Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Risk Perception of Smoking after the Implementation of California’s Tobacco 21 Law
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Citizen Epidemic Prevention Information Literacy in the Post-Epidemic Era in Mainland China
Previous Article in Journal
Applying OHSA to Detect Road Accident Blackspots
Previous Article in Special Issue
Navigating through COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Implementing Quality Teaching and Learning for Higher Education Programmes: A Document Analysis Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416972
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

ADIDAS: An Examined Approach for Enhancing Cognitive Load and Attitudes towards Synchronous Digital Learning Amid and Post COVID-19 Pandemic

by
Mostafa Aboulnour Salem
1,* and
Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih
2,3,*
1
Deanship of Development and Quality Assurance, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2
Management Department, College of Business Administration, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3
Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University, Cairo 12612, Egypt
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16972; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416972
Submission received: 6 December 2022 / Revised: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 14 December 2022 / Published: 17 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Education and Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has disrupted university education and turned it into distance learning for at least one semester in many countries, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). However, there was an issue with university students’ cognitive load at this critical time, because education totally stopped for about a month and then resumed remotely. This research draws on the cognitive load theory, particularly the extraneous load, to develop an instructional design model called ADIDAS. The model includes six stages, namely: analyse (A), design (D), improve (I), do (D), Assess (A), and Share (S). Thirty-four experts in instructional technology models have reviewed the ADIDAS model in Arab university contexts, producing a consensus about its suitability for use in distance learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the consensus of the experts, the model was applied to a sample of 527 students at King Faisal University, KSA. The results confirmed significant statistical differences with a very large effect size in relation to the attitude towards synchronous digital learning (SDL) and cognitive load pre and post ADIDAS. Students had a positive attitude towards SDL and a low cognitive load during the educational process pre adoption of the ADIDAS model, compared to post ADIDAS. The current research results have numerous implications for post the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in Arab countries and similar contexts.

