The multimedia principle

The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 174-205

  Butcher, Kirsten R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925661044     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.010     Document Type: Chapter

References (124)

1. AAAS. (2001). Atlas of science literacy, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Project 2061, Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Science Teachers Association.
2. AAAS. (2007). Atlas of science literacy, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Project 2061, Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Science Teachers Association.
3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science,27, 669-681.
4. Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning & Instruction,19(5), 376-386.
5. Arguel, A., & Jamet, E. (2009). Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 354-359.
6. Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review,19(3), 375-386.
7. Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 348-353.
8. Azevedo, R., Guthrie, J. T., & Seibert, D. (2004). The role of self-regulated learning in fostering students’ conceptual understanding of complex systems with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research,30(1&2), 87-111.
9. Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research & Development,56, 45-72.
10. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction,14, 325-341.
12. Bogacz, S., & Trafton, J. G. (2005). Understanding dynamic and static displays: using images to reason dynamically. Cognitive Systems Research,6(4), 312-319.
13. Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (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.
14. Bryne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1999). Evaluating animations as student aids in learning computer algorithms. Computers and Education,33, 253-278.
15. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology,98(1), 182-197.
16. Butcher, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Integrating visual and verbal knowledge during classroom learning with computer tutors. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society(pp. 137-142). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
17. Butcher, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2008). Diagram interaction during intelligent tutoring in geometry: Support for knowledge retention and deep understanding. In B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 1736-1741). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
18. Butcher, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2013). Using student interactions to foster rule-diagram mapping during problem solving in an intelligent tutoring system. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 988-1009. doi: 10.1037/a0031756.
19. Butcher, K. R., Bhushan, S., & Sumner, T. (2006). Multimedia displays for conceptual search processes: Information seeking with strand maps. ACM Multimedia Systems Journal,11(3), 236-248.
20. Butcher, K. R., Davies, S., Crockett, A., Dewald, A., & Zheng, R. (2011). Do graphical search interfaces support effective search for and evaluation of digital library resources? Proceedings of the 11th Annual International ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL ’11) (pp. 315-324). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
21. Butcher, K. R., & de la Chica, S. (2010). Supporting student learning with adaptive technology: Personalized conceptual assessment and remediation. In M. Banich & D. Caccamise (Eds.), Generalization of Knowledge: Multidisciplinary Perspectives(pp. 297-330). New York: Taylor & Francis.
22. Butcher, K. R., & Kintsch, W. (2012). Text comprehension and discourse processing. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, vol. 4: Experimental psychology (2d. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
23. Butcher, K. R., & Sumner, T. (2011). Self-directed learning and the sensemaking paradox. Human-Computer Interaction,26 (1), 123-159. dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2011.556552.
24. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,8(4), 293-332.
25. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology,62, 233-246.
26. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences,6(3), 271-315.
27. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting selfexplanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science,18(3), 439-477.
28. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science,5(121-152).
29. Chmielewski, T. L., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: Knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,90(3), 407-413.
30. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology,35, 59-74.
31. Cuevas, H. M., Fiore, S. M., & Oser, R. L. (2002). Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computerbased training environments. Instructional Science,30(6), 433-464.
32. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2010). Learning by generating vs. receiving instructional explanations: Two approaches to enhance attention cueing in animations. Computers & Education,55(2), 681-691.
33. Dwyer, F. M. (1970). Exploratory studies in the effectiveness of visual illustrations. AV Communication Review,18(3), 235-249.
34. Easterday, M. W., Aleven, V., Scheines, R., & Carver, S. M. (2009). Constructing causal diagrams to learn deliberation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education,19(4), 425-445.
35. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36. Ferrara, L., & Butcher, K. (2011). Visualizing feedback: Using graphical cues to promote self-regulated learning. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Boston, MA: Cognitive Science Society.
37. Fiore, S. M., Cuevas, H. M., & Oser, R. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand connections: The facilitative effects of diagrams on mental model development and task performance. Computers in Human Behavior,19(2), 185-199.
38. Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., & Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning & Instruction,22, 47-61.
39. Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language,31(2), 129-151.
40. Gobert, J. D., & Clement, J. J. (1999). Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(1), 39-53.
41. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences,14(1), 69-110.
42. Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003). Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet! Communications of the ACM,46(5), 71-75.
43. Grant, E. R., & Spivey, M. J. (2003). Eye movements and problem solving: Guiding attention guides thought. Psychological Science,14(5), 462-466.
44. Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1990). Diagramming a logic strategy: Effects on dificult problem types and transfer. Learning Disability Quarterly,13(3), 168-182.
45. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Are high-coherent concept maps better for prior knowledge activation? Differential effects of concept mapping tasks on high school vs. university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,24, 407-419.
46. Gurlitt, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). Prior knowledge activation: How different concept mapping tasks lead to substantial differences in cognitive processes, learning outcomes, and perceived self-efficacy. Instructional Science,38, 417-433.
47. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning & Instruction,14(3), 343-351.
48. Hegarty, M., Canham, M. S., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2010). Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,36(1), 37-53.
49. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language,32, 717-742.
50. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction,21(4), 325-360.
51. Hilgard, E. R., Irvine, R. P., & Whipple, J. E. (1953). Rote memorization, understanding, and transfer: An extension of Katona’s card-trick experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology,46(4), 288-292.
52. Höfler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis, Learning and Instruction,17(6), 722-738.
53. Huang, J., White, R. W., & Buscher, G. (2012). User see, user point: Gaze and cursor alignment in web search. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1341-1350). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
