How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 184-203

  Stiller, Klaus D ^a   Freitag, Annika ^a   Zinnbauer, Peter ^a   Freitag, Christian ^a  

^a TU DORTMUND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 68949114235     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1149     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
2. Bortz, J. (2005). Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Statistics for human and social sciences]. Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L. & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115-132.
4. Brünken, R., Seufert, T. & Zander, S. (2005). Förderung der Kohärenzbildung beim Lernen mit multiplen Repräsentationen [Fostering coherence formation in learning with multiple representations]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 61-75.
5. Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L. & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109-119.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Erlbaum.
7. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B. & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428-434.
8. Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322-349.
9. Ertelt, A., Renkl, A. & Spada, H. (2005). Learning a new computer application using on-screen videos. In A. Méndez-Vilas, B. González-Pereira, J. Mesa González & J. A. Mesa González (Eds), Recent research developments in learning technologies (pp. 780-785). Cáceres, Spain: Formatex.
10. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313-331.
11. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B. & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713-729.
12. Jeung, H. J., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329-343.
13. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-372.
14. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126-136.
15. Lepper, M. R. (1985). Microcomputers in education: Motivational and social issues. American Psychologist, 40, 1-18.
16. Low, R. & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147-158). New York, NY: Cambridge UP.
17. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169-182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19. 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.
20. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-813.
21. 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, 312-320.
22. Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107-119.
23. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765-781.
24. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
25. Moreno, R. & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598-610.
26. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A. & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based multimedia learning: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177-214.
27. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334.
28. Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C. & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 157-164.
29. O'Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H. E., Niemi, C., Olin, K. & Thurman, R. A. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual aviation training environments. In H. F. O'Neil & D. H. Andrew (Eds), Aircrew training and assessment (pp. 105-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Paas, F. G. & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737-743.
31. Paas, F. G. & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 351-371.
32. Reeves, T. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 39-46.
33. Rinck, M. & Glowalla, U. (1996). Die multimediale Darstellung quantitativer Daten [Presenting quantitative data using multimedia]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 204, 383-399.
34. Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2006). Dynamic visualizations in multimedia learning: The influence of verbal explanations on visual attention, cognitive load and learning outcome. [viewed 31 Jan 2006, verified 25 Apr 2009]. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2006/2699/
35. Schwan, S. & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293-305.
36. Stiller, K. D. (2007). Computerised multimedia learning. Modes of text presentation and access to text. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac.
37. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
38. Tabbers, H. K. (2002). The modality of text in multimedia instructions. Refining the design guidelines. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
39. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(4), 257-287.
40. Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2002). Efficient complex skills training into old age: Exploring the benefits of cognitive load theory. [viewed 14 Mar 2008]. http://www.personeel.unimaas.nl/p.vangerven/Index_files/Pascal%20van%20Gerven%20-%20Dissertation.pdf
41. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional techniques. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957-983). New York, NY: Macmillan.