1. Introduction

Due to the impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), like many other nations worldwide, has shifted from traditional learning, i.e., face-to-face, to synchronous digital learning (SDL), with virtual classrooms using numerous tools, e.g., Blackboard Collaborate, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, and social media in some cases [1,2,3]. Before COVID-19, in the KSA, utilizing SDL in the higher education context was limited to some courses [4,5]. Furthermore, numerous studies have highlighted the various benefits of SDL: enhancing learning outcomes, learning satisfaction, learning performance, learning motivation, and positive attitudes towards education [6,7,8]. Amid COVID-19, in the first quarter of 2020, in a short time, the Ministry of Education in the KSA instructed all universities to turn all traditional classroom courses from a face-to-face setting to an online one [9]. Due to the sudden shift to SDL, educators were forced to utilise SDL as the sole tool for teaching and learning communication with their students [10]. Thus, this became a daunting job for educators who had presented and developed their courses remotely with individual efforts [11].
Accordingly, digital learning was expected to significantly improve cognitive achievement, skills, competencies, attitudes, and learning outcomes for higher education students during COVID-19 [12]. Conversely, recent studies in many countries showed adverse SDL influences amid COVID-19 among educators and students in higher education; for example, in the Philippines, students experienced different drawbacks to learning online issues such as low cognitive achievement, insufficient skills, and negative attitudes [13,14]. In China, research results showed a significant lack of students’ extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, and deep cognitive engagement [15,16]. In Pakistan, educators experienced various constraints in executing their duties and responsibilities amid COVID-19, which affected learning outcomes [17,18]. In India, the usage of SDL during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the lack of skills, time management, the lack of infrastructure/resources, poor communication at various levels, negative attitude, and student engagement [19]. In Saudi Arabia, despite the availability of an excellent technological infrastructure, investigators have reported on several of the adverse influences of SDL among higher education students amid COVID-19: low self-efficacy, lack of engagement and motivation, negative attitudes, cognitive load, and absence of goals [4,20,21]; also, they students mainly concerned about passing exams amid this educational situation [22].
Moreover, several studies [23,24] showed that synchronous digital learning (SDL) is often undertaken without fully considering the students’ cognitive load, which may lead to decreased competencies, the inability to retain and understand information, the absence of mental goals, and increased negative attitudes. Correspondingly, cognitive load depends on the chosen method of presenting information, student motivation, student involvement, and academic concern [25]. According to Chandler and Sweller [26], cognitive load refers to the method in which cognitive mental resources are focused and employed through learning and problem solving. Skulmowski and Xu [27] added that cognitive load is a consequence of the learning path and the critical factors determining the learning outcomes. Therefore, a student feels cognitive load when they cannot process the information and knowledge received during learning [28]. Hence, understanding occurs when all learning elements related to the educational contents are processed simultaneously by the working memory [26]. Consequently, if the educational contents have multiple factors that cannot be processed simultaneously in the working memory, the learning situation becomes challenging and is not understood, and cognitive load is formed [29]. Thus, higher education educators should enhance mental load distribution during SDL [30].
In addition, there are two categories of cognitive load: intrinsic and extraneous; both have implications for teaching, and educators can avoid the former and reduce the latter [26,27]. Moreover, intrinsic cognitive load (ICL) refers to the number of learning elements and the degree of interactivity required by the learning materials [29]; just how many cognitive features must be processed simultaneously for schema construction or element interactivity depends on the relational complexity of the learning content and a learner’s schema [28]. In contrast, extraneous cognitive load (ECL) is caused by an unneeded increase in the number of learning elements that must be processed simultaneously in the working memory [27]. Moreover, most of the articles on cognitive load theory have focused on the fact that cognitive load can be reduced by organizing vast amounts of previous information from the long-term memory to reduce the burden on the working memory and, thus, lower cognitive load [27,31]. Moreover, recent articles have pointed out that the cognitive load theory deals with aspects of learning and problem-solving difficulty that instructional design models can control [32,33]. In addition, instructional design models (IDMs) aim to optimise learning processes [34]. Thus, the central role of IDMs is processing learners’ knowledge construction individually, depending on the simple tasks to be solved [32]. However, IDMs are based on the given goals, learning tasks, learning materials, and activation of the learner’s cognitive processes to invest effort into learning [35,36]. Therefore, the current article focused on the proposed instructional design model (ADIDAS) to enhance learning, eliminate redundant materials, and arrange information to avoid splitting the learner’s attention, through which it is possible to reduce the cognitive load of higher education students during SDL.
Instructional design is the science and art of developing, evaluating, and maintaining learning situations that facilitate and improve teaching performance using IDMs [37]. In addition, numerous studies have benefited from instructional design during the COVID-19 pandemic [32,35]. Hence, adopting instructional design models is still one of the best practices to be mastered by higher education educators, especially during online learning amid global health emergencies, i.e., COVID-19 [38,39]. The approach of educational design has gradually evolved, observing a shift from a traditional prescriptive, normative definition to the current one based on diverse systems that are antipathetic to unique recipes and stringent specifications [35]. IDMs direct organized planning for learning elements (contents, activities, assessments, and others) [39]. Additionally, IDMs need a symmetry of sense and intuition, momentum to perform, and an ability to reflect on the accepted actions [29]. In general, all instructional design approaches depend on (at least) five significant steps: (1) analysis of the setting and student needs; (2) design of a bunch of specifications for an influential and applicable learning environment; (3) development of contents, activities, assess, and learners; (4) implementation of learning methods and strategies; (5) evaluation of all results [34,36,40]. In typical situations, besides the educators, the implementation of instructional design requires the presence of at least two people: (1) the instructional designer who designs the storyboard and (2) the e-learning developer who converts the developed storyboard into a product [34].
Many articles have examined the multiple IDMs that educators can use to deliver SDL amid COVID-19 [32,35,37]. According to Sangsawang [32], university educators’ adoption of IDMs could prioritise their students’ needs, feelings, and challenges with the IDMs’ designs during the transition amid COVID-19. According to Wang [37], utilising an instructional design model enhances adaptability and good planning, emphasising what it takes for an educator to serve their students. According to Hanafi, Yusuf et al. [41] and Xie [42], university educators’ adoption of IDMs improved students’ satisfaction with distance learning and enriched courses through extra activities. Though several studies have been conducted on IDMs and cognitive load among higher education students, especially in the context of Arab counties such as KSA, a lack of studies have been undertaken regarding educators’ utilisation of instructional design to address cognitive load among higher education students during synchronous digital learning amid COVID-19.
The current study has two main objectives. First, it develops a new instructional design model for higher education educators to create positive attitudes towards SDL and enhance cognitive load amid global health emergencies, i.e., COVID-19. This novel instructional model is called ADIDAS, which will be discussed later, and has been examined by experts. Second, the study also examines the newly developed model with a sample of undergraduate students and compares their attitudes towards SDL and cognitive load pre and post ADIDAS. Therefore, the current study endeavours to answer two main questions. First, what is the ADIDAS model structure that educators can adopt for SDL amid emergencies, i.e., COVID-19? Second, to what extent does the ADIDAS model make a difference in attitudes towards SDL and cognitive load among higher education students amid emergencies, i.e., COVID-19, compared to pre-pandemic circumstances?
Our hypotheses are that (1) there are significant differences in cognitive load among higher education students, pre and post ADIDAS-model adoption amid COVID-19, and (2) there are significant differences in attitudes towards SDL among higher education students, pre and post ADIDAS-model adoption amid COVID-19.

2. Methodology

2.1. Development of ADIDAS Model

To develop a draft of the ADIDAS model and answer the first research question, the literature review related to digital learning, especially amid COVID-19, instructional design models, and cognitive load as well as learning theories from various databases that we have reviewed and analysed (see Appendix A). After screening the literature, we focused our analysis on the ADDIE model [43], interaction analysis model (IAM) [44], and model of self-regulated learning (SRL) [45] to develop the first draft of the ADIDAS model.
The ADDIE model is a systematic, practical heuristic framework for synchronous online learning course development, which opens perfect possibilities and gives good outcomes. The IAM is one of the most frequently used instruments in the study of knowledge construction, and the extent of its use makes it one of the most coherent. Models of SRL depict learning as an activity that a learner self-regulates, whether learning alone (unsupervised) or in the presence of instructors or peers (supervised). These models were chosen to develop the first draft of ADIDAS. These models helped us to develop the ADIDAS model to achieve SDL goals, making it more interactive. They helped us apply the educational theories through SDL and optimal investment of learning elements, making the learner focus and rely on their efforts, raising the learner’s motivation, and providing sufficient space for the learner to interact with the learning elements. This motivates the learner to be creative and innovate and, thus, able to achieve comprehensive evaluation. Additionally, the ADIDAS model was based on the cognitive load theory [26]. Cognitive load theory ensures that learners acquire sufficient information and have secure dealing with novel information not to cause cognitive overload. It also considered Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory [45] and the sociocultural constructivist learning theory [46].
The ADIDAS model was directed to 50 expert specialists in instructional technology, digital learning, cognitive psychology, and information technology in Middle Eastern countries. The purpose of this was to examine the validity of utilizing SDL. It is worth noting that responses were collected from only 34 experts, as 16 did not respond. The profile of these respondents is shown in Table 1. Experts were identified through personal networks and recommendations from different colleagues.
The procedures yielded 49 items with five dimensions, guiding the learning practices that help educators to provide SDL with low cognitive load. Each dimension of six constructs contained four factors: D1: learners/recipients (L), D2: the content of learning (C), D3: technology/apps (T), D4: evaluation (E), and D5: reviewing/modification (R). The 49 items that were included within the ADIDAS model for representing six constructs: Analyse (A) (9 items, α = 0.854); Design (D) (8 items, α = 0.862); Improve (I) (8 items, α = 0.799); Do (D) (10 items, α = 0.857); Assess (A) (9 items, α = 0.7986); Share (S) (5 items, α = 0.814). (See Figure 1 and Table 2). In Table 2, we explain the dimensions of the models and factors of each dimension as well as the items (with their original sources).
The ADIDAS model was circulated via experts’ private e-mails and social media on 1 October 2020 and maintained for three weeks. Day to day, the investigators reviewed and observed the responses. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the ADIDAS factors’ reliability.

2.2. Cognitive Load Scale

The procedures yielded 16 items with three factors measuring the students’ cognitive load. The scale showed good reliability and was derived from [29,30,48]. The 16 items that comprised the questionnaire for the study represent three factors: main cognitive load (6 items, α = 0.871), extraneous cognitive load (5 items, α = 0.793), and closely related cognitive load (5 items, α = 0.801). Each item was operationalised on a five-interval Likert scale, with students selecting one of five options to indicate the degree to which they reflect their cognitive load.

2.3. Attitude Scale

The procedures yielded 10 items with three factors measuring the students’ attitudes towards synchronous digital learning (SDL). The scale showed good reliability and was derived from [49,50]. The 10 items that comprised the questionnaire for the study represent three factors: knowledge development (3 items, α = 0.779), skills development (3 items, α = 0.832), and learning attitudes (4 items, α = 0.824). Each item was operationalised on a five-interval Likert scale, with students selecting one of five options to indicate the degree to which they reflect their attitude.

2.4. Research Population and Sample

The research population included all university students enlisted in King Faisal University (KFU) colleges in Al-Ahsaa, Eastern Province, KSA. The colleges at KFU relied considerably on online platforms and virtual classrooms to manage content, lectures, and exams amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirteen educators at King Faisal University were trained to utilise the ADIDAS model for SDL. The research team targeted 600 participating students, concerning their perceptions of cognitive load and attitudes towards SDL before and after using the ADIDAS model. According to Hill [51], the sample size calculation must be based on the total number of items, which should be at least five responses for each item. The items used in the current study were 49; hence, the sample should not be less than 245 responses. Furthermore, Muthén [52] added that a sample should be more than 150. In this research, our sample size was appropriate, since there were 527 valid responses for analysis.
In total, 527 valid responses from students were received. Most students in the group were female (77.61% females, 22.39% males). Most respondents were between 18 and 20 (98.4%), and 6.7% of students had never used technology as an educational tool.
The educators provided the surveys to students via their private networks, i.e., WhatsApp, email, etc.. There was no power bias or authority over students. They were informed that the survey was just for scientific research and that their responses would be unidentified. Participants were voluntary and unnamed, and all the essential safeguards were utilised on site to assure data confidentiality. All personally identifiable information about participants was removed from the publicly available analysis, to ensure that answers could not be recognised. Further, distinct items such as name, age, etc., were optional.

2.5. Data Collection and Analysis

This research adopted a quantitative research methodology to develop the model and examine its effects on students’ cognitive load and attitudes towards SDL. The experts’ responses regarding the model were analysed and are presented in Table 1. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the profile as well as cognitive load and attitudes towards SDL items. The responses of students, in relation to students’ cognitive load and attitudes towards SDL before and after the adoption of the ADIDAS model, were analysed by paired sample t-test using SPSS version 25. Eta squared was adopted to test the effect size. This gives a sign of the size of the variances between pre- and post-ADIDAS model adoption.

3. Results

3.1. Students’ Cognitive Load

To answer the second research question and examine the first research hypothesis, a comparison was made between pre- and post-ADIDAS adoption. First, descriptive statistics was adopted to analyse this using mean and standard deviation (Table 3). The results showed that the mean for pre-model adoption was between 1.403 (S.D. 0.586) and 1.504 (S.D. 0.616). On the other side, the mean for post-model adoption was between 4.184 (S.D. 0.917) and 4.534 (S.D. 0.784). These results show a significant difference between the pre- and post-ADIDAS model, which will be examined using the paired sample t-test.
Table 4 compares the three domains of cognitive load (CL): main (CL), extraneous (CL), and closely related (CL) pre and post implementation of the ADIDAS model. The results of the paired sample t-test showed significant differences in the three cognitive loads: main (CL), extraneous (CL), and closely related (CL) between pre-model and post-model adoption. Students achieved better results and had lower levels in the three domains of cognitive load after the implementation of the ADIDAS model. Students’ cognitive load (CL) pre-model adoption has the information presented density, traditional teaching methods, provided unnecessary information, and non-related activities; these did not contribute to the learning process. The effect size was very large, as confirmed by eta squared (Table 4); this means that the difference between pre- and post-model adoption was very large. Indeed, the better results were for post-model adoption (see Table 4). This supports the first research hypothesis (H1).

