When quantitative details impair qualitative understanding of multimedia lessons

Educational Psychology

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 269-278

  Verkoeijen, Peter ^a   Tabbers, Huib ^a  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adult; Comprehension; Memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449623417     PISSN: 01443410     EISSN: 14695820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01443410902795586     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
2. Drenth, P.J.D., & Sijtsma, K. (2006). Testtheorie, vierde herziene druk [Test theory, fourth edition]. Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn, Stafleu, Van Loghum.
3. Garner, R., Gillingham, M., & White, C. (1989). Effects of seductive details on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41-57.
4. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92-102.
5. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
6. Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465-483.
7. Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M.T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569-587.
8. 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, 2, 390-397.
9. Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
10. Mayer, R.E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details can hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 13-18.
11. Mohr, P., Glover, J., & Ronning, R.R. (1984). The effect of related and unrelated details on the recall of major ideas in prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 97-109.
12. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E. (2000). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117-125.
13. Sanchez, C.A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 34, 344-355.
14. Shirey, L., & Reynolds, R. (1988). Effects of interest on attention and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 159-166.
15. Yeung, A.S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 1-21.