Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding

Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that Promote Understanding

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 1-244

  Fiorella, Logan ^a   Mayer, Richard E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84953402767     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107707085     Document Type: Book

References (395)

1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., &Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy of Learning for Teaching: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
2. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., &Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
4. Clark, R. C., &Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
5. Doctorow, M, Wittrock, M. C., &Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,109-18.
6. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). I mproving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58.
7. Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
8. Katona, G. (1940). Organizing and Memorizing. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
9. Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn How to Study and SOAR to Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
10. Kourilsky, M., &Wittrock, M. C. (1992). Generative teaching: an enhancement strategy for learning economics in cooperative groups. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 861 -76.
11. Linden, M., &Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 44-57.
12. Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.
13. Mayer, R. E. (1988). Learning strategies: an overview. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, &P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies (pp. 11-22). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
14. Mayer, R. E. (1994). Study habits and strategies. In T. Husen &T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.; pp. 5829-31). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
15. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-71.
16. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
17. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock’s enduring contributions to the science of learning: Educational Psychologist, 45, 46 -50.
19. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
20. Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Mayer, R. E., &Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem solving and transfer. In D. Berliner &R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 45-61). New York, NY: Macmillan.
22. Mayer, R. E., &Wittrock, M. C. (2006). Problem solving. In P. Alexander, P. Winne, &G. Phye (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 287-303). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. O’Neil, H. F. (Ed.). (2005). What Works in Distance Learning: Guidelines. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
24. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., &Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing What Students Know. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Pellegrino, J. W., &Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Peper, R., &Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 34-8.
27. Piaget, J. (1926). The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Company.
28. Shrager, L., &Mayer, R. E. (1989). Notetaking fosters generative learning strategies in novices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 263-4.
29. Weinstein, C. E., &Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.; pp. 315-27), New York, NY: Macmillan.
30. Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive Thinking. New York, NY: Harper &Row.
31. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.
32. Wertheimer, M. (1978). The cognitive movement instruction. Educational Psychologist, 13,15-29.
33. Wertheimer, M. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345 -76.
34. Wertheimer, M. (1991). Educational psychology, literacy, and reading comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 26,109-16.
35. Wertheimer, M. (1992). Generative processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27, 531-41.
36. Wittrock, M. C., &Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (3), 489 -502.
37. Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 358-68.
38. Annis, L. F. (1985). Student-generated paragraph summaries and the informationprocessing theory of prose learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 54(1), 4-10.
39. Bednall, T. C., &Kehoe, E. J. (2011). Effects of self-regulatory instructional aids on self-directed study. Instructional Science, 39, 205-226.
40. Bean, T. W., &Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 297-306.
41. Bretzing, B. H., &Kulhavy, R. W. (1979). Notetaking and depth of processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4,145-53.
42. Brown, A. L., &Campione, J. C. (1979). Te effects of knowledge and experience on the formation of retrieval plans for studying from texts. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, &R. N., Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory (pp. 378-84). London: Academic Press.
43. Brown, A. L. &Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: the development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1-14.
44. Brown, A. L. &Smiley, S. S. (1978). Te development of strategies for studying texts. Child Development, 49(4), 1076-88.
45. Brown, A. L., Smiley, S. S., &Lawton, S. Q. C. (1978). Te effects of experience on the selection of suitable retrieval cues for studying texts, Child Development, 49 (3), 829-35.
46. Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., &Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(4), 347-65.
47. Cordero-Ponce, W. L. (2000). Summarization instruction: effects on foreign language comprehension and summarization of expository texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 39 (4), 329 -50.
48. Doctorow, M., Wittrock, M. C., &Marks, C. (1978). Generative processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 109-18.
49. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., March, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). I mproving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 5-58.
50. Dyer, J. W., Riley, J., &Yekovich, F. R. (1979). An analysis of three study skills: notetaking, summarizing, and rereading. Journal of Educational Research, 73(1), 3-7.
51. Foos, P. W. (1995). The effect of variations in text summarization opportunities on test performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 63(2), 89-95.
52. Friend, R. (2001). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 3-24.
53. Garner, R. (1982). Efficient text summarization: costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 275-9.
54. Hare, V. C., &Borchart, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 62-78.
55. Hooper, S., Sales, G., &Rysavy, S. D. M. (1994). Generating summaries and analogies alone and in pairs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 53-62.
56. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-23.
57. King, J. R., Biggs, S., &Lipsky, S. (1984). Students’ self-questioning and summarizing as reading study strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(3), 205-18.
