Improving Computer-Assisted Language Learning Through the Lens of Cognitive Load

Effects of flipped English learning designs on learning outcomes and cognitive load: Workload of out‐of‐class activities versus during‐class activities

“…Cognitive load theory (CLT) underscores the need to tailor instructional design to learners' cognitive capacities to prevent overload and optimize learning (Sweller, 2010;Sweller et al, 2011). In computerassisted language learning (CALL) environments, CL can both hinder and facilitate language learning, depending on how it is managed, (Bahari et al, 2023;Skulmowski & Xu, 2022). Mayer and Moreno (2003) addressed multimedia learning's cognitive challenges and proposing strategies such as segmenting content and weeding out nonessential information to mitigate overload.…”

“…The existing literature has shown a positive correlation between flipped learning and cognitive learning outcomes (Bakla, 2018;Chen & Hwang, 2022;Hsiao et al, 2019;Huang et al, 2019;Hung, 2017aHung, , 2017bShi et al, 2019;Shi et al, 2021). Although some studies have explored the effectiveness of flipped learning in collaborative learning (Calderón et al, 2016;Su & Zou, 2022;Such, 2019), and others have focused on individual learning (Albahuoth, 2023;Awidi & Paynter, 2019;Bahari et al, 2023;Sun & Yuan, 2018), there is a lack of research specifically examining the effects of flipped language learning on CL. Therefore, it is important to investigate the potential effects of different flipped language learning designs, namely student-led, teacher-led and collaboration-led, on CL and understand how these designs influence CALL outcomes and CL management.…”

“…Consistent application of FLLA is associated with enhanced metacognitive development (Cohen, 2011). Furthermore, FLLA encourages engagement with diverse perspectives, thereby bolstering critical thinking and metacognitive skills (Bahari et al, 2023;Hwang et al, 2021;Van Vliet et al, 2015). It also supports learner autonomy through self-paced activities and timely feedback (Chen Hsieh et al, 2017;Gelan et al, 2018).…”

Effects of providing EFL learners with additional online and face‐to‐face practise opportunities to promote active learning in higher education

“…Active learning in CALL courses enhances learning outcomes by promoting student‐centred strategies (that enable learners to participate in and control the learning process) instead of lecture‐based teaching models (that enable only teachers to control the learning process; Chiu & Cheng, 2017; Kinoshita et al, 2017; Marton, 2018; Park & Choi, 2014). Active learning enhances meaningful learning by engaging learners in self‐regulated learning activities that allow them to think for themselves in terms of planning, examining, justifying and reflecting upon the learning process (Bahari et al, 2023; Kim et al, 2013; Ní Raghallaigh & Cunniffe, 2013). Active participation of the learners in the ownership of their learning stimulates higher order thinking processes as part of the active learning approach (Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Marton, 2018; van Hout‐Wolters et al, 2000).…”

“…This raises questions about the variation in the provision of additional practise opportunities between face‐to‐face and online learning environments. While some research has addressed additional practise in face‐to‐face L2 learning, there remains a significant gap regarding the effects of additional online practise on promoting active learning in computer‐assisted language learning environments (Bahari et al, 2023). The existing literature lacks a comprehensive exploration of the effects of providing additional practise opportunities in both online and face‐to‐face learning environments, particularly within the context of CALL.…”