Author(s)

Chenxi Li ^1,2

Affiliation(s)

¹ Department of Public Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Jilin University of Finance and Economics, Changchun, China
² International School of Chinese Studies, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, China

Corresponding Author

Chenxi Li

ABSTRACT

Economic globalization has put forward new requirements for foreign language teaching, and the development of science and technology has provided a new platform for English education. Cognitive load theory refers to the efforts in working memory and is a set of general learning principles that affect the process of cognitive learning by designing an effective teaching environment. “Flipped classroom”, as an effective teaching method to reduce learners’ cognitive load, is based on the cooperation between teachers and students with the progress of science and technology to realize the reform and innovation of foreign language education. This paper adopts the method of comparative research: comparing the traditional teaching method with the flipped classroom method; 12 English classes in 5 universities are selected by means of interview and questionnaire. Moreover, this paper will explore the relationship between the two teaching methods and students’ cognitive load which will consequently play an indispensable role in understanding teenagers’ cognitive pattern and optimizing teaching design. Effective cognitive regulation can reduce students’ extraneous cognitive load and optimize educational functions, teacher-student relations, curriculum system and educational system.

KEYWORDS

Cognitive load theory, Flipped classroom, Second language, Instructional design

CITE THIS PAPER

Chenxi Li, Application of Flipped Classroom in Second Language Teaching from the Perspective of Cognitive Load Theory. Advances in Educational Technology and Psychology (2022) Vol. 6: 11-20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/aetp.2022.060303.

REFERENCES

[1] Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 275-285.
[2] Sweller, J.(1998) Cognitive architecture and instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3),251-296.  
[3] Yang, X. (2007). Cognitive load theory from the perspective of cognitive psychology, Journal of Ningbo University, 03. 
[4] Pass, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
[5] Renkl, A., & Scheiter, K (2017). Studying vidual displays: How to instructionally support learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 599-621, https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10648-015-9340-4.
[6] Zhang, J., (2009). Application and Enlightenment of cognitive load theory in Network Education. Social Psychology, 102, 172, https://www.doc88.com/p-3897664690741.html.
[7] Fang, Z. (2014). Research progress and Enlightenment of learners' cognitive load in e-learning environment, Journal of Shaanxi Normal University, 10, 34-37.
[8] Zhang, X. (2014). Multimedia courseware design of micro curriculum from the perspective of cognitive load theory, Modern Educational Technology, 2, 20-25.
[9] Zhang J., Wang Y., Zhang B., Research on Flipped Classroom Teaching Model. Journal of Distance Education, 2014 (4): 46-51.
[10] Atharina S., & Peter G. (2007) Learner Control in Hypermedia Environments. Education Psychology Review, 19, 285-307.
[11] Renkl A., & Atkinson A., & Sweller J. (2018) Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design, Education Psychology, 38(1):1-4.  
[12] Sepp, S., Howard, S. J., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Load Theory and Human Movement: Towards an Integrated Model of Working Memory. Educational Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09461-9. 
[13] Seufea. T, Inge J. & Brfinken R. (2007). The Impact of Intrinsic Cognitive Load on the Effectiveness of Graphical Help for Coherence Formation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23:55-107. 
[14] Van, M. & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17:147-177.  
[15] Yi, T., Yang, X., Pi, Z., Huang, L., & Yang, J. (2018). Teacher’s Continuous vs. Intermittent Presence in Procedural Knowledge Instruction Videos. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 0(0), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1470020. 
[16] Korbach, A., Brunken, R., & Park, B. (2017). Measurement of Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning: A Comparison of Different Objective Measures. Instructional Science, 45, 515-536. 
[17] Wouter, P., Tabber H., & Paas, F. (2007). Interactivity in a Video-based Models. Educational Psychology Review, 19:23-24. 
[18] Sweller, J. & Pass, F. (2017). Should self-regulated learning be integrated with cognitive load theory? A Commentary. Learning and Instruction, 51, 85-89.

Sponsors, Associates, and Links

---

• Curriculum and Teaching Methodology
  
  
• Transactions on Comparative Education
  
  
• Applied & Educational Psychology
  
  
• Advances in Vocational and Technical Education
  
  
• Adult and Higher Education