Chapter 3 Theories and Models to Frame, Inform, and Stimulate Online Learning

In: Handbook of Research in Online Learning
Authors:
Michael M. Grant
Search for other papers by Michael M. Grant in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Fatih Ari
Search for other papers by Fatih Ari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Ismahan Arslan-Ari
Search for other papers by Ismahan Arslan-Ari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Yingxiao Qian
Search for other papers by Yingxiao Qian in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Hengtao Tang
Search for other papers by Hengtao Tang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Lucas Vasconcelos
Search for other papers by Lucas Vasconcelos in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Type:
Chapter
Pages:
55–88
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702813_003

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00
Add to Cart
Redeem Access Token

Abstract

The demand and use of online education have continued to increase, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter provides an overview of theories and models that can be used to frame, inform, and stimulate online learning. The first section discusses three models used broadly to frame or describe online learning environments: the community of inquiry framework, Anderson’s model of online learning, and Picciano’s multimodal model for online education. The second section discusses two theories that can be used to inform the design of online media and learning content. Based on human cognitive architecture, these theories include cognitive load theory and Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The third section discusses theories and models that can be used to stimulate online learners and learning. These include andragogy, Moore’s transactional distance and learner interactions, self-regulated learning, and Keller’s ARCS model. This chapter is intended for researchers, instructors, and instructional designers interested in learning more about the foundational theories and models used to ground online teaching and learning. We provide a comprehensive overview of this area’s most relevant theories and models and discuss the findings and implications.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Handbook of Research in Online Learning
E-Book ISBN:
9789004702813
Publisher:
Brill
Print Publication Date:
25 Sep 2024
Front Matter
Chapter 1 Lessons Learned in Conducting a Systematic Review in Online Learning
Chapter 2 The Study of Adult Learners in Distance Education
Chapter 4 What We Know about Online Teacher Education
Chapter 5 A Responsive, Consultative Professional Development Model for Online Engagement
Chapter 6 Active Learning by Design
Chapter 7 An Integrative Review of Adult Learners’ Informal Learning in Online Settings
Chapter 8 Metatextual Dimensions of Multimodal Literacy Engagement
Chapter 9 21 Years of Worldwide Learning Online
Chapter 10 A Critical Review of Two Automated Adaptive Teaching Systems in Mathematics and Chemistry
Chapter 11 Automated Analysis and Visualization of Online Learning Experiences and Engagement
Chapter 12 Evidence-based Practices for Developing a Community of Inquiry
Chapter 13 Pre-service Teachers’ Preparation for Teaching Online
Chapter 14 Micro Investment, Big Reward
Chapter 15 Selecting Media and Methods to Facilitate Blended Learning
Chapter 16 The Impact of Digital Learning on Racially Minoritized and Poverty-Affected College Students
Chapter 17 Remote Academic Advising for Colleges and Universities
Chapter 18 Online Mentoring in the Digital Age
Chapter 19 Mental Fatigue in Online Learning
Chapter 20 Analysis of Patterns in Time for Evaluating Online Instruction
Chapter 21 The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning
Chapter 22 Exploring the Impact of E-Texts on Student Learning in Online Education
Chapter 23 Supporting AI-Enhanced Active Online Learning Experiences
Chapter 24 Student Perceptions of Learning with Instructional AI Assistance in Online Discussions
Chapter 25 Gamification for Higher Education Applications
Chapter 26 Developing a Quality Assurance Approach for an Online Professional Military Education Institution
Chapter 27 Skills for Student Success in Online Learning
Back Matter

  • Adomaitis, I., Dauksiene, E., & Trepule, E. (2023). Interaction and collaboration in Lithuanian schools during COVID-19 pandemic distance learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 25(1), 104–116. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2023-0008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Alonso-Mencía, M. E., Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., & Kloos, C. D. (2021). Analysing self-regulated learning strategies of MOOC learners through self-reported data. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3), 56–70.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press.

