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation-Advances in Research and Theory, 55, 37.
29 Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
30 T. J. Lee. (2014). The Role of Advertising Disclosure Format, Financial Knowledge, and Financial Education on Financial Consumer’s Decision-Making : The Effort Heuristic. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 25(1), 7-26.   DOI
31 van Merrienboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Three worlds of instructional design: State of the art and future directions. Instructional Science, 29(4-5), 429-441.   DOI
32 van Merrienboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 5-13.   DOI
33 van Merrienboer, J. V., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34 van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.   DOI
35 van Merrienboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13.
36 van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational psychology review, 17(2), 147-177.   DOI
37 van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Medical education, 44(1), 85-93.   DOI
38 van Merrienboer, J. J., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied cognitive psychology, 20(3), 343-352.   DOI
39 van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Alternate models of instructional design: Holistic design approaches and complex learning. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology, 72-81.
40 van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associcates.
41 Wilkinson, M. (2004). The secrets of facilitation. San Francisco, CA. Josey-Bass.
42 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Cognitive Domain. Longman.
43 Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
44 Carner, R. L. (1963). Levels of questioning. Education, 83(2), 546-50.
45 Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
46 Amidon, E., & Hunter, E. (1967). Improving teaching. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
47 Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). Interactions between the isolated-interactive elements effect and levels of learner expertise: Experimental evidence from an accountancy class. Instructional Science, 38(3), 277-287.   DOI
48 Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15-24.   DOI
49 Cowan, N. (2001). Metatheory of storage capacity limits. Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(1), 154-176.
50 Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
51 Elio, R. (1986). Representation of similar well-learned cognitive procedures. Cognitive Science, 10(1), 41-73.   DOI
52 Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning and Theory of Instruction Robert Gagne. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
53 Gallagher, J. J. (1965). Expressive thought by gifted children in the classroom. Elementary English, 42, 559-568.
54 Gonzalez, C., & Madhavan, P. (2011). Diversity during training enhances detection of novel stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 342-350.   DOI
55 Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Seel, N. M. (2007). The role of cognitive learning strategies and intellectual abilities in mental model building processes. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 5(4), 353-366.
56 J. H. Noh, S. Y. Park & S. J. Hong. (2008). 정The Impact of Information Presentation Type on Comparison Advertising: Moderating Effect of Attribute Typicality. Korea Journal of Business Administration), 21, 1443-1462.
57 J. W. Jung., C. S. Nah., & D. S. Kim. (2014). The Effect of Types of Information Presentation on the Flow and the Instructional Efficiency in Multimedia Learning. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 20(4), 453-474.
58 K. Kim, D. S. Kim. (2004). The Effects of Modality of Text and Timing of Information Presentation on Cognitive Load, Effectiveness and Efficiency in Web Based Learning. Korean Society for Educational Technology. 20(4), 111-145.