Learning from multimedia and hypermedia

Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 251-272

  Gerjets, Peter ^a   Kirschner, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY OF THE NETHERLANDS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Design research; Hypermedia; Learner control; Multimedia; Use inspired basic research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866007490     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_15     Document Type: Chapter

References (115)

1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). A functional taxonomy of multiple representations. Computers and Education, 33, 131-152.
2. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252.
3. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2005). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036-1060.
4. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
5. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 2 (pp. 89-195). London: Academic Press.
6. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merril, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent's voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117-139.
7. Ausubel, D. P. (1962). A subsumption theory of meaningful verbal learning and retention. The Journal of General Psychology, 66, 213-244.
8. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
9. Azevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., & Seibert, D. (2004). Does adaptive scaffolding facilitate students ability to regulate their learning with hypermedia? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 344-370.
10. Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
11. Barab, S. A., Bowdish, B. E., & Lawless, K. A. (1997). Hypermedia navigation: Profiles of hypermedia users. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 45, 23-41.
12. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W, K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84-91.
13. Bodemer, D., Plotzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325-341.
14. Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (1995). ARI-LAB: Models, issues and strategies in the design of a multiple-tools problem solving environment. Instructional Science, 23, 7-23.
15. Bottino, R. M., & Chiappini, G. (2002). Advanced technology and learning environment. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp 757-786). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
16. Bottino, R. M., Chiappini, G., Ferrari, P. L. (1994). A hypermedia system for interactive problem solving in arithmetic. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypennedia, 3, 307-326.
17. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3-14.
18. Calisir, F., & Gurel, Z. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 135-145.
19. Carrier, C. A. (1984). Do learners make good choices? A review of research on learner control in instruction. Instructional Innovator, 29, 15-17.
20. Chen, S. Y., & Ford, N. J. (1998). Modelling user navigation behaviours in a hypermedia-based learning system: An individual differences approach. Knowledge Organization, 25, 67-78.
21. Chen, S. Y., Fan, J.-P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems: Experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 251-266.
22. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. IEEE Computer, 20, 17-41.
23. Demetriadis, S. (Ed.). (2004). Interaction between learner's internal and external representations in multimedia environment. Research report of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence (1ST 507838), Deliverable 21.1.1. State-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
24. Demetriadis, S., & Papadopoulos, P. (2004). Current perspectives on the pedagogical value of algorithm visualization. In S. Demetriadis (Ed.), Interaction between learner's internal and external representations in multimedia environment (pp. 81-104). Research report of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence (1ST 507838), Deliverable 21.1.1. State-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
25. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
26. Dettori, G., Giannetti, T., Paiva, A., & Vaz, A. (Eds.). (2006). Technology-mediated narrative environments for learning. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
27. Eysink, T. H. S., De Jong, T., Berthold, K., Kolloffel, B., Opfermann, M., & Wouters, P. (2008). Learner petfonnance in multimedia learning arrangements: An analysis across instmctional approaches. Manuscript submitted for publication.
28. Gall, J. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (1994). A framework for the study of hypertext. Instructional Science, 22, 207-232.
29. Gerjets, P., & Hesse, F. W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students' conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 445-465.
30. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38, 33-41.
31. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 56, 73-92.
32. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & T. H. S. Eysink (in press). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior.
33. Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7, 6-10.
34. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17. 329-343.
35. De Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for computer simulation based scientific discovery learning. In J. Elen & R. E. Clark (Eds.), Dealing with complexity in learning environments (pp. 107-128). London: Elsevier.
36. De Jong, T., & Van Der Hulst, A. (2002). The effects of graphical overviews on exploratory behaviour and knowledge acquisition in hypertext environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, 219-232.
37. Van Joolingen, W. R., & De Jong, T. (2003). Simquest: Authoring educational simulations. In T. Murray, S. Blessing & S. Ainsworth (Eds.), Authoring tools for advanced technology educational software: Toward cost-effective production of adaptive, interactive, and intelligent educational software (pp. 1-31). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
38. Van Joolingen, W. R., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 671-688.
39. Kelly, A. E. (1993). Designing instructional hypertext for use in lecture note review: Knowledge engineering and preliminary testing. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypennedia, 2, 149-176.
