Dynamic media in computer science education; Content complexity and learning performance: Is less more?

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 279-290

  Holzinger, Andreas ^a   Kickmeier Rust, Michael ^b   Albert, Dietrich ^b  

^a VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Animations; Cognitive load; Dynamic media; Learning performance; Static media

Indexed keywords

EID: 45849102270     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ainsworth, S., & van Labeke, N. (2004). Multiple forms of dynamic representation. Learning and Instruction, 14, 241-255.
2. Betrancourt, M., & Tversky, B. (2000). Effect of computer animation on users' performance: A review. Travail Humain, 63 (4), 311-329.
3. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 71, 64-73.
4. Davies, C.H.J. (2002). Student engagement with simulations: a case study. Computers & Education, 39 (3), 271-282.
5. Ferguson, E.L., & Hegarty, M. (1995). Learning with real machines or diagrams: Application of knowledge to real-world problems. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 129-160.
6. Hagafors, R. & Brehmer, B. (1980) Effects of Information Presentation Mode and Learning-Paradigm on the Learning of Probabilistic Inference Tasks under Different Levels of Memory Strain. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21 (4), 249-255.
7. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325-360.
8. 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, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 357-384.
9. Holzinger, A. (2002). Basiswissen IT/Informatik, Band 1: Informationstechnik. Das Basiswissen für die Informationsgesellschaft des 21, Jahrhunderts, Wuerzburg, Germany: Vogel, retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.basiswissen-it.at.
10. nd Ed., Würzburg, Germany: Vogel Buchverlag, retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.basiswissen-multimedia.at.
11. Holzinger, A. (2005). Usability engineering for software developers. Communications of the ACM, 48 (1), 71-74.
12. Holzinger, A., & Ebner, M. (2003). Interaction and usability of simulations & animations: A case study of the Flash technology. In Rauterberg, M., Menozzi, M. & Wesson, J. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction. IFIP Interact 2003, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 777-780.
13. nd Central European Multimedia and Virtual Reality Conference. Prague: Czech Technical University, 37-41.
14. th IACEE World Conference on Continuing Engineering Education (WCCEE), retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.wccee2006.org/papers/445.pdf.
15. Kaiser, M.K., Proffitt, D.R., Whelan, S.M., & Hecht, H. (1992). The influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 669-690.
16. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14 (2), 225-244.
17. Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
18. Lowe, R.K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14 (3), 257-274.
19. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning, Cambridge (MA): Cambridge University Press.
20. Mayer, R.E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Mayer, R.E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (4), 256-265.
22. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 312-320.
23. Narayanan, N.H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 279-315.
24. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Swell, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
25. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45 (3), 255-287.
26. Paivio, A., & Csapo, K. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognitive Psychology, 5 (2), 176-206.
27. 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, Vancouver: ACM, 797-804.
28. Park, O.C., & Gittelman, S.S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology, 40, 125-167.
29. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.
30. Price, S.J. (2002). Diagram representation: The cognitive basis for understanding animation in education (TR 553), School of Computing & Cognitive Sciences, University of Sussex, UK, retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/interact/papers/pdfs/csrp553.doc.
31. Rieber, L.P. (1990). Using computer animated graphics in science instruction with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 135-140.
32. Rieber, L.P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (3), 318-328.
33. Rieber, L.P. (1994). Computers, graphics and learning, Madison, WT: WCB Brown & Benchmark.
34. Schnotz, W., Böckheler, J., & Grzondziel, H. (1999). Individual and co-operative learning with interactive animated pictures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 245-265.
35. Sweller, J. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257-285.
36. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas, Camberwell: ACER Press.
37. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19-30.
38. Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57 (4), 247-262.
39. Valcke, M. (2002). Cognitive load: updating the theory? Learning and Instruction, 12 (1), 147-154.