3.2. Students’ Attitude towards Synchronous Digital Learning

To answer the second research question and examine the second research hypothesis, a comparison was undertaken between pre- and post-model adoption. First, descriptive statistics was adopted to analyse this using mean and standard deviation (Table 5). The results showed that the mean for pre-model adoption varies between 1.452 (S.D. 0.570) and 1.474 (S.D. 0.609). Conversely, the mean post-model adoption varies between 4.272 (S.D. 0.883) and 4.283 (S.D. 0. 893). These results show a significant difference between pre- and post-model adoption, which will be examined using the paired sample t-test.
Table 6 compares attitudes towards synchronous digital learning (SDL): knowledge development, skills development, and learning attitudes before and after the implementation of the ADIDAS model. The paired sample t-test showed significant differences in students’ attitudes towards SDL between pre-model and post-model adoptions. After implementing the ADIDAS model, students’ attitude synchronous digital learning SDL was positive compared to pre-model adoption. There was a lot of improvement in knowledge development, skills development, and learning attitude post-model adoption, compared to pre-model adoption. The effect size was very large, as confirmed by eta squared (Table 6); this means that the difference between pre- and post-model adoption was very large. Indeed, better results in attitude towards SDL were posted for the model adoption. This supports the second research hypothesis (H2).

4. Discussions

The current study was set to achieve two main objectives. Firstly, it was set to develop an instructional design model to create positive attitudes towards SDL and enhance cognitive load among higher education students amid COVID-19. Secondly, it examined the newly developed model with a sample of undergraduate students and compared their attitudes towards SDL and cognitive load pre and post adoption of the new model. The study was conducted on undergraduate students at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the results showed significant statistical differences in cognitive load and attitude towards SDL post adoption of the ADIDAS model compared to pre-model adoption. These results are consistent with previous studies [25,53], which show that cognitive load and attitude towards SDL depend on the chosen method of presenting information, student motivation, and involvement in the learning process.
The results confirmed that SDL amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as provided by the ADIDAS model, enriched the educational environment. The ADIDAS model provided appropriate methods for presenting and organising content, which reduced students’ cognitive load and increased levels of mental achievement, consistent with previous studies [25,47]. The ADIDAS model was based on the ADDIE model, which has been built according to the cognitive load theory; the information display methods and diversity of SDL gave the learners the necessary information to exclude redundant and repetitive activities unrelated to the content, which are regular in studies [28,31]. Furthermore, the transformation of learners from mere recipients of information contributed to alleviating the accidental cognitive load on working memory, increasing the learning process, and continuing to focus their attention. This increased memory capacity and facilitated understanding of the information presented to the students, keeping it in their memory, which is similar to the results of other studies [27,53]. Moreover, the ADIDAS model was designed according to Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory principles and modern instructional models, which were created during COVID-19, that ensured effective learning and enhanced mental load distribution during SDL. Accordingly, the students had low cognitive load levels while learning within the ADIDAS model [43,44].
Additionally, the results show that the students taught by the ADIDAS model intend to use this learning type in the future, which agrees with other studies [28,48]. Therefore, the ADIDAS model has drawn on the interaction analysis model (IAM), which can explain why distance learning attracts students’ attention, offers an effective learning environment, and increases students’ motivation to learn the topics, all of which is compatible with other studies [27,30]. Likewise, the underlying reason that turned students’ attitudes positive may be that students came across a different education style other than the traditional SDL and interacted with their educators, peers, and content, which matches with other studies [29,47]. The ADIDAS model enabled students to engage more in an interactive learning environment with learners, content, evaluation, and technology, which is consistent with sociocultural constructivist learning theory [32,54]. Moreover, the ADIDAS model has been built according to self-regulated learning (SRL) models, which helped to direct the students’ attention selectively by providing more engaging and interactive learning elements that increased the positive attitudes among students, which is compatible with previous studies [36,37].
The current article includes some limitations that could be handled in future exertions, including the relationship between synchronous digital learning (SDL) sustainability and cognitive load and attitudes towards digital learning among higher education students in the KSA. This would include that the data were assembled solely from a tiny sample of students in higher education institutions in the KSA. The findings’ generalisability to elsewhere in the Gulf, the Middle East, or another geographical location should be approached with caution. Likewise, this article applied the quantitative analysis method, so future research could integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches to discover further reasons for and associations between the suggested factors. In addition, the effect of other mediating and moderating variables (students’ gender or educators’ experience, competencies, skills, digitalisation, etc.) can be combined in future research.