54. Huang, J., White, R. W., Buscher, G., & Wang, K. (2012). Improving searcher models using mouse cursor activity. Proceedings of the 35th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 195-204). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
55. Imhof, B., Scheiter, K., Edelmann, J., & Gerjets, P. (2012). How temporal and spatial aspects of presenting visualizations affect learning about locomotion patterns. Learning & Instruction,22, 193-205.
56. Issa, N., Schuller, M., Santacaterina, S., Shapiro, M., Wang, E., Mayer, R. E., & DaRosa, D. D. (2011). Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical Education,45, 818-826.
57. Jenkins, J. J. (1974). Remember that old theory of memory? Well, forget it. American Psychologist,29(11), 785-795.
58. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors,40, 1-17.
59. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology,13(4), 351-371.
60. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,92(1), 126-136.
61. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review,95(2), 163-182.
62. Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist,49(4), 294-303.
63. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Kopriva, R. (2008). Improving testing for English language learners. New York: Routledge.
65. Levie, W., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication & Technology Journal,30(4), 195-232.
66. Lynch, C. (2008). Digital libraries, learning communities, and open education. In T. Iiyoshi & M. S. V. Kumar (Eds.), Opening up education(pp. 105-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
67. Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences,16, 321-335.
68. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology,81(2), 240-246.
69. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70. Mayer, R. E. (2006). Ten research-based principles of multimedia learning. In H. F. O’Neil & R. S. Perez (Eds.), Web-based learning: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology,83(4), 484-490.
72. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 444-452.
73. Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology,88(1), 64-73.
74. 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.
75. Mayer, R. E., Dyck, J. L., & Cook, L. K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific text: Definitions of pretraining and signaling. Journal of Educational Psychology,76(6), 1089-1105.
76. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 715-726.
77. 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(1), 187-198.
78. Mayer, R. E., & Massa, L. J. (2003). Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. Journal of Educational Psychology,95(4), 833-846.
79. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bowers, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development,43(1), 31-43.
80. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehension of causal relationships in expository text. Instructional Science,37(1), 65-86.
81. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student Web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education,41(3), 271-290.
82. Moore, P. J. (1993). Metacognitive processing of diagrams, maps and graphs. Learning and Instruction,3(3), 215-226.
83. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology,91(2), 358-368.
84. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology,94(1), 156-163.
85. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students’ problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology,103(1), 32-47.
86. Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,76(3), 413-448.
87. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review,14(1), 71-86.
88. Olander, H. (1941). Children’s knowledge of the flag salute. Journal of Educational Research,35, 300-305.
89. Paik, E. S., & Schraw, G. (2013). Learning with animation and illusions of understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology,105(2), 278-289.
90. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
91. Parkhurst, P. E., & Dwyer, F. M. (1983). An experimental assessment of students’ IQ level and their ability to benefit from visualized instruction. Journal of Instructional Psychology,10, 9-20.
92. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M. A., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. A. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,9(3), 103-119.
93. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. v. Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading(pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
94. Price, L. (2007). Lecturers’ vs. students’ perceptions of the accessibility of instructional materials. Instructional Science,35, 317-341.
95. Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Buckley, B. C., Davenport, J. L., Loveland, M., & Silberglitt, M. D. (2011). 21st century dynamic assessment. In M. C. Mayrath, J. Clarke-Midura, D. H. Robinson, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research (pp. 55-89). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
96. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology,80(1), 16-20.
97. Rewey, K. L., Dansereau, D. F., Skaggs, L. P., Hall, R. H., & Pitre, U. (1989). Effects of scripted cooperation and knowledge maps on the processing of technical material. Journal of Educational Psychology,81(4), 604-609.
98. Rieber, L. P., Tzeng, S.-C., & Tribble, K. (2004). Discovery learning, representation, and explanation within a computer-based simulation: Finding the right mix. Learning and Instruction,14(3), 307-323.
99. Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext? Computers & Education,53(4), 1308-1319.
100. Salmerón, L., Gil, L., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Comprehension effects of signalling relationships between documents in search engines. Computers in Human Behavior,26(2), 419-426.
101. Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high-and low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational Psychology,81(3), 306-312.
102. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning & Instruction,13(2), 141-156.
103. Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory,18(7), 698-711.
104. Slof, B., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Helms-Lorenz, M. (2013). The effects of inspecting and constructing part-task-specific visualizations on team and individual learning. Computers & Education,60, 221-233.
105. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12(3), 508-513.
106. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction,13, 191-203.
107. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science,12(2), 257-285.
108. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review,22(2), 123-138.
109. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction,12, 185-233.
110. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,119(2), 176-192.
111. Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriё nboer, J. J. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology,74, 71-81.
112. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,80(4), 424-436.
113. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,57, 247-262.
114. Uesaka, Y., Manalo, E., & Ichikawa, S. I. (2007). What kinds of perceptions and daily learning behaviors promote students’ use of diagrams in mathematics problem solving? Learning & Instruction,17, 322-335.
115. Uluyol, C., & Agca, R. K. (2012). Integrating mobile multimedia into textbooks: 2D barcodes. Computers & Education,59, 1192-1198.
116. van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behavior,24, 1293-1313.
117. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
118. van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology,93(1), 129-140.
119. van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., & Garner, J. (2006). Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology,31, 142-166.
120. Walker, C. H. (1987). Relative importance of domain knowledge and overall aptitude on acquisition of domain-related information. Cognition and Instruction,4(1), 25-42.
121. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction,7(1), 1-39.
122. Watson, G., Butteri eld, J., Curran, R., & Craig, C. (2010). Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task? Learning & Instruction,20, 84-93.
123. Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Moekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation(pp. 531-566). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
124. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2d ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.