Running Head: COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

Reducing Cognitive Load in e-Learning Instruction

Dianna M. Hamby
Post University
Capstone Project 2016

Abstract

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

The design of any instruction should be designed in a manner that allows the learners working
memory to process the information into meaningful long term learning, or the learners cognitive
load. Working memory has limited capacity and if the information being formed in the working
memory is overloaded, then learning becomes ineffective (Sweller, 1988). This paper
researches results from experiments conducted using the modality principle, metaphorical
interface, and chunking sequence instructional design environments and their relationship toward
lowering the effects of a learners cognitive load and allow the working memory process
information into meaningful long term learning. The experiment described in this paper is a
suggestion for future research when resources are available.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

Problem Statement
The learning process consists of a learners working memory to process information into
long term memory. Working memory has a limited capacity and if the information being formed
in working memory is overloaded then learning becomes ineffective.
There are three types of cognitive loads; intrinsic, extrinsic, and germane. All three
cognitive loads must be balanced to allow a learners working memory time to construct the
information to be stored in long term memory. To achieve greater retention instructional
designers must reduce the extraneous load, maximize the germane load, and manage the intrinsic
load in e-learning environments. The proposed research project will allow the investigation of
schemas to achieve balancing a learners cognitive load (van Merrienboer &Ayres, 2005). Much
of the e-learning applications are designed with too many interactive elements which can
overload the learners working memory or intrinsic load and their ability to process the
information into long term memory or germane load (van Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005).
The goal of this project is to discover ways to design e-Learning environments to balance
the cognitive load of information presented to learn and to enable long term learner retention for
the student to recall in the future when it is necessary. The research findings for this project will
be useful to assist school teachers to improve or use different means of technology-based
learning in the classroom and to further their skills in presenting instructional content to achieve
greater learner retention and reduce cognitive overload. What type of instructional design will
lower cognitive load?
During the past several years, teachers have been moving toward 21st Century
Classrooms where students employ e-Learning environments. Students learn more effectively in
e-Learning environments designed to optimize the limited capacity of the working memory or

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

cognitive load. The educator's challenge for e-Learning is determining if the learner has
comprehended the information being presented and retained it in long term memory (van
Merrienboer & Ayres, 2005). According to Kohn, within the first hour after completing a lesson,
learners retain 50% of learned information; 70% after the first 24 hours; and up to 90% after a
week (Kohn, 2014). Kohn attributes this student memory loss to cognitive overload (too much
information is presented at one time) (Kohn, 2014).

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

Literature Review
Introduction
The importance of the learning process consists of a learners working memory to
process information into long term memory. Working memory has a limited capacity and if the
information being formed in working memory is overloaded, then learning becomes ineffective
(Sweller, 1988; Cooper, 1998; Kalyuga & Liu, 2015). John Sweller (1988) first theorized the
Cognitive Load Theory when he was concerned with adapting instructional design with the
limited capacity of a learners working memory in order for meaningful long term learning to
occur. The meaningful long term learning is known as a schema architecture and this is the
ultimate goal of the cognitive load. It is the responsibility of an instructional designer to
determine what forms of instructional strategies can be used when presenting instruction. There
has been many research experiments being conducted in the area of cognitive load theory and
instructional design; specifically in e-learning environments. Research studies date as far back
as 1988 with John Sweller and his team when first theorizing cognitive load.
The research by Wolfgang Schnotz and Christian Kurschner (2007) shows how the
cognitive load theory has been very influential in the past decades with emerging e-learning
environments. They have provided research showing that there is a requirement for e-learning or
online instructional environments to be designed with the learners cognitive system in mind.
According to Art Kohn (2014), within the first hour after completing a lesson, learners
lose 50% of learned information; 70% of learning is lost after 24 hours; and up to 90% of
learning is lost after a week. The lower retention effect is attributed to a cognitive overload,
whereas too much information is presented to the learner in a short period of time and working
memory is unable to construct the information into a schema for it to process into long term

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

memory retention. Cognitive overload can be also attributed to the instructional design of an elearning environment (Wenger, 2015).
The focus of this research is to answer and understand the following:

What is the Cognitive Load Theory and how does the design of instruction affect

it?
How much information does a learner retain after 1 hour, 24 hours, and 1 week

after taking the lesson?