5. Conclusions

The present research developed a new instructional design model, entitled ADIDAS, and reviewed it with experts in the Arab countries’ context. The model has been provided to higher education educators as a guide for delivering SDL during emergencies, i.e., amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The model was applied for SDL amid the COVID-19 pandemic on 527 students in the colleges of KFU, KSA. The results showed that the students’ cognitive load and attitudes towards SDL were better after adopting the ADIDAS model. There were significant differences pre- and post-model adoption, and the size difference between pre- and post-model adoption was very large. The results for post-model adoption were better. The results confirmed a lower level of cognitive load and a positive attitude towards the use of SDL after the ADIDAS model. The use of instructional design models such as the ADIDAS model for SDL contributes to digital learning sustainability amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; methodology, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; software, M.A.S.; validation, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; formal analysis, M.A.S.; investigation, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; resources, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; data curation, M.A.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; writing—review and editing, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; visualisation, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; supervision, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; project administration, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S.; funding acquisition, M.A.S. and A.E.E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported through the Annual Funding track by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (project number: GRANT13).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research Ethical Committee, King Faisal University (project number: GRANT13; date of approval: 1 February 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through email.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. PRISMA Flow Diagram

Ijerph 19 16972 g0a1 550
Figure A1. The process of literature review to develop the model.
Figure A1. The process of literature review to develop the model.
Ijerph 19 16972 g0a1
Inclusion/exclusion criteria: Please note that the final review included articles published in English and excluded articles published in Arabic. Additionally, it included articles related to online learning in undergraduate higher education and excluded articles about other educational grades. Likewise, it included articles that related to the ADDIE model, interaction analysis model (IAM), and models of self-regulated learning (SRL), while excluding instructional design models. Hence, it included articles on using instructional design models, while excluding others. Furthermore, it included articles on enhancing cognitive load in online learning, while excluding others. Furthermore, it included articles on cognitive load theory, Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory, and the sociocultural constructivist learning theory, while excluding other learning theories’ articles.