40. Kickmeier-Rust, M. D., Schwarz, D., Albert, D., Verpoorten, D., Castaigne, J. L., & Bopp, M. (2006). The ELEKTRA project: Towards a new learning experience. In M. Pohl, A. Holzinger, R. Motschnig & C. Swertz (Eds.), M3 - Interdisciplinary aspects on digital media & education (pp. 19-48). Vienna, Austria: Osterreichische Computer Gesellschaft.
41. Kiefer, M., & Spitzer, M. (2001). The limits of a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 469-471.
42. Kinzie, M. B., Sullivan, H. J., & Berdel, R. L. (1988). Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 299-303.
43. Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
44. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2004). The interaction between internal and external collaboration scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. In S. Demetriadis (Ed.), Interaction betw'een learner's internal and external representations in multimedia environment (pp. 105-122). Research report of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence (1ST 507838), Deliverable 21.1.1. State-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
45. De Koning, B., Tabbers, H. K, Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 731-746.
46. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman.
47. Kraus, L. A., Reed, W. M., & Fitzgerald, G. E. (2001). The effects of learning style and hypermedia prior experience on behavioral disorders knowledge and time on task: A case-based hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 125-140.
48. Kynigos, C., (2004). Black and white box approach to user empowerment with component computing. Interactive Learning Environments, 12, 27-71.
49. Lagemann, E. C. (2002). Usable knowledge in education: A memorandum for the Spencer Foundation board of directors. Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation.
50. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99.
51. Last, D. A., O'Donnell, A. M., & Kelly, A. E. (2001). The effects of prior knowledge and goal strength on the use of hypertext. Journal of Educational Multimedia & Hypennedia, 10. 3-25.
52. Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25. 117-131.
53. Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1996). Understanding hypertext navigation through cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 385-399.
54. Lee, S.-S., & Lee, Y. H. (1991). Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83. 491-498.
55. Lenhart, A., Simon, M., & Graziano, M. (2001). The internet and education: Findings of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
56. Linek, S., Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2008). Speaker/gender effect: Effects of using male versus female voices for auditory text. Manuscript submitted for publication.
57. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & D'Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71. 449-521.
58. Lunts, E. (2002). What does the literature say about the effectiveness of learner control in computer-assisted instruction? Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 1. 59-75.
59. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93. 377-389.
60. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. 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.
63. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998a). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors, 40. 18-27.
64. McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R. J. (1998b). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10. 129-142.
65. Van Der Meij, J., & De Jong, T. (2004). Examples of using multiple representations. In S. Demetriadis (Ed.), Interaction betw'een learner's internal and external representations in multimedia environment (pp. 66-80). Research report of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence (1ST 507838), Deliverable 21.1.1. State-of-the-art report. Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
66. Melis, E., Biidenbender, J., Goguadze, G., Libbrecht, P., & Ullrich, C. (2003). Knowledge representation and management in ActiveMath. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 38. 47-64.
67. Merrill, M. D. (1980). Learner control in computer based learning. Computers & Education, 4. 77-95.
68. Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B. L. (1991). Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18. 99-105.
69. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63. 81-97.
70. Mills, R. J., Paper, D., Lawless, K. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2002). Hypertext navigation - an intrinsic component of the corporate intranet. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42. 49-50.
71. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19. 177-213.
72. Morgan, C. (Ed.). (2006). Investigating representational issues in mathematics learning. Research report of the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence (1ST 507838), Deliverable 20.2.4., Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence.
73. Nelson, T. H. (1965). A file structure for the complex, the changing, and the indeterminate. In Proceeding of the 20th ACM National Conference (pp. 84-100). Cleveland, OH: Association of Computing Machinery.
74. Nicaud, J.-F., Bouhineau, D., & Chaachoua, H. (2004). Mixing microworld and CAS features in building computer systems that help students learn algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9. 169-211.
75. Niederhauser, D. S., Reynolds, R. E., Salmen, D. L., & Skolmosld, P. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on learning from hypertext. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23. 237-255.
76. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45, 255-287.
77. Pirolli, P. L. & Card. S. K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643-675.
78. Potelle, H., & Rouet, J.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers' prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327-345.
79. Rasmussen. K., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (1998). Hypermedia and learning styles: Can performance be influenced? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypennedia, 7, 291-308.