How do modality principles, metaphorical interface, and content sequencing in
combination help the learner manage cognitive load and enhance meaningful
learning?

Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design Effects

The Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) is a theory that has been developed through the
coordination of instructional design and the learning process or, as Sweller, Van Merrienboer,
and Paas (1998) reference, the theory is the process of the human cognitive architecture. The
cognitive architecture consists of two major areas: the working memory, which is the main
processor of information and long term memory, which is the area of information retention
(Kalyuga & Liu, 2015).
Working memory has a limited capacity and a short term duration of retaining
information. Therefore, the major function of working memory is to process information into an
organized schema for long term memory to store the organized schema for knowledge retention
(Kalyuga & Liu, 2015). In the writing of Considering Cognitive Load Theory Within ELearning Environments, the authors quote Ruth Clarks (2006) definition of CLT as a universal
set of learning principles that are proven to result in efficient instructional environments as a
consequence of leveraging human cognitive learning processes.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

There are three distinguishable types of cognitive load; intrinsic, extraneous, and
germane (Alasraj, Freeman, & Chandler, n.d.; Sweller, 1988). It is important for an instructional
designer to take into consideration the three types of cognitive loads in order to optimize
effective and meaningful learning outcomes (Alasraj, Freeman, & Chandler, n.d.).
Intrinsic Cognitive Load. With intrinsic cognitive load, the learning process, or
working memory consists of the learners base knowledge or established schema in long term
memory. An example of a learners base knowledge and established schema is a novice and an
expert in reading. The novice could be thought of as an elementary school student who is
learning to read basic words and the expert could be thought of as a high school student who has
been reading for several years. For an expert learner, their intrinsic load (working memory) has
the ability to process more information into effective long term memory at a higher rate. If the
novice learner is presented with too much complex information or information where there is no
established schema, their cognitive structure is overloaded and effective learning cannot be
fulfilled in long term memory (Alasraj, Freeman, & Chandler, n.d.). This is important in elearning environments due to split-attention, redundancy, and modality lack of physical presence
of a teacher to assist the novice learner if too much complex information is presented in the
content. The novice learner will not be able to process learning because they do not have the
specific base knowledge to understand the presented content.
Extraneous Cognitive Load. Extraneous cognitive load is the learning process that is
established from external sources such as an e-learning environment design (Alasraj, Freeman, &
Chandler, n.d.). An efficiently designed e-learning environment allows the learner to create a
learning schema in their working memory so it can be processed into long term memory. A
poorly designed e-learning environment will have the opposite effect on the learner and cause a

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

cognitive overload. Examples of a poorly designed e-learning environment include unnecessary

content, design effects that contain too much animation which causes the learner to focus
attention on something other than reading the instructions, too much text for the learner to review
on a screen, or a requirement of the learner to review a chart or graph on one side of the display
and instructions about the chart or graph on the opposite side of the screen causing the learner to
have to view in a back and forth motion.
Germane Cognitive Load. The process of the germane cognitive load is to use the
learners free space of working memory to process the knowledge base (intrinsic cognitive
load) and the new knowledge (extraneous cognitive load) to form meaningful learning (Alasraj,
Freeman, & Chandler, n.d.). Katherine Burkes (2007) provides the best example of the germane
cognitive load process by stating that knowledge and skills that are used frequently, such as
reading, may be accessed automatically without high levels of conscious effort even though the
associated task may be complex.
Measuring Cognitive Load.
Many of the research studies are in direct relationship with measuring the cognitive load
theory and determining the types of instructional design methodology affects each of the three
cognitive loads: intrinsic, extraneous, and germane. The research paper provided by Leppink
and Van Merrienboer (2015) entitled The beast of aggregating cognitive load measures in
technology-based learning reviews two separate experiments measuring cognitive load. In one
particular experiment, two sets of learners were given an explanation of six lines of text and a
formula notion for them to learn. The first set of learners were given the explanation of text and
formula notion in a specific order while the second set of learners were given the same
information, but in reverse order. The learners that were given the formula notion before the

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

explanation lines of text were shown to have a higher extraneous cognitive load; meaning the
learners formed a cognitive overload. The study shows that the format of instructional design
presented to a learner and their performance can impact their mental effort of thinking in a
positive or negative way causing meaningful learning or cognitive overload.
Lena Kushnir (n.d.) performed a research study concerning students e-learning
experiences and cognitive overload in her article called: The negative effects of computer
experience on e-learning: A resource model approach to understand learning outcomes. Her
problem statement question was Does student online experience, the organization and relevance
of online information, and the level of task difficulty, affect e-learning and students perception
of overload. Her findings of the research experiment concluded that certain user
characteristics interact with important e-learning factors, specifically, interface design, the
organization and relevance of information and instructional design impacted the students
perception of overload.
Instructional Design Models
There are many research studies and experiments taking place in the education world to
determine which methods of instructional design can benefit the learning process in lowering the
cognitive load of a learner. For this research paper, the major instructional design models will
discuss three design effects; the modality principles, metaphorical interface, and chunking
sequences (Moreno, 2006; Cheon & Grant, 2012; Fonollosa, Neftci, & Rabinovich, 2015).
Modality Principles. The modality principle is a combination of visual information with
verbal information (Moreno, 2006). Moreno suggests that the verbal information is best
presented in an audio format rather than requiring the learner to read the instruction. Moreno
(2006) describes some experiments that were conducted with various methods of multimedia

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

10

type instruction. One experiment consisted of giving 78 college students to view computer
animation. Some of the participants received on-screen text and others were provided a
narrative; both included the animation. The results of the experiment showed that the
participants that received the narrative instruction with the animation, out-performed those that
were required to read the instruction and watch the animation. The article discusses further
experimentation that can be further adapted into the entire research project.
Metaphorical Interface. Cheon and Grant (2012) created a study to determine the
effects of a metaphorical interface and the germane cognitive load in web-based designs. The
concept of a metaphorical interface is creating a user friendly interactive e-learning environment.
The authors explain that a metaphorical interface is an entire online environment that represents
the inherent structure of the learning contents with graphical overview or structural cueing. The
research shows that by using a metaphorical interface, learners can intuitively navigate within the
instructional resources and use their own cognitive load process to organize the content into
meaningful learning.
Chunking Sequences. Sequence learning is the ability to recognize and produce
ordered sequences is a defining feature of the brain and a key component of many cognitive
performances (Fonollosa, Neftci, & Rabinovich, 2015). The authors define a chunk as a
collection of similarly related items. The authors suggest that an example of chunk learning can
be as simple as language processing or learning basic motor skills. Research has shown that
designing an instructional environment in chunks or bite sized collections of information can
lower the learners cognitive load and allow the content to be processed into meaningful
learning. The researchers determined that a chunk of information can be marked as a pause or
pauses within the content during the sequence of learning a task.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

11

Conclusion
The world of education and learning has made great leaps and bounds over the past
decade due to the advancements in technology and the easy access of internet. Using e-learning
environments have many benefits such as, ease of use, access anytime, more cost effective for
businesses to train employees, self-paced learning, etc. There are also negative effects related to
using e-learning, but the main focus for this research project is the learners ability to retain
meaningful learning into long term retention. Lena Paulo Kushnir (n.d.) writes that learners that
take online courses, tend to feel overloaded with too much information. Many valuable
experiments have taken place to study the effectiveness of web-based learning, multimedia and
e-learning, etc. These studies have a tremendous impact on the best format or instructional
design methods for e-learning environments to reduce the learners cognitive load (Kushnir,
n.d.).
In a research paper written by Paul Kirschner, Paul Ayres, and Paul Chandler (n.d.), the
authors review 16 research study contributions in the cognitive load theory and the field of
instruction. According to some of the research study reviews, the authors have summarized that
there are negative aspects when test subjects were given complex problems to solve. Most of the
research studies have shown positive results when test subjects were given a series of tasks to
learn and memorize.
The goal of most research studies is to find a positive balance in optimizing cognitive
load for meaningful learning, but there seems to some studies that have inconsistent results. For
example, as Krischner, Ayres, and Chandler (n.d.) write in their paper, there are at times
confounding variables like prior-knowledge, element interactivity and redundancy, which are
difficult to control, making it difficult to generate significant effects or isolate the underlying

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

factors. The authors have written that there have been many positive results when the learner
had more control of their learning environment. This is another aspect that should be further
researched of the cognitive load theory and instructional design for e-learning environments.

