BRIDGING MAYER’S COGNITIVE THEORY OF MULTIMEDIA LEARNING AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING IN TACKLING THE COGNITIVE LOAD ISSUES AMONG YOUNG DIGITAL NATIVES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Abstract
In 2020, it is undeniable that the existence of digital natives in tertiary education is undeniable, especially in universities. They are part of a tech-savvy generation that led to technological progress that is always connected and linked based on their wishes and needs without any hesitation of time and place. They are basically using technology without guidance, but how far they can manage to handle the consequences of the technology usage and the problems that occur is always questionable. It is undeniable that a digital native must begin with at least a basic level of computer knowledge in order to manage their education and daily life. Learning about computer science not only helps students to create programs, applications or how to handle devices, but strengthens the practise of Computational Thinking (CT). CT refers to the capacity of learners to systematically tackle unstructured tasks focused on four computing concepts such as decomposition, abstraction, pattern recognition, and algorithmic thinking. The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between CT and Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) on the cognitive load of the learners. This research focuses on CT concepts that will be integrated with Mayer’s CTML in designing the learning material for young digital natives. Therefore, the researcher proposes a conceptual framework that aims to comprehend how to facilitate the cruciality of CT concepts in Mayer’s CTML when designing instructional learning. The proposed conceptual framework adds value in tackling the cognitive load among students, particularly in the context of the digital native generation. This paper provides several implications and highlights for further studies through a comprehensive and wide-ranging literature review.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 833–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
Aristawat, F. A., Budiyanto, C., & Yuana, R. A. (2018). Adopting educational robotics to enhance undergraduate students’ self-efficacy levels of computational thinking. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15 (Special Issue), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10255a
Çakiroğlu, Ü., Suiçmez, S. S., Kurtoğlu, Y. B., Sari, A., Yildiz, S., & Öztürk, M. (2018). Exploring perceived cognitive load in learning programming via scratch. Research in Learning Technology, 26(1063519), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.1888
Cheng, Y. P., Shen, P. Di, Hung, M. L., Tsai, C. W., Lin, C. H., & Hsu, L. C. (2022). Applying online content-based knowledge awareness and team learning to develop students’ programming skills, reduce their anxiety, and regulate cognitive load in a cloud classroom. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21(2), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00789-6
DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.223
Dong, Y., Cateté, V., Jocius, R., Lytle, N., Barnes, T., Albert, J., Joshi, D., Robinson, R., & Andrews, A. (2019). Prada: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. SIGCSE 2019 - Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287431
García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.005
Jocius, R., Joshi, D., Dong, Y., Robinson, R., Catete, V., Barnes, T., Albert, J., Andrews, A., & Lytl, N. (2020). Code, connect, create: The 3c professional development model to support computational thinking infusion. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 971–977. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366797
Kalelioʇlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089733.1089734
Kong, S. C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers and Education, 127 (June), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.026
Lin, Y. S., Chen, S. Y., Tsai, C. W., & Lai, Y. H. (2021). Exploring computational thinking skills training through augmented reality and AIoT learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(February), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.640115
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). In Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0079-7421(02)80005-6
Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition, 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005
Mayer, R. E. (2014b). The cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369
Mihci Türker, P., & Pala, F. K. (2020). The effect of algorithm education on students’ computer programming self-efficacy perceptions and computational thinking skills. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(3), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i3.69
Moon, J., Do, J., Lee, D., & Choi, G. W. (2020). A conceptual framework for teaching computational thinking in personalized OERs. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0108-z
Moore, T. J., Brophy, S. P., Tank, K. M., Lopez, R. D., Johnston, A. C., Hynes, M. M., & Gajdzik, E. (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0
Moran, K. (2016). Millennials as digital natives : Myths and realities. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/millennials-digital-natives/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In On the horizon, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390313481999
Shannon Marshall Smith. (2019). A comparison of computer-based and robotic programming instruction: Impact of Scratch versus Cozmo on middle school students’ computational thinking, spatial skills, competency beliefs, and engagement. Kent State University.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4/abstract
Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation - Advances in Research and Theory, 55. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, P. F. (2019). Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56 (8), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746747
Vandewaetere, M., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Cognitive load of learner control: Extraneous or germane load? Education Research International, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809
Weese, J. L., Feldhausen, R., & Bean, N. H. (2016). The impact of STEM experiences on student self-efficacy in computational thinking. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26179
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. C., & Kinshuk. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers and Education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
Wing, Jeannete. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 22–24.
Wing, Jeannette. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking--What and why? The LINK. cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
Winter, V., Friend, M., Matthews, M., Love, B., & Vasireddy, S. (2019). Using visualization to reduce the cognitive load of threshold concepts in computer programming. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028612
Yadav, A., Larimore, R., Rich, K. M., & Schwarz, C. (2019). Integrating computational thinking in elementary classrooms: Introducing a toolkit to support teachers. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 347 – 350.
Zhong, H. X., Chiu, P. S., & Lai, C. F. (2021). Effects of the use of cdio engineering design in a flipped programming course on flow experience, cognitive load. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031381
Refbacks
Index