Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms?

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 465-477

  Harskamp, Egbert G ^a   Mayer, Richard E ^b   Suhre, Cor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom teaching; Instruction and learning; Modality; Multimedia theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 36049009087     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Anglin G., Towers R., and Levie W. Visual message design and learning: the role of static and dynamic illustrations. In: Jonassen D. (Ed). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (1996), Macmillan, London 155-794
2. Brünken R., Plass J.L., and Leutner D. Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist 38 1 (2003) 53-61
3. Harnischfeger A., and Wiley D.E. Origins of active learning time. In: Fisher C.W., and Berliner D.C. (Eds). Perspectives on instructional time (1985), Longman, New York and London 133-156
4. Kalyuga S., Chandler P., and Sweller J. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13 (1999) 351-371
5. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., and Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38 (2003) 23-32
6. Levin J.R., Anglin G.J., and Carney R.N. On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In: Willows D.M., and Houghton H.A. (Eds). The psychology of illustration Vol 1 (1987), Springer-Verlag, New York 51-86
7. Low R., and Sweller J. The modality principle in multimedia learning. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 147-158
8. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning (2001), Cambridge University Press, New York
9. Mayer R.E. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 31-48
10. Mayer R.E. Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: segmenting, pretraining, and modality. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 169-182
11. Mayer R.E. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signalling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 31-48
12. Mousavi S., Low R., and Sweller J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology 87 (1995) 319-334
13. Paas F.G.W.C., Tuovinen J.E., Tabbers H., and Van Gerven P. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 38 1 (2003) 63-71
14. Reeves T.C., and Reeves P.M. The effective dimensions of interactive learning on the WWW. In: Khan B.H. (Ed). Web-based instruction (1997), Educational Technology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 59-66
15. Rieber L.P. Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and micro worlds. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 549-568
16. Schnotz W., and Bannert M. Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction 13 (2003) 141-156
17. Schnotz W. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 49-70
18. Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas (1999), Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia
19. Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer R.E. (Ed). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2005), Cambridge University Press, New York 19-30
20. Tabbers H.K., Martens R.L., and Van Merriënboer J.J.G. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effect of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74 (2004) 71-81
21. Tindall-Ford S., Chandler P., and Sweller J. When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 3 (1997) 257-287
22. Westelinck de K., Valcke M., Craene de B., and Kirschner P.A. Multimedia learning in social sciences: limitations of external graphical representations. Computers in Human Behaviour 21 (2005) 555-573