12

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

13

Research Design and Methodology

In order to determine which types of e-learning environments reduces a learners
cognitive load, this will be studied through experimental research methodology. The e-learning
environment designs that are part of the research study are: modality principles, metaphorical
interface, and content sequencing to determine if any of the designs help a learner manage
cognitive load and enhance meaningful learning.
The population will consist of 20 adult learners are enrolled in a similar e-learning
course. The participants will be randomly assigned to two separate groups of ten. The
experiment will be conducted with one group of ten being the control group.
The experiment will consist of the control group participants receiving a text-based
lesson format on a computer display and the experiment group will receive the same lesson with
a combination of navigation, visual, animation, and short activities. Both groups will receive a
post assessment upon lesson completion, and post assessments one hour, 24 hours, and one week
after lesson completion.
Data collection will be gathered and analyzed in two separate methods to answer the
research questions. The first data that will be collected is the average combination scores of the
post assessments between the two experimental groups. These averages will be compared in a
side-by-side manner to determine whether the experiment group receiving the lesson with
navigation, visual, animation effects with short activities received better scores than the control
group. The results will prove the experiment group had a lower cognitive load effect than those
in the control group.
The second portion of the data collection gathered will be each learners post assessments
compared to each other to determine whether Kohns (2014) theory of learning retention:

After one hour, 50% of learning is retained.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

After 24 hours, 30% of learning is retained.

After one week, 10% of learning is retained.

14

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

15

Discussion and Reflection

When I first started pursuing my masters degree, it was only to get the credits necessary
to qualify for a federal instructional system design position. After beginning the education
courses and interacting with my fellow students in the education degree program, I began to
realize getting my masters degree in education was much more important than being able to
qualify for the federal job. The courses have opened my eyes to many possibilities that
technology and the variety of instruction design methods can be so beneficial in the classroom.
I have grown so much over the past two years and see education in an entirely different
way. I have found myself constantly thinking about methods and ways that I, myself, can change
the education system. For example, I have read some articles about virtual reality in the
classroom and the use of technology to allow children with autism or other types of social
disorders to be part of a classroom, but they are still in their safe space physically at home.
I envision one day that students will attend a classroom where each student has their own
tablet that can be setup on their table top to reveal a virtual keyboard. The front of the classroom
would have an interactive white board that also sends the same screen to each students tablet to
follow along. This classroom would also include augmented reality capability so the teacher can
create a three dimensional image that allows them to interact with the image. For example, a
science or health teacher would generate an augmented reality image of a heart or an atom and
with this image, the teacher would be able to zoom in to certain areas of the image to
demonstrate or show the students or be able to remove molecules of the atom and show the
students what happens to the atom after the change.
I initially learned instructional design while working for a government contract through
the military. The only method of instructional design that I learned at the time was the ADDIE
model. The instructional design concentration through Post taught me other methods that I have

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

16

found valuable to my current professional career. I felt Professor David Perkins (2008) book
Making Learning Whole: How Seven Principles of Teaching Can Transform Education
contained some powerful information for teachers and ways to enhance learning for their
students. Perkins uses a baseball game analogy to describe the seven principles of teaching that
makes it easy to remember (2008).
During my courses at Post, I was invited to compete in the AETC competition with a
fellow student. The competition was for graduate student teams (2 per team) to create an RFP
based on the scenario that AETC presented. My partner and I used many of the instructional
design skills that we had and were still learning through Post. We began our RFP structure using
the ADDIE model for the initial construction of the design concept, then we moved into using
Blooms Taxonomy. After we were selected to move forward to phase two of the competition,
we used Kirkpatricks Four Levels of Training Evaluation to explain how our team would
evaluate the instructional design process if we were selected as a team for the final phase of the
competition (Kirkpatrick, 1994). We also used our project management design and budgeting
skills to create the proposal budget.
When I was first presented with the idea of writing a capstone project for graduation, my
first reaction was that we were going to write another paper like we had been for the last couple
of years. Before I started EDU687, I start to think about the latest technology advances in
education; for example, the major topic in my mind was Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality.
Once I learned that we were creating an action research project and in order to complete
the project, I had to write a problem statement. This was the hardest part of the entire capstone;
writing a creative and properly formatted problem statement. I believe I changed and
reformatted my problem statement at least one hundred times before I was pleased with the

