DEVELOPING KNOWLEDGE RECODING ABILITY THROUGH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: A CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Keywords:
knowledge recoding; information technologies; multiple representations; cognitive load; generative learning; digital pedagogy; higher educationAbstract
The contemporary learning environment requires students not only to acquire information but also to reorganize it into forms that support understanding, retrieval, transfer, and practical use. This article conceptualizes knowledge recoding ability as the deliberate transformation of content from one representational format into another while preserving semantic accuracy and improving cognitive accessibility. Examples include converting prose into a concept map, a diagram into an explanatory text, a dataset into a visual model, or a theoretical rule into an algorithm or simulation. Drawing on dual coding theory, cognitive load theory, generative learning, self-explanation, retrieval practice, and research on multiple representations, the study proposes a five-stage pedagogical model: diagnosis, decomposition, representational translation, reconstruction, and verification-transfer. The framework integrates semantic, representational, technological, and metacognitive components and specifies instructional conditions for its development through digital tools. An analytic assessment rubric is also offered to evaluate semantic fidelity, structural coherence, representational suitability, technological execution, and reflective justification. The article argues that information technologies improve learning only when they are used as cognitive instruments rather than as decorative delivery channels. The proposed model can guide curriculum design, digital task construction, and teacher education in higher education settings, while also providing a basis for subsequent empirical validation.
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3
Craik, F. I. M., & 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
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning. Information Science Reference.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772-775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-33.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education - A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
