管理学习环境中学习效能的差异:认知负荷理论的视角

IF 2.5 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Management Education Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.1177/10525629231200206
Fabian Alexander Müller, Torsten Wulf
{"title":"管理学习环境中学习效能的差异:认知负荷理论的视角","authors":"Fabian Alexander Müller, Torsten Wulf","doi":"10.1177/10525629231200206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The extant literature indicates that blended learning leads to better outcomes compared to traditional lectures in management education. However, the working memory, which processes all incoming information, can be assumed to already work at capacity in traditional lectures. As blended environments cannot extend this capacity, they can only improve learning effectiveness if they can influence the mechanics underlying the working memory. Drawing on cognitive load theory from educational psychology, we posit that blended learning, by using technology as a differentiator, provides instructional designers with additional options and tools. When utilized effectively, these choices can reduce learners’ cognitive load related to the design and increase cognitive load related to learning. Our assumptions are based on a case study with two different learning formats, including a blended environment that actively integrates technologies into the curriculum. Empirical evidence supports our hypotheses. We contribute to educational technology research in management education by explicitly considering the mechanics of the cognitive system and the effects of instructional design, curriculum choice, and related technology use. Our results suggest that blended environments can improve learning effectiveness if technologies are well integrated into curricula. Educational technologies, thus, provide entirely new opportunities for management educators but also require faculty development.","PeriodicalId":47308,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Learning Effectiveness Across Management Learning Environments: A Cognitive Load Theory Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Fabian Alexander Müller, Torsten Wulf\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10525629231200206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The extant literature indicates that blended learning leads to better outcomes compared to traditional lectures in management education. However, the working memory, which processes all incoming information, can be assumed to already work at capacity in traditional lectures. As blended environments cannot extend this capacity, they can only improve learning effectiveness if they can influence the mechanics underlying the working memory. Drawing on cognitive load theory from educational psychology, we posit that blended learning, by using technology as a differentiator, provides instructional designers with additional options and tools. When utilized effectively, these choices can reduce learners’ cognitive load related to the design and increase cognitive load related to learning. Our assumptions are based on a case study with two different learning formats, including a blended environment that actively integrates technologies into the curriculum. Empirical evidence supports our hypotheses. We contribute to educational technology research in management education by explicitly considering the mechanics of the cognitive system and the effects of instructional design, curriculum choice, and related technology use. Our results suggest that blended environments can improve learning effectiveness if technologies are well integrated into curricula. Educational technologies, thus, provide entirely new opportunities for management educators but also require faculty development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629231200206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629231200206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有文献表明,与传统的管理教育讲座相比,混合式学习的效果更好。然而,处理所有传入信息的工作记忆,可以假定在传统的讲座中已经发挥了最大的作用。由于混合环境不能扩展这种能力,只有当它们能够影响工作记忆的机制时,它们才能提高学习效率。借鉴教育心理学的认知负荷理论,我们认为混合学习通过使用技术作为差异化因素,为教学设计师提供了额外的选择和工具。当这些选择得到有效利用时,可以减少学习者与设计相关的认知负荷,增加与学习相关的认知负荷。我们的假设是基于两种不同学习形式的案例研究,包括积极将技术集成到课程中的混合环境。经验证据支持我们的假设。我们通过明确考虑认知系统的机制以及教学设计、课程选择和相关技术使用的影响,为管理教育中的教育技术研究做出贡献。我们的研究结果表明,如果技术很好地融入课程,混合环境可以提高学习效率。因此,教育技术为管理教育工作者提供了全新的机会,但也要求教师的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Differences in Learning Effectiveness Across Management Learning Environments: A Cognitive Load Theory Perspective
The extant literature indicates that blended learning leads to better outcomes compared to traditional lectures in management education. However, the working memory, which processes all incoming information, can be assumed to already work at capacity in traditional lectures. As blended environments cannot extend this capacity, they can only improve learning effectiveness if they can influence the mechanics underlying the working memory. Drawing on cognitive load theory from educational psychology, we posit that blended learning, by using technology as a differentiator, provides instructional designers with additional options and tools. When utilized effectively, these choices can reduce learners’ cognitive load related to the design and increase cognitive load related to learning. Our assumptions are based on a case study with two different learning formats, including a blended environment that actively integrates technologies into the curriculum. Empirical evidence supports our hypotheses. We contribute to educational technology research in management education by explicitly considering the mechanics of the cognitive system and the effects of instructional design, curriculum choice, and related technology use. Our results suggest that blended environments can improve learning effectiveness if technologies are well integrated into curricula. Educational technologies, thus, provide entirely new opportunities for management educators but also require faculty development.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Management Education
Journal of Management Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Education (JME) encourages contributions that respond to important issues in management education. The overriding question that guides the journal’s double-blind peer review process is: Will this contribution have a significant impact on thinking and/or practice in management education? Contributions may be either conceptual or empirical in nature, and are welcomed from any topic area and any country so long as their primary focus is on learning and/or teaching issues in management or organization studies. Although our core areas of interest are organizational behavior and management, we are also interested in teaching and learning developments in related domains such as human resource management & labor relations, social issues in management, critical management studies, diversity, ethics, organizational development, production and operations, sustainability, etc. We are open to all approaches to scholarly inquiry that form the basis for high quality knowledge creation and dissemination within management teaching and learning.
期刊最新文献
Teaching to Save the Planet: The Challenges Ahead for Instructors, Business Schools, and Universities Supporting Authors During the Writing Process: JME’s Online Manuscript Development Workshops Classroom Leadership Roles Activity: A Pathway to Sharing Leadership With Student Teams Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Business School Education: Prospects, Boundaries, and Paradoxes The Curvilinear Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Roles of Entrepreneurial Passion and Resilience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1