When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 256-265

  Mayer, Richard E ^a   Hegarty, Mary ^a   Mayer, Sarah ^a   Campbell, Julie ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Human computer interaction; Multimedia learning; Online learning; Science education; Textbooks

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; LEARNING; LONG TERM MEMORY; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BOOKS, ILLUSTRATED; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS; LEARNING; MASS MEDIA; NARRATION; RETENTION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 30644477953     PISSN: 1076898X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.256     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
2. ChanLin, L.-J. (1998). Animation to teach students of different knowledge levels. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 25, 166-175.
3. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Hegarty, M. (1992). Mental animation: Inferring motion from static diagrams of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1084-1102.
5. Hegarty, M. (2005). Multimedia learning about physical systems. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 447-465). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The role of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
7. Hegarty, M., Narayanan, N. H., & Freitas, P. (2002). Understanding machines from multimedia and hypermedia presentations. In J. Otero, A. C. Graesser, & J. Leon (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 357-384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Hegarty, M., Quilici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., & Moreno, R. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8, 119-150.
9. Hegarty, M., & Sims, V. K. (1994). Individual differences in mental animation during mechanical reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 22, 411-430.
10. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-100.
11. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. 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.
14. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.
15. Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). Concise science instruction: When quantitative details hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13-18.
16. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312-320.
17. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
18. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 279-315.
19. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
20. Palmiter, S. L., & Elkerton, J. (1993). Animated demonstrations for learning procedural computer-based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 193-196.
21. Palmiter, S. L., Elkerton, J., & Baggett, P. (1991). Animated demonstrations vs. written instructions for learning procedural tasks: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 687-701.
22. Pane, J. F., Corbett, A. T., & John, B. E. (1996). Assessing dynamics in computer-based instruction. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 797-804). New York: ACM Press.
23. Park, O. C., & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 40, 125-167.
24. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
25. Rieber, L. P. (1989). The effects of computer animated elaboration strategies and practice on factual and application learning in an elementary science lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 431-444.
26. Rieber, L. P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics with science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 135-140.
27. Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318-328.
28. Rieber, L. P., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Effects of textual and animated orienting activities and practice on learning from computer-based instruction. Computers in the Schools, 5, 77-89.
29. Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
31. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
33. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 88-100.