References

  1. Abdulrahim, H.; Mabrouk, F. COVID-19 and the Digital Transformation of Saudi Higher Education. Asian J. Distance Educ. 2020, 15, 291–306. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Hasanein, A.M.; Abu Elnasr, A.E. Responses to COVID-19 in higher education: Social media usage for sustaining formal academic communication in developing countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Palla, I.A.; Baquee, A. Social Media Use in E-Learning amid COVID 19 Pandemic: Indian Students’ Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Salem, M.A.; Alsyed, W.H.; Elshaer, I.A. Before and Amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Self-Perception of Digital Skills in Saudi Arabia Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Alenezi, A.M.; Salem, M.A. Implementation of smartphones, tablets and their applications in the educational process management at Northern Border University. Int. J. Educ. Sci. 2017, 18, 56–64. [Google Scholar]
  6. Linjawi, A.I.; Alfadda, L.S. Students’ perception, attitudes, and readiness toward online learning in dental education in Saudi Arabia: A cohort study. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2018, 9, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Al-Harbi, K.A.-S. E-Learning in the Saudi tertiary education: Potential and challenges. Appl. Comput. Inform. 2011, 9, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Alanazy, S.M. Factors Affecting Faculty Attitude for Adopting Online Learning at Aljouf University, Saudi Arabia. J. Educ. Learn. 2018, 7, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Aladsani, H.K. A narrative approach to university instructors’ stories about promoting student engagement during COVID-19 emergency remote teaching in Saudi Arabia. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2022, 54, S165–S181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alhusban, H. A Novel Synchronous Hybrid Learning Method: Voices from Saudi Arabia. EJEL 2022, 20, 400–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alshammari, R. Adopting Remote Teaching in the Time of COVID-19: Challenges and Opportunities. Arab World Engl. J. (AWEJ) 2021, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al-Nofaie, H. Saudi University Students’ perceptions towards virtual education During Covid-19 PANDEMIC: A case study of language learning via Blackboard. Arab World Engl. J. (AWEJ) 2020, 11, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oducado, R.M.F.; Soriano, G.P. Shifting the education paradigm amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Nursing students’ attitude to E learning. Afr. J. Nurs. Midwifery 2021, 23, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  14. Catacutan-Bangit, A.E.; Bringula, R.P.; Ulfa, S. Predictors of Online Academic Self-Concept of Computing Students. In Proceedings of the TENCON 2021–2021 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), Auckland, New Zealand, 7–10 December 2021; pp. 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mok, K.H.; Xiong, W.; Bin Aedy Rahman, H.N. COVID-19 pandemic’s disruption on university teaching and learning and competence cultivation: Student evaluation of online learning experiences in Hong Kong. Int. J. Chin. Educ. 2021, 10, 22125868211007011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hong, J.-C.; Lee, Y.-F.; Ye, J.-H. Procrastination predicts online self-regulated learning and online learning ineffectiveness during the coronavirus lockdown. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 174, 110673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Mushtaque, I.; Awais-E-Yazdan, M.; Waqas, H. Technostress and medical students’ intention to use online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan: The moderating effect of computer self-efficacy. Cogent Educ. 2022, 9, 2102118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ansar, F.; Ali, W.; Khattak, A.; Naveed, H.; Zeb, S. Undergraduate students’ perception and satisfaction regarding online learning system amidst COVID-19 Pandemic in Pakistan. J. Ayub. Med. Coll. Abbottabad. 2020, 32, S644–S650. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nimavat, N.; Singh, S.; Fichadiya, N.; Sharma, P.; Patel, N.; Kumar, M.; Chauhan, G.; Pandit, N. Online medical education in India–different challenges and probable solutions in the age of COVID-19. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2021, 12, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moawad, R.A. Online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and academic stress in university students. Rev. Românească Pentru Educ. Multidimens. 2020, 12, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mahyoob, M. Challenges of e-Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic Experienced by EFL Learners. Arab World Engl. J. (AWEJ) 2020, 11, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hanafy, S.M.; Jumaa, M.I.; Arafa, M.A. A comparative study of online learning in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic versus conventional learning. Saudi Med. J. 2021, 42, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bahari, A. Challenges and Affordances of Cognitive Load Management in Technology-Assisted Language Learning: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2022, 39, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Choi, Y.; Lee, H. Psychometric Properties for Multidimensional Cognitive Load Scale in an E-Learning Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Afify, M.K. Effect of interactive video length within e-learning environments on cognitive load, cognitive achievement and retention of learning. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2020, 21, 68–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chandler, P.; Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Univ. Wollongong 1991, 8, 293–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Skulmowski, A.; Xu, K.M. Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 24, 171–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jiang, D.; Kalyuga, S. Confirmatory factor analysis of cognitive load ratings supports a two-factor model. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2020, 16, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schmeck, A.; Opfermann, M.; Van Gog, T.; Paas, F.; Leutner, D. Measuring cognitive load with subjective rating scales during problem solving: Differences between immediate and delayed ratings. Instr. Sci. 2015, 43, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Thees, M.; Kapp, S.; Altmeyer, K.; Malone, S.; Brünken, R.; Kuhn, J. Comparing two subjective rating scales assessing cognitive load During technology-enhanced STEM laboratory courses. In Recent Approaches for Assessing Cognitive Load from a Validity Perspective; Frontier in Education; Frontiers Media SA: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lizada, M.G.S.; RPm, M.; Lidres, K.A.S.; Montesclaros, R.P.C.; Paradero, K.; Torreon, C.R. The Effect of Adding Extraneous Cognitive Load to the Memory Retention of College Students; Ateneo de Davao University: Davao, Philippines, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sangsawang, T. An instructional design for online learning in vocational education according to a self-regulated learning framework for problem solving during the COVID-19 crisis. Indones. J. Sci. Technol. 2020, 5, 198–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Makransky, G.; Petersen, G.B. The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 937–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reigeluth, C.M. Instructional design: What is it and why is it. Instr.-Des. Theor. Model. Overv. Curr. Status 1983, 1, 3–36. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chaeruman, U.; Wibawa, B.; Syahrial, Z. Development of an instructional system design model as a guideline for lecturers in creating a course using blended learning approach. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Techonogies 2020, 14, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sweller, J. Instructional design. In Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 4159–4163. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, C.X. CAFE: An instructional design model to assist K-12 teachers to teach remotely during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. TechTrends 2021, 65, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Karakaya, K. Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: A human-centered approach. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Reyna, J. Twelve Tips for COVID-19 friendly learning design in medical education. MedEdPublish 2020, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yamani, H. A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Gamification in eLearning Systems Based on Instructional Design Model. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021, 16, 14–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hanafi, Y.; Murtadho, N.; Ikhsan, M.A.; Diyana, T.N. Reinforcing Public University Student’s Worship Education by Developing and Implementing Mobile-Learning Management System in the ADDIE Instructional Design Model. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020, 14, 215–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xie, J.; Gulilnna, A.; Rice, M.F. Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Educ. 2021, 42, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Elshaer, I.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E. FLOWER: An Approach for Enhancing E-Learning Experience Amid COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jiao, S.; Wang, J.; Ma, X.; You, Z.; Jiang, D. Motivation and Its Impact on Language Achievement: Sustainable Development of Ethnic Minority Students’ Second Language Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bernard, R.M.; Rubalcava, B.R.d. Collaborative online distance learning: Issues for future practice and research. Distance Educ. 2000, 21, 260–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Curelaru, M.; Curelaru, V.; Cristea, M. Students Perceptions of Online Learning during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Altinpulluk, H.; Kilinc, H.; Firat, M.; Yumurtaci, O. The influence of segmented and complete educational videos on the cognitive load, satisfaction, engagement, and academic achievement levels of learners. J. Comput. Educ. 2020, 7, 155–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Palinko, O.; Kun, A.L.; Shyrokov, A.; Heeman, P. Estimating cognitive load using remote eye tracking in a driving simulator. In Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium On Eye-Tracking Research & Applications, Austin, TX, USA, 22–24 March 2010; pp. 141–144. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sezer, B. Faculty of medicine students’ attitudes towards electronic learning and their opinion for an example of distance learning application. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 932–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hussein, E.; Daoud, S.; Alrabaiah, H.; Badawi, R. Exploring undergraduate students’ attitudes towards emergency online learning during COVID-19: A case from the UAE. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 119, 105699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hill, R. What sample size is “enough” in internet survey research. Interpers. Comput. Technol. Electron. J. 21st Century 1998, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  52. Muthén, B.; Asparouhov, T. Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociol. Methods Res. 2018, 47, 637–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Albus, P.; Vogt, A.; Seufert, T. Signaling in virtual reality influences learning outcome and cognitive load. Comput. Educ. 2021, 166, 104154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Singh, J.B.; Sharma, S.K.; Gupta, P. Physical learning environment challenges in the digital divide: How to design effective instruction during COVID-19? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2021, 48, 18. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 16972 g001 550
Figure 1. The ADIDAS model.
Figure 1. The ADIDAS model.
Ijerph 19 16972 g001
Table
Table 1. Experts’ demographical characteristics.
Table 1. Experts’ demographical characteristics.
Profile FrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male1647%
Female1853%
Country
Egypt1852.943%
Jordan721%
Saudi Arabia926.057%
Experts’ Speciality
Instructional technology1132.352%
Digital learning411.764%
Cognitive psychology926.473%
Information technology1029.411%
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the model factors (n = 34).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the model factors (n = 34).
DimensionFactorShortcutItems Min.Max.MS.DVIFsSkewnessKurtosis
Analyse
(A)		Learners (L)A_L_1Understand learners’ characteristics, behaviours, experiences, and skills [43,44].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Content (C)A_C_1Analyse the content into modules and determine each module’s provided time [43,44,45].354.9410.3434.598−0.5141.248
A_C_2Organise the objectives and learning outcomes into knowledge, skills, and competencies [43,44,45].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
A_C_3Determine the interactive learning methods and activities [27,45].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
Evaluation (E)A_E_1Determine the time and type of evaluation required: diagnostic, formative, structural, and collective, depending on the learner’s cognitive load and limited working memory [15,30].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
A_E_2Organise the assessment tools: quizzes, votes, skills observation, number of participations, self-evaluation, and peer evaluation [15,30].454.7650.4314.334−1.6390.984
Technology (T)A_T_1Determine the learning tools (platforms, hardware, and apps) that will be used synchronously and asynchronously [45,27].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
A_T_2Analyse the technical needs and barriers that learners may encounter [45].454.9410.2394.702−0.7391.352
Reviewing (R)A_R_1Choose the e-feedback styles during teaching [46].354.7350.5114.224−1.5540.874
Design
(D)		Learners (L)D_L_1Design the cognitive charts and mind maps (ABCD format) based on learners’ needs [43,44].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
Content (C)D_C_1Design the lesson elements, goals, and learning outcomes [27,45].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
D_C_2Arrange the active learning methods and teaching strategies that will be used [27,45].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
D_C_3Design the interactive activities that will be presented [27,45].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
Evaluation (E)D_E_1Design the assessment tools for each module (quizzes, surveys, exams, and assignments) [15,30].454.7650.4314.334−1.6390.984
Technology (T)D_T_1Design the communication groups and social networking groups, etc. [47].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
D_T_2Determine the technical alternatives to solve problems during the learning process [45].454.9410.2394.702−0.7391.352
Reviewing (R)D_R_1Design the feedback resources for correcting, motivating, supporting, etc. [46].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Improve
(I)		Learners (L)I_L_1Develop the content for communication with the learners/recipients [43,44].354.9410.3434.598−0.5141.248
I_L_2Start up social networking groups [3].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Content (C)I_C_1Develop interactive activities according to the specific active learning methods and the mind maps of the learning sequence [27,45].354.7650.4964.269−1.4230.919
I_C_2Organise and collect learning content into meaningful units according to educational goals and learning outcomes [27,45].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
Evaluation (E)I_E_1Develop evaluation tools for each module (quizzes, surveys, exams, and assignments) [15,30].454.7650.4314.334−1.6390.984
Technology (T)I_T_1Create the communication message and ads [45].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
I_T_2Test the technical alternatives [45].454.9410.2394.702−0.7391.352
Reviewing (R)I_R_1Develop the feedback resources [46].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
Do
(D)		Learners (L)D_L_1Send learners the ads and messages in the chronological order specified on the lesson map [43,44].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
