Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Theoretical and Metatheoretical Reframing of the Development of Cognitive Processing and Learning

  • REVIEW ARTICLE
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

The literature on cognitive processing and strategic processing is murky with regard to how these types of processing influence learning. One reason for this is that the frameworks used to investigate these relations have separately focused on different aspects related to cognitive processing with little integration between them. To address these issues, we discuss why this may have happened, and the obstacles to integrating multiple models, and give three exemplars of how integrated models can help untangle the relations between cognitive processing and learning. Specifically, we highlight the Model of Domain Learning, Self-regulated Learning, and Approaches to Learning. Our goal in developing these integrations is to provide researchers with a more complex, dynamic way to evaluate the role of cognition in learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References  

  • Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 273–298). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022185502996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asikainen, H., & Gijbels, D. (2017). Do students develop towards more deep approaches to learning during studies? A systematic review on the development of students’ deep and surface approaches to learning in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9406-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.

  • Box, G. E., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braasch, J. L. G., & Goldman, S. R. (2010). The role of prior knowledge in learning from analogies in science texts. Discourse Processes, 47(6), 447–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530903420960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L. (2017). Towards a dynamic, multidimensional model of strategic processing. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 235–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9407-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 499–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). A multidimensional investigation of deep-level and surface-level processing. Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 213–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.979126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., & Zoellner, B. P. (2018). The relation between cognitive and metacognitive strategic processing during science simulations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Hattan, C., & List, A. (2018). A meta-analysis of strategy use and performance in the Model of Domain Learning. In H. Fives & D. L. Dinsmore (Eds.), The Model of Domain Learning: Understanding the development of expertise (pp. 37–55). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. Croom Helm. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315718637

  • Fives, H., & Dinsmore, D. L. (Eds.) (2018). The model of domain learning: Understanding the development of expertise. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315458014

  • Freed, R., Greene, J. A., & Plumley, R. D. (2020). Variable-centered approaches. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of Strategies and Strategic Processing (pp. 345–360). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., & Shum, A. (2020). Person-centered approaches to explaining students’ cognitive processing strategies. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of Strategies and Strategic Processing (pp. 361–372). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., & Vermunt, J. D. (2018). Regulating approaches to learning: Testing learning strategy convergences across a year at university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fryer, L. K., Ginns, P., Walker, R. A., & Nakao, K. (2012). The adaptation and validation of the CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F to the Japanese tertiary environment: CEQ and the R-SPQ-2F in the Japanese tertiary environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02045.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & DeCaro, M. S. (2012). The effects of feedback during exploratory mathematics problem solving: Prior knowledge matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1094–1108. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334–372. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430303953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattan, C., Alexander, P. A., & Lupo, S. M. (2023). Leveraging what students know to make sense of texts: What the research says about prior knowledge activation. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221148478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich, R. (1975). Applied social psychology: The unfulfilled promise. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1(4), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727500100402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofweber, T. (2011). Logic and ontology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2014 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/logic-ontology/.

  • Lodewyk, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2009). Implications of task structure on self-regulated learning and achievement. Educational Psychology, 29(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02980.x

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning—II outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1976.tb02304.x

  • Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984). Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 36–55). Scottish Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, B. L. (1986). The role of the self-system in self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11(4), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(86)90028-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. (1934). An experimental study of the old and new types of examination: I The effect of the examination set on memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 25(9), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G. (1935). An experimental study of the old and new types of examination: II. Methods of study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 26(1): 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0050853

  • Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

  • Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

  • Pressley, M., Borkwski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1989). Good information processing: What it is and how education can promote it. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(8), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90069-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the academic environment. Higher Education, 8(4), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01680529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(3), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (1994). Cultural specificity of approaches to studying in higher education: A literature survey. Higher Education, 27, 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. T. E. (2015). Approaches to learning or levels of processing: What did Marton and Säljö (1976a) really say? The Legacy of the Work of the Göteborg Group in the 1970s. Interchange, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9251-9

  • Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 271–295). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steup, M. (2014). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/epistemology/.

  • Terry, P. W. (1933). How students review for objective and essay tests. The Elementary School Journal, 33(8), 592–603. https://doi.org/10.1086/456929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. Guilford Publications.

  • Treisman, A. M. (1964). Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, 20, 12–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76(3), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. Zimmerman, & D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 289–307). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dean’s Office, University of North Florida, Bldg 57, Suite 3600, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    Daniel L. Dinsmore

  2. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Luke K. Fryer

  3. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Denis G. Dumas

Authors
  1. Daniel L. Dinsmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luke K. Fryer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Denis G. Dumas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel L. Dinsmore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Topical Collection on Hybridizing Motivational Strains.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dinsmore, D.L., Fryer, L.K. & Dumas, D.G. A Theoretical and Metatheoretical Reframing of the Development of Cognitive Processing and Learning. Educ Psychol Rev 35, 66 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09789-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09789-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation