Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 799-813

  Lin, Lijia ^a   Atkinson, Robert K ^b   Savenye, Wilhelmina C ^c   Nelson, Brian C ^b  

^a B326 Science Building   (China)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive load; intrinsic motivation; multimedia learning; self explanation prompt; visual cueing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902707307     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2014.924531     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. F.Amadieu,, C.Mariné,, & C.Laimay, (2011). The attention-guiding effect and cognitive load in the comprehension of animations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 36–40. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.009
2. R.K.Atkinson,, A.Renkl,, & M.M.Merrill, (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774–783. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774
3. R.M.Baron,, & D.Kenny, (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
4. K.Berthold,, T.Eysink,, & A.Renkl, (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345–363. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z
5. K.Berthold,, & A.Renkl, (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87. doi: 10.1037/a0013247
6. J.Boucheix,, & H.Guignard, (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369–388. doi: 10.1007/BF03173563
7. J.Boucheix,, & R.K.Lowe, (2010). An eye tracking comparison of external pointing cues and internal continuous cues in learning with complex animations. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 123–135. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.015
8. R.Brünken,, J.Plass,, & R.Moreno, (2010). Current issues and open questions in cognitive load research. In J.Plass, R.Moreno, & R.Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 253–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. M.T.H.Chi,, S.A.Siler,, H.Jeong,, T.Yamauchi,, & R.G.Hausmann, (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25(4), 471–533. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2504_1
10. J.Cohen, (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
11. E.L.Deci,, H.Eghrari,, B.C.Patrick,, & D.Leone, (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
12. P.Gerjets,, K.Scheiter,, & R.Catrambone, (2004). Designing instructional examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 33–58. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021809.10236.71
13. P.Gerjets,, K.Scheiter,, & R.Catrambone, (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 104–121. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.007
14. C.S.Große,, & A.Renkl, (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 122–138. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.001
15. S.G.Hart,, & L.E.Staveland, (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of experimental and theoretical research. In P.A.Hancock & N.Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. M.Hegarty,, S.Kriz,, & C.Cate, (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325–360. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1
17. L.Hu,, & M.B.Bentler, (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
18. E.Jamet,, M.Gavota,, & C.Quaireau, (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 18(2), 135–145. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.01.011
19. H.Jeung,, P.Chandler,, & J.Sweller, (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17(3), 329–343. doi: 10.1080/0144341970170307
20. S.Kalyuga,, P.Chandler,, & J.Sweller, (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 351–371. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4<351::AID-ACP589>3.0.CO;2-6
21. B.B.de Koning,, H.K.Tabbers,, R.M.J.P.Rikers,, & F.Paas, (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 731–746. doi: 10.1002/acp.1346
22. B.B.de Koning,, H.K.Tabbers,, R.M.J.P.Rikers,, & F.Paas, (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: Guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 113–140. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9098-7
23. B.B.de Koning,, H.K.Tabbers,, R.M.J.P.Rikers,, & F.Paas, (2010a). Attention guidance in learning from a complex animation: Seeing is understanding? Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.010
24. B.B.de Koning,, H.K.Tabbers,, R.M.J.P.Rikers,, & F.Paas, (2010b). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 183–194. doi: 10.1002/acp.1661
25. B.B.de Koning,, H.K.Tabbers,, R.M.J.P.Rikers,, & F.Paas, (2010c). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations. Computers & Education, 55(2), 681–691. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.027
26. D.Leutner, (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 174–175. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.004
27. L.Lin,, & R.K.Atkinson, (2011). Using animations and visual cueing to support learning of scientific concepts and processes. Computers & Education, 56(3), 650–658. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.007
28. X.Lin,, & J.D.Lehman, (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<837::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-U
29. R.Lowe,, & J.Boucheix, (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21, 650–663. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.02.002
30. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377–389.
31. R.E.Mayer, (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R.E.Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. R.E.Mayer, (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. R.E.Mayer, (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.003
34. R.E.Mayer,, G.T.Dow,, & S.Mayer, (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806
35. R.E.Mayer,, & R.Moreno, (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
36. R.Moreno, (2009). Learning from animated classroom exemplars: The case for guiding student teachers’ observations with metacognitive prompts. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(5), 487–501. doi: 10.1080/13803610903444592
37. R.Moreno,, & R.Mayer, (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
38. R.Moreno,, & R.Mayer, (2010). Techniques that increase generative processing in multimedia learning: Open questions for cognitive load research. In J.Plass, R.Moreno, & R.Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 153–177). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. R.Moreno,, & R.E.Mayer, (2005). Role of guidance, reflection, and interactivity in an agent-based multimedia game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 117–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.117
40. E.Ozcelik,, I.Arslan-Ari,, & K.Cagiltay, (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001
41. E.Ozcelik,, T.Karakus,, E.Kursun,, & K.Cagiltay, (2009). An eye-tracking study of how color coding affects multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 53(2), 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.002
42. F.Paas,, A.Renkl,, & J.Sweller, (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
43. J.L.Plass,, S.Heidig,, E.O.Hayward,, B.D.Homer,, & E.Um, (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006
44. G.D.Rey,, & F.Buchwald, (2011). The expertise reversal effect: Cognitive load and motivational explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 33–48.
45. B.Rosenshine,, C.Meister,, & S.Chapman, (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221. doi: 10.3102/00346543066002181
46. M.Roy,, & M.T.H.Chi, (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R.E.Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. R.M.Ryan, (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
48. W.Schnotz,, S.Fries,, & H.Horz, (2009). Motivational aspects of cognitive load theory. In M.Wosnitza, S.A.Karabenick, A.Efklides, & P.Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 69–96). New York: Hogrefe & Huber.
49. W.Schnotz,, & C.Kurschner, (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4
50. J.Sweller,, J.J.G.van Merrienboer,, & F.Paas, (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
51. P.Wouters,, F.Paas,, & J.J.G.van Merriënboer, (2009). Observational learning from animated models: Effects of modality and reflection on transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.03.001