You are here:

The Effects of Response Modes and Cues on Language learning, Cognitive Load and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Web-Based Learning

, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan ; , Mississippi State University, United States

Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia Volume 23, Number 2, ISSN 1055-8896 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA


An experiment was conducted to examine how different response modes for practice questions and the presence or absence of cues influenced students’ self-efficacy beliefs, perceived cognitive load, and performance in language recall and recognition tasks. One hundred fifty-seven 6th grade students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: 1) MC (multiple-choice only), 2) MC-C (multiple-choice with cues), 3) CR (constructed-responses only), or 4) CR-C (constructed-responses with cues). The results indicated that students who practiced with constructed-response questions performed better in recalling and recognizing English vocabulary, and reported higher self-efficacy beliefs than those who practiced with multiple-choice questions. This finding adds to our knowledge that constructed-response questions might have helped to increase the students’ confidence in learning the materials. The findings also indicated that the presence of cues improved students’ performance in recall and recognition tasks, and increased their self-efficacy toward learning the materials. In addition, the study extends our understanding about the influence of different response modes and cues on students’ perceived cognitive load in web-based language learning.


Chen, C.H. & Huang, K. (2014). The Effects of Response Modes and Cues on Language learning, Cognitive Load and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Web-Based Learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(2), 117-134. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Acha, J. (2009). The effectiveness of multimedia programmes in children’s vocabulary learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 23-31.
  2. Akbulut, Y. (2007). Effects of multimedia annotations on incidental vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of advanced learners of English as aforeign language. Instructional Science, 35, 499-517.
  3. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms Goals structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
  4. Baddeley, A.D., & Logie, R.H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University
  5. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge, UK:
  6. Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369-388.
  7. Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical The Effects of Response Modes and Cues on Language Learning 131
  8. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
  9. Chang, C.S. (2007). The impact of vocabulary preparation on L2 listening comprehension, confidence and strategy use. System, 35, 534-550.
  10. Chang, M.M., & Lehman, J.D. (2002). Learning foreign language through an interactive multimedia program: an experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO Journal, 20, 81-98.
  11. Chang, S.-C., & Tung, F.-C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students’ behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71-83.
  12. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitve load. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315-324.
  13. Clariana, R. (2003). The effectiveness of constructed-response and multiple-choice study tasks in computer aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 28(4), 395-406.
  14. Clariana, R.B., & Lee, D. (2001). The effects of recognition and recall study tasks with feedback in a computer-based vocabulary lesson. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 23-36.
  15. Conrad, A.M., & Munro, D. (2008). Relationships between computer self-efficacy, technology, attitudes and anxiety: Development of the computer technology use scale (CTUS). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 39(1), 51-73.
  16. DeHaan, J., Reed, W.M., & Kuwada, K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music videogame on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning& Technology, 14(20), 74-94.
  17. Delclos, V., & Harrington, C. (1991). Effects of strategy monitoring and proactive instruction on children’s problem-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 35-42.
  18. Fischer, S., & Schwan, S. (2009). Comprehending animations: Effects of spatial cueing versus temporal scaling. Learning and Instruction.
  19. Glover, J.A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 392-399.
  20. Godden, D.R., & Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 325-331.
  21. Higgins, N.C., & Cocks, P. (1999). The effects of animation cues on vocabulary development. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 1-10.
  22. Hsieh, P.-H., & Schallert, D.L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in aforeign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 513-532.
  23. Hummel, H., Paas, F., & Koper, E.J.R. (2004). Cueing for transfer in multimedia programmes: process worksheets vs. Worked-out examples. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 387-397.
  24. Hummel, H.G.K., & Nadolski, R.J. (2002). Cueing for schema construction: designing problem-solving multimedia practicals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 132 Chen and Huang
  25. Hummel, H.G.K., Paas, F., & Koper, R. (2006). Effects of cueing and collaboration on the acquisition of complex legal skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 613-632.
  26. Kahveci, M., & Imamoglu, Y. (2007). Interactive learning in mathematics education: Review of recent literature. Journal of Computers and Science Teaching, 26(2), 137153.
  27. Kim, S., Yoon, M., Whang, S.-M., Tversky, B., & Morrison, J.B. (2009). The effect of animation on comprehension and interest. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 260-270.
  28. Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687-694.
  29. Lane, J., Lane, A.M., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 247-256.
  30. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 1-26.
  31. Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
  32. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  33. McCollum, D.L. (2003). Utilizing non-cognitive predictors of foreign language achievement. Applied Language Learning, 13, 19-32.
  34. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 35-45.
  35. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
  36. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1-8.
  37. Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16, 87-91.
  38. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
  39. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs and mathematical problem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325-344.
  40. Pajares, F., Britner, S.L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406-422.
  41. Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in mathematical problemsolving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 426-443.
  42. Pajares, F., & Miller, M.D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 193-203.
  43. Pintrich, P., Conley, A., & Kempler, T.M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39 319-337.
  44. Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
  45. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 61-86.
  46. Proctor, C.P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D.L. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71-93.
  47. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R.K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15-22.
  48. Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating teachers’ reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching& Teacher Education, 26(5), 1154-1161.
  49. Schnotz, W., & Kurschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 469-508.
  50. Schunk, D.H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J.E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum Press.
  51. Sins, P.H.M., Savelsbergh, E.R., & Van Joolingen, W.R. (2005). The difficult process of scientific modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1695-1721.
  52. Smith, M.A., & Karpicke, J.D. (2013). Retrieval practice with short-answer, multiplechoice, and hybrid tests. Memory.
  53. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
  54. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
  55. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.
  56. Tobias, S. (1973). Review of the response mode issue. Review of Educational Research, 43, 193-204.
  57. Tremblay, P.F., & Gardner, R.C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 504-518.
  58. Tsai, C.C. (2009). Conceptions of learning versus conceptions of web-based learning: The differences revealed by college students. Computers& Education, 53, 10921103.
  59. Wang, S.-K., & Reeves, T.C. (2006). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth science course. Educational Technology Research and Technology, 54(6), 597-621.
  60. Wang, S.-L., & Wu, P.-Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers& Education, 51, 1589-1598.
  61. Wang, S.L., & Lin, S.S.J. (2000). The cross-cultural validation of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Conference of American Psychological Association, Washington DC.
  62. Yun, S., Miller, P.C., Baek, Y., & Jung, J. (2008). Improving recall and transfer skills through vocabulary building in web-based second language learning: An examina-134 Chen and Huang
  63. Zimmerman, B.J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 217-221.
  64. Zimmerman, B.J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Jour DASHDASH

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact


05Chen_ch_2014Jul29.pdf Download