Multimedia learning design based on learning object technology

Proceedings of the IASTED European Conference on Internet and Multimedia Systems and Applications, EuroIMSA 2007

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 248-253

  Samaras, Haido ^a   Bousiou, Despina ^a   Giouvanakis, Thanasis ^a   Tarabanis, Konstantinos ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MACEDONIA   (Greece)

Author keywords

Active cognitive processing; Adaptive instruction; Cognitive load; Learning object technology; Multimedia educational software; Prior knowledge; Support for processing

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS; EDUCATION; INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SYSTEMS; INTERNET;

ACTIVE COGNITIVE PROCESSING; ADAPTIVE INSTRUCTION; COGNITIVE LOAD; LEARNING OBJECT TECHNOLOGY; MULTIMEDIA EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE; PRIOR KNOWLEDGE;

MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS;

EID: 54949141521     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Bannert, M. (2002) Managing cognitive load - recent trends in cognitive load theory, Learning and Instruction, 12 139-146.
2. Bodemer, D., & Ploetzner, R. (in press). Encouraging the Active Integration of Information during Learning with Multiple and Interactive Representations. In H. Niegemann, R. Brünken, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Instructional Design for Multimedia Learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 Biannual Workshop 2002 in Erfurt. Muenster: Waxmann.
3. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
4. Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: when and why do multiple representations help? (Commentary). Learning and Instruction, 13, 239-244.
5. Hede, A. (2002). An Integrated Model of Multimedia Effects on Learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191.
6. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1-10.
7. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205-226
8. Levie, W.H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: a review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195-232.
9. Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton, (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, Vol. 1(pp. 51-86) New York: Springer.
10. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, 177-189.
11. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics Learning and Instruction, 157-176
12. Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media Learning and Instruction, 13, 125-139
13. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: University Press.
14. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R.B. (1991). Animations Need Narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484-490
15. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. Journal of educational psychology, 91(2), 358-368
16. Najjar, L. J. (2001). Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. In R. W. Swezey & D. Nathan M. & Robinson C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: revisiting the "media effects" debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12, 69-88
17. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
18. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., Sweller, J. (2002) Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61-86
19. Samaras H., Giouvanakis T., Bousiou, D. & Tarabanis K. Towards a New Generation of Multimedia Learning Research. AACE Journal (AACEJ), former Educational Technology Review (ETR), 14(1), 2006
20. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
21. Schnotz, W. & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Text- und Bildverstehen [Influence of the type of visualization on the construction of mental models during picture and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46(3), 217-236.
22. Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237.
23. Seufert, T. & Brünken, R. (2004). Supporting coherence formation in multimedia learning. In: Gerjets, P., Kirschner, P. A., Elen, J. & Joiner, R. (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer- supported learning. Proceedings of the first joint meeting of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (pp 138-147) (CD-ROM). Tuebingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.
24. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191-203.
25. Sweller, J., and Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12 (3), 185-233.
26. Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81 (4), 457-466.
27. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving : Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
28. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting learners' attention during training: effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11-37.