Teaching genetics with multimedia results in better acquisition of knowledge and improvement in comprehension

Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 214-224

  Starbek, P ^a   Starcic Erjavec M ^a   Peklaj, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Acquired knowledge; Computer animation; Improvement in comprehension; Learning of protein synthesis; Multimedia learning; Retention of knowledge and comprehension

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955396941     PISSN: 02664909     EISSN: 13652729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00344.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Ainsworth SE. The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education 1999, 33:131-152.
2. Ainsworth SE, Wood DJ, Bibby PA. Co-ordinating multiple representations in computer based learning environments. Proceedings of the European Conference of Artificial Intelligence in Education 1996, 336-342. Brna P, Paivia A, Self J. eds, Edicoes Colibri, Lisbon
3. Baddeley AD. Working Memory 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Baddeley AD. Working memory. Science 1992, 255:556-559.
5. Bloom BS. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals - Handbook I: Cognitive Domain 1956, McKay, New York
6. Brunye TT, Taylor HA, Rapp DN, Spiro AB. Learning procedures: the role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2006, 20:917-940.
7. Chandler P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 1991, 8:293-332.
8. Clark JM, Paivio A. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 1991, 3:149-210.
9. Ferk V. The significance of different kinds of molecular models in teaching and learning of chemistry. 2003, Doctoral dissertation, 208 p. Department of Chemical Education and Informatics, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana
10. Fink PA. An interactive, 3D model of protein synthesis. The American Biology Teacher 1990, 52:274-275.
11. Hidrio C, Jamet E. Learning from a multimedia explanation: a comparison of static pictures and animation. Understanding Multimedia Documents 2008, 17-41. Rouet JF, Lowe RSchnotz W. eds, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., New York
12. Kalyuga S, Chandler P, Sweller J. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1999, 13:351-371.
13. Large A, Beheshit J, Breuleux A, Renaud A. Multimedia and comprehension: a cognitive study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1994, 45:515-528.
14. Large A, Beheshit J, Breuleux A, Renaud A. Effect of animation in enhancing descriptive and procedural texts in a multimedia learning environment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 1996, 47:437-448.
15. Leahy W, Chandler P, Sweller J. When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2003, 17:401-418.
16. Lewalter D. Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:177-189.
17. Lowe RK. Animation and learning: selective precessing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:157-176.
18. Malacinski GM, Zell PW. Manipulating the invisible: learning molecular biology using inexpensive models. The American Biology Teacher 1996, 58:428-432.
19. Marbach-Ad G. Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. Journal of Biological Education 2001, 35:183-189.
20. Marbach-Ad G, Rotbain Y, Stavy R. Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45:273-292.
21. Mayer RE. Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review 1996, 8:357-371.
22. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist 1997, 32:1-19.
23. Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Mayer RE. The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instruction design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:125-139.
25. Mayer RE, Moreno R. Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12:107-119.
26. Michas IC, Berry DC. Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2000, 14:555-575.
27. Najjar LJ. Principles of educational multimedia user interface design. Human Factors 1998, 40:311-323.
28. Neo M, Neo KTK. Innovative teaching: using multimedia in a problem-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society 2001, 4:19-31.
29. Paivio A. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford
30. Ploetzner R, Lowe R. Dynamic visualisation and learning. Learning and Instruction 2004, 14:235-240.
31. Rode AR. Teaching protein synthesis using a simulation. American Biology Teachers 1995, 57:50-53.
32. Rotbain Y, Marbach-Ad G, Stavy R. Effect of bead and illustration models on high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006, 43:500-529.
33. Ruiyong W. How to teach students to gain an understanding of genetics - thinking as a geneticist. The China Papers 2004, 1-6. Peat MKing M. Vol. 4 (eds, Department of Biological Science and Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing
34. Schnotz W. Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Rewiev 2002, 14:101-120.
35. Schnotz W. Why multimedia learning is not always helpful? Understanding Multimedia Documents 2008, 17-41. Rouet JFLowe RSchnotz W. eds, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., New York
36. Schnotz W, Bannert M. Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:141-156.
37. Schnotz W, Lowe R. External and internal representations in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:117-123.
38. Sweller J. Instructional Design in Technical Areas 1999, ACER Press, Camberwell
39. Tabbers HK, Martens RL, van Merrienboer JJG. Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2004, 74:71-81.
40. Tsui C, Treagust DF. Understanding genetics: analysis of secondary students' conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007, 44:205-235.
41. Tsui CY, Treagust DF. Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education 2003, 33:111-135.
42. Tsui CY, Treagust DF. Motivational aspects of learning genetics with interactive multimedia. The American Biology Teacher 2004, 66:277-285.
43. Tversky B, Bauer Morrisony J, Betrancourt M. Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal Human-Computer Studies 2002, 57:247-262.
44. Ward PJ, Walker JJ. The influence of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and long term recall of anatomy learning by first-year veterinary students. Anatomical Sciences Education 2008, 1:68-74.