How to study a matrix

Contemporary Educational Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 128-135

  Jairam, Dharmananda ^a   Kiewra, Kenneth A ^b   Kauffman, Douglas F ^b   Zhao, Ruomeng ^b  

^a BEHREND COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Graphic organizer; Learning; Matrix; Study skills; Study strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858152129     PISSN: 0361476X     EISSN: 10902384     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Andre T. Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning?. Review of Educational Research 1979, 49(2):280-318.
2. Berkeley S., Marshak L., Matropieri M.A., Scruggs T.E. Improving student comprehension of social studies text: A self-questioning strategy for inclusive middle school students. Remedial and Special Education 2011, 32(2):105-113.
3. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. 2nd ed.
4. Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales (UNSW). Retrieved 10.18.06. http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/staff/sweller/clt/index.html.
5. Ferla J., Valcke M., Schuyten G. Relationships between student cognitions and their effects on study strategies. Learning and Individual Differences 2008, 18(2):271-278.
6. George D., Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update 2003, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. 4th ed.
7. Jairam D., Kiewra K.A. Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 2010, 102(3):601-614.
8. Kauffman D.F., Kiewra K. What makes the matrix so effective: An empirical test of indexing, extraction, and localization effects. Instructional Science 2010, 38:679-705.
9. Larkin J.H., Simon H.A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11(1):65-100.
10. Lorch R.F. Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review 1989, 1:209-234.
11. Mautone P.D., Mayer R.E. Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93:377-389.
12. Mayer R.E. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 201-212. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
13. Mayer R.E. Designing instruction for constructivist learning. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory 1999, vol. 2:141-160. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mawhaw, NJ.
14. Mayer R.E., Moreno R. Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. Cognitive load theory 2010, 131-152. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. J.L. Plass, R. Moreno, R. Brünken (Eds.).
15. McIntire S.A., Miller L.A. Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach 2007, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
16. Moreno R., Park B. Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. Cognitive load theory 2010, 9-29. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. J.L. Plass, R. Moreno, T.R. Brünken (Eds.).
17. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows 2007, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia. 3rd ed.
18. Robinson D.H., Katayama A., Beth A., Odom S., Ya-Ping H., Vanderveen A. Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial graphic organizer. Journal of Educational Research 2006, 100(2):103-111.
19. Robinson D.H., Kiewra K. Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology 1995, 87(3):455-467.
20. Robinson D.H., Schraw G. Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1994, 19:399-415.
21. Encyclopedia of research design 2010, Sage, Los Angeles, CA. N.J. Salkind (Ed.).
22. Schnotz W., Kurschner C. A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:469-508.
23. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1988, 12(2):257-285.
24. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 1994, 4:295-312.
25. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2011, 55:37-76.
26. Sweller J., Ayres P., Kalyuga S. Cognitive load theory: Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems and performance technologies 2011, Springer, New York, NY.
27. Sweller J., Chandler P. Evidence of cognitive load. Cognition and Instruction 1991, 8(4):351-362.
28. Van Gerven P. The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 7(4):489-505.
29. West C., Sadoski M. Do study strategies predict academic performance in medical school?. Medical Education 2011, 45(7):696-703.
30. Yip M. Differences between high and low academic university students in learning and study strategies: A further investigation. Educational Research and Evaluation 2009, 15(6):561-570.
31. Zimmerman B.J., Bandura A. Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal 1994, 31:845-862.
32. Zimmerman B.J., Kitsantas A. Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:1-10.