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

17

results. I also had to change the topic idea since virtual and augmented reality are the newest
technology and I was not able to find enough research to create a well-defined problem
statement.
I finally settled my topic on the Cognitive Load Theory and e-Learning environments.
During one of my earlier courses during my degree, we learned about the Cognitive Load Theory
and how it is possible for a learners working memory to be so over inundated with information
that effective long term learning retention is almost impossible. I also thought of my son and the
trouble he had in college because there was so much information being thrown at him that he had
trouble remembering anything by the time he was to take an exam. Since my masters core
concentration was Instructional Design and Technology, I knew that there must be some research
and experimentation begin done to determine the best types of learning environments that are
beneficial in lowering a learners cognitive load and create effective learning retention. There is
a wealth of research and experimentation in the area of designing effective learning
environments to lower cognitive load and enable effective learning.
Some of the problems that I encountered throughout this capstone project, were such things as
writing a properly formatted problem statement. If I was to do this project over, I may have
selected another problem statement approach about Cognitive Load Theory and e-Learning
environments. I found in the literature research portion of the project, it was much harder to find
the information that I needed to maintain focus on my problem statement.
I am pleased that after reviewing my panel results, there was one subject matter expert
that pointed out some things that I did not consider when writing the research and design portion
of my project. For example, there is a need to have all the learners take a pre-assessment test in

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

18

the subject area of the lesson to determine that all learners have the same knowledge about the
lesson before, there should be no communication between the control group and experimental
groups in order to protect from information compromise.
In closing of my reflection, I must mention one person who has been a great influence
though out my entire degree program, Dr. Linda Kaiser. She has been very supportive
throughout my program, as well as encouraging toward my success. She has even discussed and
cheered me on when I struggled through this capstone project. We have discussed the idea of
turning this research project concept into an actual implementation and publishing a paper
together. Just having Dr. Kaiser tell me that she would like to work with me and publish a paper
was an honor in itself. I, on my own, would never think about publishing a paper. We have had
many discussions about continuing my education on to the doctorate of education program. I
have considered it many time, but right now I am ready for a break from education for a little
while. If I do decide a pursuit in a doctorate program, it would have to be in educational
psychology and working with special needs learners.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

19

Panel Review Summary

The summary of the panel review was of the opinion that my research project was well written
and the information that I proposed was clearly identified and easily duplicated.
One of the suggestions from the panel was to compress the conclusion and the problem
statement because the supporting data detracts from the actual problem statement.
The second panel review suggests that there should be additional constraints put into place for
the experiment and control groups such as; pre-assessment to determine that all learners are on
the same knowledge scale, that no interaction be permitted between the control and experiment
groups so there is no information compromise, and that there should be a forced progression
written into the navigation pages of the lesson.
The third panel review suggests that I presented a strong rationale that would support
further investigation of the problem statement. The review also suggests that this research design
can easily be duplicated and would provide accurate results that were presented in the problem
statement.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

20
References

Alasraj, A., Freeman, M., & Chandler, P. (n.d.). Considering cognitive load theory with elearning environments. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Burkes, K. M. (2007). Applying cognitive load theory to the design of online learning
(Doctoral dissertation).
Cheon, J., & Grant, M. M. (2007). The effects of metaphorical interface on germane
cognitive load in web-based instruction. Education Technology Research Dev, 6,
399-420. doi:10.1007/211423-012-9236-7
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based
guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional at UNSW.
School of Education, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Fonollosa, J., Neftci, E., Rabinovich, M. (2015). Learning of chunking sequences in
cognitive and behavior. PLOS Computation Biology Journal, 10.1371.
Kalyuga, S., & Liu, T. C. (2015). Guest editorial: Managing cognitive load in technology
based learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 1-8.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kirschner, P., Ayres, P., & Chandler, P. (n.d.). Contemporary load theory research: The
good, the bad and the ugly. Centre for Learning Sciences and Technology. Open
University of the Netherlands.
Kohn, A. (2014). Brain science: The forgetting curve-the-dirty secret of corporate
training. Learning Solutions.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

Kushnir, L. P. (n.d.). The negative effects of computer experience on e-learning: A

resource model approach to understanding learning outcomes. University of
Toronto, Canada.
Leppink, J., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. (2015). The beast of aggregating cognitive load
measures in technology-based learning. Journal of Education Technology &
Society, 18(4), 230-245.
Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the
method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22,
149-158.
Perkins, D. N. (2009). Making learning whole: How seven principles of teaching can
transform education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4
Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia
learning. Informing Science Journal, 8.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive approach during problem solving: Effects on learning.
Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and
instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Wenger, K. (2015). Overview of learning theory, instructional design, development,
implementation, and assessment of an instruction to web development course
incorporating 21st century technology. Journal of Applied Learning Technology,
5(3), 13-18.

