Effects of multimodal information on learning performance and judgment of learning

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 349-362

  Chen, Gongxiang ^a   Fu, Xiaolan ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 1842664155     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/J54F-B24D-THN7-H9PH     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. (1998). Analyzing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In M. van Someren, E. Boshuizen, T. de Jong, & P. Reiman (Eds.), Multiple representations for problem solving and learning (pp. 103-208). London: Elsevier.
2. Alpert, M., & Raiffa, H. (1982). A progress report on the training of probability assessors. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
3. Askwall, S. (1985). Computer supported reading versus reading text on paper: A comparison of two reading situations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 425-439.
4. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417-423.
5. Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, R., Melnick, R., & Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610-632.
6. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
7. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233-246.
8. Claik, J. M., & Paivo, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149-210.
9. Dunlosky, J., & Matvey, G. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1180-1191.
10. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374-380.
11. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 545-565.
12. Ednerson, M., & Tumey, D. (1984). An experiment with speech on an electronic text service. Videodisc and Optical Disc, 4(4), 306-317.
13. Edwardson, M., Groms, D., & Pringle, P. (1976). Visualization and TV news information gain. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 20, 373-380.
14. Frank, J. D. (1935). Some psychological determinants of the level of aspiration. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 285-293.
15. Gerlič, I., & Jaušovec, N. (2001). Differences in EEG power and coherence measures related to the type of presentation: text versus multimedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 177-195.
16. Gunter, B. (1987). Poor reception: Misunderstanding and forgetting broadcast news. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Hegarty, M., & Steinhoff, K. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning, Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 19-42.
18. Hsia, H. J. (1969). Intelligence in auditory, visual, and audiovisual information processing. AV Communication Review, 17, 272-282.
19. Institute of Language Teaching and Research (1986). A frequency dictionary of Modern Chinese. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.
20. Kelemen, W. L., & Weaver III, C. A. (1997). Enhanced metamemory at delays: Why do judgments of learning improve over time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(6), 1394-1409.
21. Koriat, A. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 26, 349-370.
22. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
23. Leonesio, R. J., & Nelson, T. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 423-434.
24. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. S. (1977). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Mason, B. J., Patry, M., & Bernstein, D. J. (2001). An examination of the equivalence between non-adaptive computer-based and traditional testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 29-39.
26. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484-490.
27. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452.
28. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(87), 319-334.
29. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measure of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
30. Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The "delayed-JOL effect." Psychological Science, 2, 267-270.
31. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255-287.
33. Powers, D. E. (2001). Test anxiety and test performance: Comparing paper-based and computer-adaptive versions of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE(c)) General Test. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 249-273.
34. Reimann, P. (1999). The role of external representations in distributed problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 9, 411-418.
35. Rice, G. E. (1994). Examining constructs in reading comprehension using two presentation modes: Paper vs. computer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(2), 153-178.
36. Rogers, Y. (1999). What is different about interactive graphical representations? Learning and Instruction, 9, 419-425.
37. Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Patterns in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Research, 20, 2-9.
38. Shu, H., Cheng, Y. S., & Zhang, H. C. (1989). Name agreement, familiarity, image agreement and visual complexity for 235 pictures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 4, 389-396.
39. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for naming agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
40. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97-140.
41. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why is some material difficult to learn? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
42. Taylor, S., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
43. Yates, J. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179-217.