D_L_2Record learners’ interactions during learning sessions (synchronously) and modules (asynchronously).454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Content (C)D_C_1Provide synchronous educational content due to virtual classrooms and virtual platforms for asynchronous [27,45].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
D_C_2Utilise the interactive activities that consider the learners’ behaviour [27,45].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
D_C_3Make sure to use active learning methods during learning sessions and units [27,45].454.7650.4314.334−1.6390.984
D_C_4Notify learners of learning resources such as websites, e-books, etc. [27,45].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
D_C_5Allow learners to think and work on their memories to do jobs [27].454.9410.2394.702−0.7391.352
Evaluation (E)D_E_1Provide evaluation tools (quizzes, surveys, exams, and assignments) for each session and module (do not move onto the next until completed) [15,30].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Technology (T)D_T_1Use e-learning tools and consider continuous verification of the communication [45,47].354.9410.3434.598−0.5141.248
Reviewing (R)D_R_1Provide feedback tools for each session and module (do not move onto the next until completed) [46].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Assess
(A)		Learners (L)A_L_1Evaluate the learners’ responses through social networks, platforms, virtual classrooms, activities, comments, answers, etc. [43,44].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
Content (C)A_C_1Assess the specified mind maps, achieved goals, and learning outcomes [27,45].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
A_C_2Assess the learning styles and specific interactive activities [27,45].354.7060.5244.182−1.6840.832
A_C_3Analyse the results from measuring the learners’ satisfaction with learning [45].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Evaluation (E)A_E_1Assess the results of the learners’ responses [15,30].354.8820.4094.473−0.8621.123
A_E_1Evaluate the results from measuring the learners’ satisfaction with learning [15,30].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
A_E_1Assess the impact of learning by measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of each lesson [15,30].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
Technology (T)A_T_1Assess the technology on the apps page to decide about continuing usage [45,47].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Reviewing (R)A_R_1Analyse the learning analytics [46].454.8240.3874.437−1.3681.087
Share
(S)		Learners (L)S_L_1Share the efforts of the top 10 learners during sessions or modules [43,44].454.9710.1714.799−0.5141.449
Content (C)S_C_1Record learning sessions (synchronously) and modules (asynchronously) [45].454.7650.4314.334−1.6390.984
Evaluation (E)S_E_1Share the evaluation results of assessment tools: quizzes, votes, skills observations, amount of participation, self-evaluation, and peer evaluation [15,30].454.7940.4104.384−1.5051.034
Technology (T)S_T_1Evaluate the results of e-learning tools (platforms, hardware, and apps) [45,47].454.9410.2394.702−0.7391.352
Reviewing (R)S_R_1Assess the top e-feedback styles during sessions or modules [46].354.9410.3434.598−0.5141.248
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students’ cognitive load pre- and post-ADIDAS model.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students’ cognitive load pre- and post-ADIDAS model.
Pre ADIDASCognitive Load Scale ItemsPost ADIDAS
MSDMSD
Main cognitive load
1.4030.573The amount of mental effort made while learning the content of this lesson.4.5240.787
1.4910.613The amount of interaction with the elements of the content of this lesson.4.1830.917
1.4030.573The number of content items that I had to absorb at one time while learning the content of this lesson.4.5240.796
1.5040.616The amount of difficulty I experienced while learning the content of this lesson.4.1840.918
1.4030.573The extent of the interrelationship between the elements of the content of this lesson.4.5220.796
1.4930.607The average number of information contained in one paragraph in this lesson.4.1830.917
Extraneous cognitive load
1.4020.586The amount of stress I experienced while learning this lesson.4.5340.784
1.4930.622The number of activities not directly related to the learning task experienced while learning this lesson.4.1910.913
1.4040.586The amount of frustration I experienced while learning this lesson.4.5340.779
1.4830.604How much inconvenience did you experience while learning this lesson?4.1940.915
1.4030.569The extent of mastery in the design and organisation of the content of this lesson.4.5330.777
Closely related cognitive load
1.4910.607The amount of mental effort made to understand and master the content of this lesson.4.1840.916
1.4030.569The extent of involvement in learning while learning the content of this lesson.4.5320.784
1.4940.607The amount of new information was able to link to old details while learning the content of this lesson.4.1840.916
1.4010.569The motivation to understand the content of this lesson.4.5320.784
1.4920.607How well can you provide an interpretation of what you have learned?4.1840.921
Table
Table 4. The results of paired sample t-test in relation to cognitive load.
Table 4. The results of paired sample t-test in relation to cognitive load.
Cognitive Load (CL)MNSDtdfPη2
Main CLpre1.4535270.434−85.1915260.0000.932
post4.3545270.616
Extraneous CLpre1.4435270.436−88.1105260.0000.936
post4.3925270.604
Closely related CLpre1.4535270.445−80.9885260.0000.925
post4.3245270.648
Table
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of students’ attitude towards SDL pre- and post-ADIDAS model.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of students’ attitude towards SDL pre- and post-ADIDAS model.
Pre ADIDASAttitude towards SDL Scale ItemsPost ADIDAS
MSDMSD
Knowledge development
1.4630.615I find that online learning helps me learn complex concepts.4.2720.891
1.4740.606I think online learning has reduced the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.4.2830.885
1.4720.618I do not trust online learning to complete lectures during the COVID-19 pandemic4.2740.894
Skills development
1.4610.583I see that online learning increases my interaction in lectures.4.2730.883
1.4520.570I think online learning gave me new learning skills.4.2730.888
1.4710.622I believe online learning has enabled me to learn a lot in a short time.4.2740.886
Larning attitudes
1.4740.609I think online learning is essential and indispensable even after the COVID-19 pandemic.4.2730.883
1.4710.606Learning in a traditional classroom is better than online distance learning.4.2740.884
1.4630.603I think the online learning method is better than the traditional method, and I would like it to continue.4.2740.887
1.4640.586I enjoy the online learning experience and want it to continue.4.2820.893
Table
Table 6. The results of paired sample t-test in relation to attitude towards SDL.
Table 6. The results of paired sample t-test in relation to attitude towards SDL.
Attitude Towards SDLMNSDtdfPη2
Knowledge developmentpre1.4735270.597−67.7355260.0000.897
post4.2725270.884
Skills developmentpre1.4615270.575−67.9665260.0000.897
post4.2715270.881
Learning attitudespre1.4745270.589−67.2945260.0000.895
post4.2735270.874
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salem, M.A.; Sobaih, A.E.E. ADIDAS: An Examined Approach for Enhancing Cognitive Load and Attitudes towards Synchronous Digital Learning Amid and Post COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416972

AMA Style

Salem MA, Sobaih AEE. ADIDAS: An Examined Approach for Enhancing Cognitive Load and Attitudes towards Synchronous Digital Learning Amid and Post COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416972

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salem, Mostafa Aboulnour, and Abu Elnasr E. Sobaih. 2022. "ADIDAS: An Examined Approach for Enhancing Cognitive Load and Attitudes towards Synchronous Digital Learning Amid and Post COVID-19 Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416972

APA Style

Salem, M. A., & Sobaih, A. E. E. (2022). ADIDAS: An Examined Approach for Enhancing Cognitive Load and Attitudes towards Synchronous Digital Learning Amid and Post COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16972. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416972

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop