Cited by 176Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsOnline and Blended Learning

Goal Configurations and Processing Strategies as Moderators Between Instructional Design and Cognitive Load: Evidence From Hypertext-Based Instruction

Open access
Gerjets, Peter, Scheiter, Katharina·2003·Educational Psychologist

Abstract

In this article, we propose some augmentations of cognitive load theory (CLT) inspired by evidence from hypertext-based instruction. In particular, we focus on the role of goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load. First, we describe pivotal assumptions of CLT and conceptual shortcomings related to these assumptions. Second, we review evidence from our own hypertext-based research that gives reasons for integrating configurations of teacher goals, learner goals, as well as processing strategies into CLT. These augmentations of CLT are necessary to account for the rather weak relation between instructional design and pattern of cognitive load that shows up in the context of self-controlled learning. CLT, augmented with the notion of learner control, can now better serve as a theoretical foundation for the design of hypertext-based instruction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326985ep3801_5

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K.
Affiliations
University of Tübingen (DE)
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Published
2003-01-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
33-41
ISSN
  • 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6985
OpenAlex
W2136090849
Cited by
176
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Educational Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
cognitive load theory, processing strategies, instructional design, learner control, teacher goals, learner goals, moderators

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review