21

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

22

Appendix A
Self-Assessment Rubric
EDU699
Dianna Hamby Capstone Project Self-Assessment
3
2
1
Questioning

Finding and
Evaluating
Informational

Putting Together
Your Research

Presenting Your
Project

Presenting Your
Sources

Self-Evaluation

Work Habits

Constructed a thoughtful
and creative question that
required challenging
research
Gathered a great deal of
information with clear
criteria in mind. Used
authoritative sources in a
variety of formats.
Shows insight in drawing
conclusions from
information gathered.
Information is well
organized to support the
conclusion.
Communicates ideas
persuasively to a specific
audience. Demonstrates
precise and effective use
of the medium,
artistically, and
technically.
Correctly provides source
acknowledgements using
standard APA. Includes a
list of sources in standard
style format.

Constructed a focused
question that involved
challenging research

Communicates thoughtful
reflection on the research
process or product.
Includes areas for
improvement and/or
future study.
Made deadlines and
excelled in utilizing
online tools and
assembling portfolio.
Required information in
portfolio.

Reflects on research
process and product
and identifies areas for
improvement.

Gathered sufficient
information with
criteria in mind. Found
authoritative sources
in at least two formats.
Draws conclusions
from the information.
Information is
organized. Shows skill
in approaching the
problem.
Communicates ideas
to a specific audience.
Demonstrates effective
use of the medium.

Provides source
acknowledgement
using a standard
citation style such as
APA with some errors.
Includes a list of
sources consulted.

Made most deadlines,

utilized most of the
online tools and
assembled most of
documentation.

Score

Used a question
requiring little creative
though and minimal
research
Minimal information
gathered. Connection to
question is weak. Little
attention to the authority
of the sources.
Draws no conclusion
and/or demonstrates
little purpose for
gathering data. Lacks
organization.

Communicates minimal
information. Format has
technical errors.

Provides minimal source

acknowledgement. Some
information does not
contain a citation.
Includes an incomplete
list of sources consulted.
Format has technical
errors.
Minimal reflection on
research process or
product. No area of
improvement identified.

Misses project deadlines

for work and has no eportfolio of research and
work.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

23

Appendix B

Peer review questionnaire (1)

You have been chosen by this student to evaluate her Capstone Research Project. It is necessary
for the student to seek an evaluation because the research project will not be implemented at the
completion of the capstone course. Your evaluation and responses to this questionnaire allows
the student to reflect on improvements to the research project in the future or in such case the
student has the ability to implement the experiment suggested in the paper.

1. Does the paper open smoothly and in a way that makes you want to read more? If yes, what
do you find especially effective? Yes _X____

No_____ If not, suggest a way this author could

start the paper? It gives a brief background description of effective design before jumping
straight into the research. I feel that gives the reader a better understanding of what to expect.
2. Does the rationale clearly identify the reason for the paper? If so, does the content of the
paper answer the problem or support a problem solution? Yes__X___

No_____ If not, suggest

a way this author could support the problem solution? The content of the paper fully covers the
problem statement and provides a possible solution for the problem.
3. Does the experiment contain enough information for it to be performed by someone other
than this author? Yes_X___

No_____ The author provided enough background and

supporting information for an outsider to perform the experiment.

4. Will the particular methodology and experiment results support the problem statement with an
appropriate answer? Yes__X___ No_____ The paper supports the problem statement by
providing proof and solutions for reducing the cognitive load in E-learning.
5. Is the paper well organized? Can you follow it easily? Does the organization make sense in
light of the overall argument and preview stated in the introduction? What changes would you

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

24

suggest? I find the paper well organized and easy to follow. Topic changes are very clear, and
flow in a sensible manner. I think in regards to organization, the paper is fine as is.
6. Are sources appropriately integrated and cited? Yes __X___

No_____

7. Suggest at least two ways this person could improve the paper.
1. Author may want to compress the conclusion. Brevity is important with a conclusion.
2. Author may want to compress the problem statement. While it is informative, the
supporting data detracts from the actual problem statement.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

25

Peer review questionnaire (2)

You have been chosen by this student to evaluate her Capstone Research Project. It is necessary
for the student to seek an evaluation because the research project will not be implemented at the
completion of the capstone course. Your evaluation and responses to this questionnaire allows
the student to reflect on improvements to the research project in the future or in such case the
student has the ability to implement the experiment suggested in the paper.

