Introduction to multimedia learning

The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 1-24

  Mayer, Richard E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952653000     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.002     Document Type: Chapter

References (21)

1. Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,104, 250-263.
2. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Selfexplanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science,13, 145-182.
4. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology in education. In D. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 807-840). New York: Macmillan.
5. Comenius, J. A. (1887). Orbis pictus. Syracuse, NY: Bardeen. [Reproduced version.]
6. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction,15, 313-332.
8. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction,16, 511-525.
9. Ginns, P., Marin, A. J., & Marsh, H. M. (2013). Designing instructional text for conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 445-472.
10. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Changing conceptions of learning: A century of progress in the scientific study of education. In L. Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume. One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education(pp. 34-75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2d ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
13. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology,83, 484-490.
14. 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.
15. Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution: A duel coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction,13, 141-156.
19. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
20. Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.
21. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.