  • Anderson, T. (2008). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 33–60). Athabasca University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anderson, T. (2016, January 4). A fourth presence for the community of inquiry model. https://virtualcanuck.ca/2016/01/04/a-fourth-presence-for-the-community-of-inquiry-model/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Arslan-Ari, I., & Ari, F. (2022). The effect of visual cues in e-books on pre-K children’s visual attention, word recognition, and comprehension: An eye tracking study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1938763

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Aslan, A. (2021). The evaluation of collaborative synchronous learning environment within the framework of interaction and community of inquiry: An experimental study. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(2), 72–87.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117–139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Azevedo, R. (2009). Theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and instructional issues in research on metacognition and self-regulated learning: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 87–95.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A. F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition – Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33(5–6), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1272-9

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–89). Academic Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.769

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bennett, C. F., & Monds, K. E. (2008). Online courses: The real challenge is “motivation”. College Teaching Methods & Styles Journal, 4(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.19030/ctms.v4i6.5553

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Birochi, R., & Pozzebon, M. (2011). Theorizing in distance education: The critical quest for conceptual foundations. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). https://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/birochi_1211.htm

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2018). Online student perceptions of engagement, transactional distance, and outcomes. Distance Education, 39(3), 299–316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bozkurt, A., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2021). Trends and patterns in distance education (2014–2019): A synthesis of scholarly publications and a visualization of the intellectual landscape. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5381

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind experience and school. National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/9853/chapter/10#136

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Broadbent, J., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2018). Profiles in self-regulated learning and their correlates for online and blended learning students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1435–1455.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies & academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cárdenas-Sainz, B. A., Barrón-Estrada, M. L., Zatarain-Cabada, R., & Chavez-Echeagaray, M. E. (2023). Evaluation of eXtended Reality (XR) technology on motivation for learning physics among students in Mexican schools. Computers & Education: X Reality, 3, 100036.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Caskurlu, S. (2018). Confirming the subdimensions of teaching, social, and cognitive presences: A construct validity study. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 1–12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Caskurlu, S., Maeda, Y., Richardson, J. C., & Lv, J. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education, 157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., Wong, M., & Paas, F. (2018). Learning symbols from permanent and transient visual presentations: Don’t overplay the hand. Computers & Education, 116, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cerezo, R., Bogarín, A., Esteban, M., & Romero, C. (2020). Process mining for self-regulated learning assessment in e-learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09225-y

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chan, K. Y., Lyons, C., Kon, L. L., Stine, K., Manley, M., & Crossley, A. (2020). Effect of on-screen text on multimedia learning with native and foreign-accented narration. Learning and Instruction, 67, 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101305

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chametzky, B. (2014). Andragogy and engagement in online learning: Tenets and solutions. Creative Education, 5(10), 813–821. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510095

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chan, S. (2010). Applications of andragogy in multi-disciplined teaching and learning. Journal of Adult Education, 39, 25–35.

  • Charbonneau-Gowdy, P., Salina, D., Oyanedel, J. C., & Magaña, H. (2023). Designing the ‘new normal’: Key insights from the pandemic for transforming online learning going forward. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), ep446. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13389

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Chen, C. J., & Teh, C. S. (2022). Exploring students’ online learning interaction behaviors and experiences: A case study. Teaching and Learning Inquiry, 10. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.10.38

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • 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, 15–24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220438

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cochran, C., & Brown, S. (2016). Andragogy and the adult learner. In K. A. Flores, K. D. Kirstein, C. E. Schieber, & S. G. Olswang (Eds.), Supporting the success of adult and online students: Proven practices in higher education (pp. 73–84). Createspace.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Coole, H., & Watts, M. (2009). Communal e-learning styles in the online classroom. Research in Education, 82(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.82.2

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • de Oliveira Neto, J. D., Huang, W. D., & Azevedo Melli, N. C. D. (2015). Online learning: audio or text? Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9392-7

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dent, A. L., & Koenka, A. C. (2016). The relation between self-regulated learning and academic achievement across childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 425–474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 19–32). Teachers College, Columbia University.

  • Fang, X., Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., & Xu, H. (2023). The applications of the ARCS model in instructional design, theoretical framework, and measurement tool: A systematic review of empirical studies. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2240867

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ferreira, D., & MacLean, G. Andragogy in the 21st century: Applying the assumptions of adult learning online. Language Research Bulletin, 32, 10–19.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fiorella, L., Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., & Schatz, S. (2012). Applying the modality principle to real-time feedback and the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9218-1

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Flores, R., Ari, F., Inan, F. A., & Arslan-Ari, I. (2012). The impact of adapting content for students with individual differences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 251–261.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garcia, C. E., & Yao, C. W. (2019). The role of an online first-year seminar in higher education doctoral students’ scholarly development. The Internet and Higher Education, 42, 44–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 1(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v1i1.2

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In P. L. Rogers et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distance learning (2nd ed., pp. 352–355). IGI Global.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 5–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157–172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31–36.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ge, S., Hai Leng, C., & Baharudin, S. M. (2022). The effect of multimedia and temporal contiguity principles on students’ attitude and retention in learning Japanese language. International Journal of Chinese Education, 11(2), 2212585X221099964

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hao, K. C., & Lee, L. C. (2021). The development and evaluation of an educational game integrating augmented reality, ARCS model, and types of games for English experiment learning: An analysis of learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1101–1114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies (2nd ed.). Routledge.

  • Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 55(3), 11–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 114–122). Croom Helm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Holmberg, B. (1997). Distance-education theory again. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 12(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051970120105

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Horsley, T. L. (2010). Innovative learning activity. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(6), 363–364. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20090521-02

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hsiao, J. Y., Hung, C. L., Lan, Y. F., & Jeng, Y. C. (2013). Integrating worked examples into problem posing in a web-based learning environment. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 166–176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Inan, F. A., Ari, F., Flores, R., Zaier, A., & Arslan-Ari, I. (2021). Examining the educational effectiveness of an adaptive web-based learning tutorial. International Journal on E-Learning, 20(3), 259–270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jonassen, D. H., Marra, R., & Palmer, B. (2004). Epistemological development: An implicit entailment of constructivist learning environments. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 89–102). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610560-10

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Jung, J., Shin, Y., & Zumbach, J. (2021). The effects of pre-training types on cognitive load, collaborative knowledge construction and deep learning in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1163–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1619592

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. IGI Global.

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19.

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46, 567–581.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. ETR&D, 53(3), 83–93.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2021). Learning analytics as a metacognitive tool to influence learner transactional distance and motivation in online learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(5), 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1794928

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keegan, D. (1986). The foundations of distance education. Croom Helm.

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02905780

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79–104.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS model approach. Springer.

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Knowles, M. S. (1968). Androgogy – not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16(10), 350–352, 386.

  • Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Follett Publishing Company.

  • Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Follett Publishing Company.

  • Knowles, M. (1984). Introduction: The art and science of helping adults learn. In M. S. Knowles (Ed.), Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning (pp. 1–21). Jossey-Bass.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A. (2014). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Kyei-Blankson, L., Ntuli, E., & Donnelly, H. (2016). Establishing the importance of interaction and presence to student learning in online environments. World Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 48.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. In Learning in doing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lazarevic, B., Fuller, J., & Cain, J. (2023). Facilitating community of inquiry through video-enhanced online instruction: what are learners’ impressions? TechTrends, 1–15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Li, K., & Keller, J. M. (2018). Use of the ARCS model in education: A literature review. Computers & Education, 122, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2013). Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments. Computers & Education, 60(1), 14–24.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v5i2.189

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leutner, D., & Schmeck, A. (2014). The generative drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 433–448). Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Lindeman, E. C. (1926). The meaning of adult education. New Republic.

  • Liu, R., Qiao, X., & Liu, Y. (2006). A paradigm shift of learner-centered teaching style: Reality or illusion. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT, 13, 77–91.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Hsu, C. Y., Hsu, C. Y., & Paas, F. (2021). Learning from animations and computer simulations: Modality and reverse modality effects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1397–1408.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Role of subjective and objective measures of cognitive processing during learning in explaining the spatial contiguity effect. Learning and Instruction, 61, 23–34.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mayer, R. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941355

  • Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 389–395.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mayer, R., & Fiorella, L. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

  • Mayer, R. E., Howarth, J., Kaplan, M., & Hanna, S. (2018). Applying the segmenting principle to online geography lessons. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9554-x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

  • McGrath, V. (2009). Reviewing the evidence on how adult students learn: An examination of Knowles’ model of andragogy. The Irish Journal of Adult and Community Education, 99–110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 343–355.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.

  • Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. G. (2013). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 84–103). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Meda, L., & Waghid, Z. (2022). Exploring special need students’ perceptions of remote learning using the multimodal model of online education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8111–8128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10962-4

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Fast facts: Distance learning. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=79

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Integrated postsecondary education data system. https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/search/viewtable?tableId=33460&returnUrl=%2Fipeds%2Fsearch%2F%3Fquery%3Ddistance%2520education%26query2%3Ddistance%2520education%26resultType%3Dtable%26page%3D1%26sortBy%3Ddate_desc%26_%3D1583187141338

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2022). Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on public and private elementary and secondary education in the United States (Preliminary data): Results from the 2020–21 National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS). https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2022019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology, 41(2), 31–39.

