Understanding Cognitive Profiles in Designing Personalized Learning Environments

  • Arif AltunEmail author
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


Understanding the learners’ cognitive characteristics and designing the personalized learning environments accordingly is quite a challenging task. Although various models and frameworks have been proposed when designing adaptive environments, it is less understood how these cognitive characteristics are determined and how different personal characteristics change when exposed to various media and design choices. Therefore, this chapter first aims to introduce neuropsychological tests and their potential uses in determining cognitive profiles. Secondly, existing research will be reviewed to discuss how those individual cognitive characteristics yield different results while interacting with the content. Finally, some recommendations will be made for further research.


Neuropsychological tests Cognitive profiles Instructional design Attention Memory Navigation Personalized learning environments 



I would like to thank anonymous referees and C. Pollack at GSE at Harvard University for their valuable feedback.


  1. Altun, A. (2012). Ontologies for personalization: a new challenge for instructional designers. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64(9), 691–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altun, A., & Kaya, G. (2014). Development and evaluation of an ontology based navigation tool with learning objects for educational purposes. In R. Huang, Kinshuk & N.-S. Chen (Eds.), The New Development of Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 147–162): Springer: Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aşkar, P., Altun, A., Cangöz, B., Çevik, V., Kaya, G., & Türksoy, H. (2010). Reliability and validity of computerized line orientation and enhanced cued recall test for educational purposes. Presented at Neuroscience and Education 2010 Meeting of the EARLI SIG 22, June 3–5, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  5. Aşkar, P., Altun, A., Cangöz, B., Çevik, V., Kaya, G., & Türksoy, H. (2012). A comparison of paper-and-pencil and computerized forms of line orientation and enhanced cued recall tests. Psychological Reports, 110(2), 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cangöz, B., & Altun, A. (2012). The effects of hypertext structure, presentation and instruction types on perceived disorientation and recall performances. Contemporary Educational Technology, 3(2), 81–89.Google Scholar
  7. De Beni, R., Pazzaglia, F., & Gardini, S. (2006). The role of mental rotation and age in spatial perspective-taking tasks: when age does not impair perspective-taking performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devedzic, V. (2006). Semantic Web and Education. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  9. Despotović-Zrakić, M., Marković, A., Bogdanović, Z., Barać, D., & Krčo, S. (2012). Providing adaptivity in moodle LMS courses. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 326–338.Google Scholar
  10. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: a review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 1616–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Essalmi, F., Jemni Ben Ayed, L., Jemni, M., Kinshuk, & Graf, S. (2010). A fully personalization strategy of E-learning scenarios. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 581–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fay, S., Isingrini, M., Ragot, R., & Pouthas, V. (2005). The effect of encoding manipulation on word-stem cued recall: an event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 615–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallagher, P., Neave, N., Hamilton, C., & Gray, J. M. (2006). Sex differences in object location memory: some further methodological considerations. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2013). Dynamic student modelling of learning styles for advanced adaptivity in learning management systems. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change (IJISSC), 4(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graf, P., & Schacter, D. L. (1985). Implicit and explicit memory for new associations in normal and amnesic subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(3), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henze, N., Dolog, P., & Nejdl, W. (2004) Reasoning and ontologies for personalized E-learning in the semantic web. Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 82–97.Google Scholar
  17. Ilgaz, H., Altun, A., & Aşkar, P. (2014). The effect of sustained attention level and contextual cueing on implicit memory performance for e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IMS. (2001). IMS Global Learning Consortium Inc., Learner Information Package (LIP) Final Specification v1.0. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from,
  19. Kaya, G., & Altun, A. (2011) A learner model for learning object based personalized learning environments. In E. García-Barriocanal, Z. Cebeci, M. C. Okur, A. Öztürk (Eds.), Metadata and Semantic Research, vol. 240, pp. 349–355.Google Scholar
  20. Karampiperis, P., & Sampson, D. (2005). Adaptive learning resources sequencing in educational hypermedia systems. Educational Technology and Society, 8(4), 128–147.Google Scholar
  21. Kessels, R. P., Nys, G. M., Brands, A. M., Van den Berg, E., & Van Zandvoort, M. J. (2006). The modified location learning test: Norms for the assessment of spatial memory function in neuropsychological patients. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(8), 841–846.Google Scholar
  22. Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kinshuk, Chang M., Graf S., & Yang G. (2010). Adaptivity and Personalization in Mobile Learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 8 (2), 163–174.Google Scholar
  24. Kozhevnikov, M., & Hegarty, M. (2001). A dissociation between object manipulation spatial ability and spatial orientation ability. Memory and Cognition, 29, 745–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Köseoğlu, P., Mazman, S. G., Altun, A., & Efendioğlu, A. (2013). Learning from animation: smooth pursuits of synaptic transmission of an impulse with contextual cues. World Journal on Educational Technology., 5(2), 238–247.Google Scholar
  26. Lezak, M. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Li, M., Ogata, H., Hou, B., Uosaki, N., & Mouri, K. (2013). Context-aware and personalization method in ubiquitous learning log system. Educational Technology and Society, 16(3), 362–373.Google Scholar
  28. Light, L. L., Prull, M. W., LaVoie, D. J., & Healy, M. R. (2000). Dual-process theories of memory in old age. In T. J. Perfect & E. A. Maylor (Eds.), Models of cognitive aging: debates in psychology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mazman, G. Z., & Altun, A. (2013). Individual differences in spatial orientation performances: an eye tracking study. World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(2), 266–280.Google Scholar
  30. Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Altun, A. (2012).The effect of multimedia design types on learners’ recall performances with varying short term memory spans. Multimedia Tools and Applications, doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-1257-z Google Scholar
  31. Oulasvirta, A., Kärkkäinen, L., & Laarni, J. (2005). Expectations and memory in link search. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Papanikolaou, K. A., Grigoriadou, M., Magoulas, G. D., & Kornilakis, H. (2002). Towards new forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of a web-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 39, 333–360.Google Scholar
  33. Sampson, D., Karagiannidis, C., & Kinshuk. (2002). Personalized learning: Educational, technological and standardization perspective. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 4, 24–39.Google Scholar
  34. Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: history and current status. Journal of experimental psychology. learning, memory, and cognition, 13(3), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Silverman, I., & Eals, M. (1992). Sex differences in spatial abilities: evolutionary theory and data. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 533–549). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Spector, J. M. (2013). Emerging educational technologies and research directions. Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 21–30.Google Scholar
  37. Spiers, M. V., Sakamoto, M., Elliott, R. J., & Baumann, S. (2008). Sex differences in spatial object-location memory in a virtual grocery store. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 471–473.Google Scholar
  38. Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991). A Compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tseng, S. S., Su, J. M., Hwang, G. J., Hwang, G. H., Tsai, C. C., & Tsai, C. J. (2008). An object-oriented course framework for developing adaptive learning systems. Educational Technology and Society, 11(2), 171–191.Google Scholar
  40. Uz, Ç., & Altun, A. (2014). Object location memory and sex difference: implications on static vs. dynamic navigation environments. Journal of Cognitive Science, 14, 27–56.Google Scholar
  41. Yan, Z., & Fischer, K. W. (2002). Always under construction: dynamic variations in adult cognitive development. Human Development, 45, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang, T.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Yang, S. J.-H. (2013). Development of an adaptive learning system with multiple perspectives based on students’ learning styles and cognitive styles. Educational Technology and Society, 16(4), 185–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies BeytepeHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations