Computer-based learning of geometry from integrated and split-attention worked examples: The power of self-management

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 89-99

  Tindall Ford, Sharon ^a   Agostinho, Shirley ^a   Bokosmaty, Sahar ^a   Paas, Fred ^a,b   Chandler, Paul ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive load theory; Self management of split attention; Split attention; Worked examples

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948161205     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Bokosmaty, S. (2014). Adaptive diagrams: A Research agenda to explore how learners can manipulate online diagrams to self-manage cognitive load. In W. Huang (Ed.), Human centric visualization: Theories, methodologies and case studies (pp. 529-550). New York, NY: Springer.
2. Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: Handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers & Education, 64, 52-62.
3. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. W. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70, 181-214.
4. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2008). Interdisciplinary perspectives inspiring a new generation of cognitive load research. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 1-9.
5. st ed., pp. 135 - 146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Becker, D. A. A. & Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 155-172.
7. Board of Studies. (2012). Mathematics K-10, Stage 4, measurement and geometry: Angle relationships. Sydney, Australia: Board of Studies. Retrieved from http://syllabus.bos.nsw.edu.au/mathematics/mathematics-k10/content/761/
8. Bokosmaty, S., Sweller, J., & Kalyuga, S. (2014). Learning geometry problem solving by studying worked-examples: Effects of learner guidance and expertise. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2). 307-333. doi:10.3102/0002831214549450
9. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
10. Chung, K. H. (2008). What effect do mixed sensory mode instructional formats have on both novice and experienced learners of Chinese characters?. Learning and Instruction, 18, 96-108.
11. nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A Meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511-525.
13. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 355-372). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
14. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516-522.
15. Granger, B. P., & Levine, E. L. (2010). The Perplexing role of learner control in e-learning: Will learning and transfer benefit or suffer?. International Journal of Training and Development, 14, 180-197
16. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713-729.
17. Kraiger, K. & Jerden, E. (2007). A New look at learner control: Meta-analytic results and directions for future research. In S. M. Fiore & E. Salas (Eds.), Towards a Science of Distributed Learning (pp. 65-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?. Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
19. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246.
20. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
21. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The Role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
22. Orvis, K. A., Fisher, S. L. & Wasserman, M. E. (2009). Power to the people: Using learner control to improve trainee reactions and learning in web-based instructional environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 960-71.
23. Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A Cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
24. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1-4.
25. Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 16, 87-91.
26. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A Cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
27. Roodenrys, K., Agostinho, S., Roodenrys, S., & Chandler, P. (2012). Managing one's own cognitive load when evidence of split-attention is present. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 878-886.
28. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-138.
29. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects of learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
30. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The Use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59-89.
31. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 119, 176-192.
32. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
33. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424-436.
34. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257-287.
35. Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1-39.