1. Does the paper open smoothly and in a way that makes you want to read more? If yes, what
do you find especially effective? Yes __X___

No_____ If not, suggest a way this author could

start the paper? I found the abstract provided an appropriate topic of an instructional design
issue with electronic learning.
2. Does the rationale clearly identify the reason for the paper? If so, does the content of the
paper answer the problem or support a problem solution? Yes__X___

No_____ If not, suggest

a way this author could support the problem solution? The content does support the problem and
possible way to answer the solution.
3. Does the experiment contain enough information for it to be performed by someone other
than this author? Yes__X__

No_____

4. Will the particular methodology and experiment results support the problem statement with an
appropriate answer? Yes__X___ No_____
5. Is the paper well organized? Can you follow it easily? Does the organization make sense in
light of the overall argument and preview stated in the introduction? What changes would you
suggest? Yes, the paper is well organized and easy to follow. No suggested changes.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

6. Are sources appropriately integrated and cited? Yes __X___

26
No_____

7. Suggest at least two ways this person could improve the paper. With any control and
experimental group, there is a possibility of both groups sharing or studying together, which
could skew the results. Suggest adding a method to prevent the groups from discussing or at
least separate them during the experiment.
During the test of the material, I found the experimental group e-learning allowed the
user to navigate between pages and out of order. Recommend forced progression through
lessons to ensure all student accomplish the material in the same way.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

27

Peer review questionnaire (3)

You have been chosen by this student to evaluate her Capstone Research Project. It is necessary
for the student to seek an evaluation because the research project will not be implemented at the
completion of the capstone course. Your evaluation and responses to this questionnaire allows
the student to reflect on improvements to the research project in the future or in such case the
student has the ability to implement the experiment suggested in the paper.

1. Does the paper open smoothly and in a way that makes you want to read more? If yes, what
do you find especially effective? Yes _X__

No_____ If not, suggest a way this author could

start the paper? This paper begins with a good high-level overview of working memory and
includes content written by the appropriate researchers in the field of instructional design. The
introductory information demonstrates that the student has a good working knowledge of a
variety of instructional design principles and is able to apply them to solve an instructional
design problem.
2. Does the rationale clearly identify the reason for the paper? If so, does the content of the
paper answer the problem or support a problem solution? Yes__X___

No_____ If not, suggest

a way this author could support the problem solution? There is a strong rationale presented that
supports further investigation of the stated problem. Potential results of the study are presented
and are supported with the appropriate research for the field of instructional design.
3. Does the experiment contain enough information for it to be performed by someone other
than this author? Yes__X__

No_____ Yes, there is enough information here in the form of

explanations and screen shots that would enable a developer to create a similar design in the
form of an e-learning module.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

28

4. Will the particular methodology and experiment results support the problem statement with an
appropriate answer? Yes__X___ No_____ Yes, I believe that the suggested methodology will
likely result in providing accurate results to address the stated problems. The design of the study
enables the researcher to present e-learning content in different formats that will test the different
principles as presented in the paper.
5. Is the paper well organized? Can you follow it easily? Does the organization make sense in
light of the overall argument and preview stated in the introduction? What changes would you
suggest? This paper is very well written and flows from one section to the next. The presentation
of ideas and principles is easy to follow and clearly support the problems and approaches
presented to complete implementation of this study. I have no changes to suggest.
6. Are sources appropriately integrated and cited? Yes __X___

No_____ A comprehensive list

of APA formatted references is included at the end of the slide deck.

7. Suggest at least two ways this person could improve the paper. I would like to see the
completed e-learning modules even if they are not actually being implemented. It would be
helpful to see how the different principles are being applied to the two different learning
environments.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

Appendix C
E-Learning Environment Screen Capture Images

29

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

30

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

31

COGNITIVE LOAD AND E-LEARNING

32