80. Rebetez, C., Betrancourt, M., Sangin, M., Dillenbourg P. & Mollinari, G. (2006). Handling complexity in multimedia learning: Effects of control and collaboration when studying animation. In G. Clarebout & J. Elen (Eds.), Avoiding simplicity, confronting complexity: Advances in studying and designing (computer-based) powerful learning environments (pp. 265-274). Rotterdam. The Netherlands: Sense.
81. Reed. S. K. (2005). From research to practice and back: The animation tutor project. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 55-82.
82. Rhodes. D. (1993). Revison of Johnson. H.
83. Rhodes. D., & Rumery, R. (1975). The assessment of teaching in higher education: A critical retrospect and a proposal. Higher Education, 4, 173-199.
84. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40, 325-336.
85. Rouet. J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
86. Rouet. J.-F., Levonen, J. J., Dillon. A., & Spiro. R. J. (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
87. Rummer. R., Schweppe, J., Scheiter. K., & Gerjets. P. (2008). Lernen mit Multimedia: Die kognitiven Grundlagen des Modalitatseffekts [Learning with multimedia: Cognitive foundations of the modality principle]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59, 98-107.
88. Salomon. G. (1998). Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: Some issues to be concerned with. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1, 3-12.
89. Salomon. G., & Almog, T. (1998). Educational psychology and technology: A matter of reciprocal relations. Teachers College Record, 100, 222-241.
90. Scaife, M., & Rogers. Y. (1996). External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.
91. Scheiter. K., & Gerjets. P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285-307.
92. Scheiter. K., & Gerjets. P. (2008). Learning with animations: There is more to it than "do they aid learning or not". Manuscript submitted for publication.
93. Scheiter. K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 9-26.
94. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Schuh, J. (2008). The acquisition of problem-solving skills in mathematics: How animations can aid understanding of structural problem features and solution procedures. Manuscript submitted for publication.
95. Scheiter, K, Gerjets, P., Vollmann, B., & Catrambone, R. (in press). The impact of learner characteristics on strategies of infonnation utilization, cognitive load, and learning outcomes in hypennedia learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
96. Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., Imhof, B., & Kammerer, Y. (2008). Learning with dynamic visualizations: Is there a place for realistic depictions? Manuscript submitted for publication.
97. Schnotz, W., Bockheler, J., & Grondziel, H. (1998). Individuelles und kooperatives Lernen mit interaktiven animierten Bildern [Individual and collaborative learning with interactive animations]. Zeitschriftfur Padagogische Psychologie, 12(2/3), 135-145.
98. Schuler, A., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Rummer, R. (in press). Does a lack of contiguity with visual text cause the modality effect in multimedia learning? In B. C. Love, K. M. R. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2353-2358). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
99. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 143-163.
100. Shapiro, A. M., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 605-622). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
101. Shin, E. C., Schallert, D. L., & Savenye, W. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students' learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 42, 33-46.
102. Shyu, H. S., & Brown, S. W. (1992). Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 19, 85-96.
103. Shyu, H. S., & Brown, S. W. (1995). Leamer-control: The effects on learning a procedural task during computer-based videodisc instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 22, 217-231.
104. Slotta, J. D. (2004). Web-based inquiry science environment. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis & R Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 203-231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
105. Snow, R. E. (1980). Aptitude, learner control, and adaptive instruction. Educational Psychologist, 15, 151-58.
106. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
107. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Melbourne: ACER Press.
108. Sweller, J., Van Menienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
109. Tversky, B., Bauer Morrison, J., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57, 247-262.
110. De Vries, E. (2006). Semiotic highways and the problem of abduction in ILEs. In S. Ainsworth (Ed.), Proceedings of the EARLISIG 2 bi-annual Meeting Text and Picture Comprehension (pp. 43-45). Nottingham, United Kingdom: University of Nottingham, LSRI.
111. Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: Theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 465-477.
112. White, B. Y. (1993). Thinkertools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.
113. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957-983). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
114. Wouters, P., Paas, F., & Van Menienboer, J. J. G. (2007). Obseivational learning from animated models: The relation betw'een pacing, structure, and modality. Manuscript submitted for publication.
115. Zentel, P., Opfermann, M., & Krewinkel, J. (2007). Multimedia learning and the Internet: Ensuring accessibility for people with learning disabilities. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 1, 22-33.