  • Novak, E. (2022). Mathematical modeling for theory-oriented research in educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(1), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10069-6

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.

  • Parra, J., Chatterjee, S., Alzaid, A., & Korang, T. (2022). Designing activities for online geography courses informed by the community of inquiry framework. The Geography Teacher, 19(3), 102–112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Peters, O. (1993). Distance education in a postindustrial society. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 39–58). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(3), 193–198.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Picciano, A. G. (2009). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET), 5(1), 4–14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Picciano, A. G. (2013). Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 7–18.

  • Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning Journal, 21(3), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Picciano, A. G. (2021). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. In L. Cifuentes (Ed.), A guide to administering distance learning (pp. 79–103). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004471382

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9062-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Powell, S. T., & Leary, H. (2021). Measuring learner–content interaction in digitally augmented learning experiences. Distance Education, 42(4), 520–546.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rath, L., Olmstead, K., Zhang, J., & Beach, P. (2019). Hearing students’ voices: Understanding student perspectives of online learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22(4), 1–12.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_2

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Richardson, J. C., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428296

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Savicevic, D. (2008). Convergence or divergence of ideas on andragogy in different countries. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 27(4), 361–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02601370802051504

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Schrader, C., Reichelt, M., & Zander, S. (2018). The effect of the personalization principle on multimedia learning: The role of student individual interests as a predictor. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9588-8

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Seo, K., Tang, J., Roll, I., Fels, S., & Yoon, D. (2021). The impact of artificial intelligence on learner–instructor interaction in online learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00292-9

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Shearer, R. L., & Park, E. (2018). Theory to practice in instructional design. In M. G. Moore & W. C. Diehl (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 260–280). Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Skulmowski, A., & Xu, K. M. (2022). Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Song, D. (2016). Expertise reversal effect and sequencing of learning tasks in online English as a second language learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.862553

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.026

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Swan, K., Garrison, D. R., & Richardson, J. (2009). A constructivist approach to online learning: The community of inquiry framework. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (pp. 43–57). IGI Global.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. ACER Press.

  • Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 9–31.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 27–42). Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tang, H., & Bao, Y. (2022). Self-regulated learner profiles in MOOC s: A cluster analysis based on the item response theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tawfik, A. A., Reeves, T. D., Stich, A. E., Gill, A., Hong, C., McDade, J., Pillutla, V. S., Zhou, X., & Giabbanelli, P. J. (2017). The nature and level of learner–learner interaction in a chemistry massive open online course (MOOC). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 411–431.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., Bokosmaty, S., Paas, F., & Chandler, P. (2015). Computer-based learning of geometry from integrated and split-attention worked examples: The power of self-management. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 89–99.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tsai, C. Y., Shih, W. L., Hsieh, F. P., Chen, Y. A., Lin, C. L., & Wu, H. J. (2022). Using the ARCS model to improve undergraduates’ perceived information security protection motivation and behavior. Computers & Education, 181, 104449.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Turel, Y. K., & Sanal, S. O. (2018). The effects of an ARCS based e-book on student’s achievement, motivation and anxiety. Computers & Education, 127, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Usher, M., Hershkovitz, A., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2021). From data to actions: Instructors’ decision making based on learners’ data in online emergency remote teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1338–1356. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13108

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Advances in research on worked examples, animations, and cognitive load measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 375–378.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wang, Y., & Chen, N. S. (2009). Criteria for evaluating synchronous learning management systems: Arguments from the distance language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220802613773

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wei, H.-C., Peng, H., & Chou, C. (2015). Can more interactivity improve learning achievement in an online course? Effects of college students’ perception and actual use of a course-management system on their learning achievement. Computers & Education, 83, 10–21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.

  • Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning & Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Xie, H., Wang, F., Mayer, R. E., & Zhou, Z. (2019). Coordinating visual and auditory cueing in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000285

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Yuan, M., Zeng, J., Wang, A., & Shang, J. (2021). Would it be better if instructors technically adjust their image or voice in online courses? Impact of the way of instructor presence on online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 746857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746857

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031971

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with Scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12453

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: A social cognitive career path. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 135–147.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge.

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 80 80 17
Full Text Views 2 2 0
PDF Views & Downloads 7 7 0