58. Kintsch, E. (1990). Macroprocesses and microprocesses in the development of summarization skill. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 161-95.
59. Kintsch, W., &Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension. Psychological Review, 85 (5), 363 -94.
60. Leopold, C., &Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22, 16 -26.
61. Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., &Leutner, D. (2013). Learning with summaries: effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 27, 40-9.
62. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.; pp. 43-71). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
64. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., &Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90, 3-32.
65. Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., &Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 422-38.
66. Spurlin, J. E., Dansereau, D. F., O’Donnell, A., &Brooks, L. W. (1988). Text processing: effects of summarization frequency on text recall. Journal of Experimental Education, 56(4), 199-202.
67. Stein, B. L., &Kirby, J. R. (1992). The effects of text absent and text present conditions on summarization and recall of text. Journal of Literacy Research, 24(2), 217-32.
68. Ross, S. M., &Di Vesta, F. J. (1976). Oral summary as a review strategy for enhancing recall of textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(6), 689-95.
69. Taylor, B. M., &Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134-46.
70. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11 (2), 87-95.
71. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345-76.
72. Wittrock, M. C., &Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27 (3), 489 -502.
73. Chambliss, M. J., &Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for Learning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
74. Chang, K., Sung, Y., &Chen, I. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 5-23.
75. Chiou, C. (2009). Effects of concept mapping strategy on learning performance in business and economics statistics. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 55-69.
76. Chmielewski, T. L., &Dansereau, D. F. (1998). Enhancing the recall of text: knowledge mapping training promotes implicit transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 407 -13.
77. Chularut, P., &DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a Second Language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-63.
78. Cook, L. K., &Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448-56.
79. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
80. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., &Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356-64.
81. Haugwitz, M., Nesbit, J. C., &Sandmann, A. (2010). Cognitive ability and the instructional efficacy of collaborative concept mapping. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 536-43.
82. Heinze-Fry, J. A., &Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward meaningful learning. Science Education, 74, 461-72.
83. Holley, C. D., & Dansereau, D. F. (Eds.). (1984). Spatial Learning Strategies. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
84. Holley, C. D., Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Garland, J. C., &Collins, K. W. (1979). Evaluation of a hierarchical mapping technique as an aid to prose processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 227-37.
85. Horton, P. B., McConney, A. A., Gallo, M., Woods, A. L., Senn, G. J., &Hamelin, D. (1993). An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool. Science Education, 77, 95-111.
86. Jairam, D., &Kiewra, K. A. (2010). Helping students soar to success on computers: an investigation of the SOAR study method for computer-based learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 601-614.
87. Jairam, D., Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., &Zhao, R. (2012). How to study a matrix. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37,128-35.
88. Kauffman, D. F. (2004). Self-regulated learning in web-based environments: instructional tools designed to facilitate cognitive strategy use, metacognitive processing, and motivational beliefs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30,139-61.
89. Kauffman, D. F., &Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38, 679-705.
90. Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., &Yang, Y. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 313-22.
91. Lambiotte, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., &Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational semantic maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 331-67.
92. Lehman, J. D., Carter, C., &Kahle, J. B. (1985). Concept mapping, vee mapping, and achievement: results from a field study with black high school students. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 22, 663-73.
93. Liu, P., Chen, C., &Chang, Y. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers &Education, 54, 436-45.
94. Nesbit, J. C., &Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-48.
95. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge. Mahwah. NJ: Erlbaum.
96. Novak, J. D., &Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning How to Learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
97. O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., &Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 71-86.
98. Okebukola, P. A. (1990). Attaining meaningful learning of concepts in generics and ecology: an examination of the potency of the concept-mapping technique. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 493-504.
99. Passmore, G. G., Owen, M. A., &Prabakaran, K. (2011). Empirical evidence of the effectiveness of concept mapping as a learning intervention for nuclear medicine technology students in a distance learning radiation protection and biology course. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 39, 284-9.
100. Ponce, H. R., Lopez, M. J., &Mayer, R. E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Computers &Education, 59, 1170 -83.
101. Ponce, H. R., Lopez, M. J., &Mayer, R. E. (2013). A computer-based spatial learning strategy approach that improves reading comprehension and writing. Educational Technology Research &Development, 61, 819-40.
102. Ponce, H. R., &Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 30,121-30.
103. Prater, D. L., &Terry, C. A. (1988). Effects of mapping strategies on reading comprehension and writing performance. Reading Psychology, 9,101-20.
104. Redford, J. S., hiede, K. W., Wiley, J., &Griffin, T. D. (2012). Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction, 22, 262-70.
105. Roberts, F. W., &Dansereau, D. F. (2008). Studying strategy effects on memory, attitudes, and intentions. Reading Psychology, 29, 552-80.
106. Stensvold, M. S., &Wilson, J. T. (1990). The interaction of verbal ability with concept mapping in learning a chemistry laboratory activity. Science Education, 74, 473 -80.
107. Stull, A., &Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808-20.
108. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., &Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333,1096-7.
109. Alesandrini, K. L. (1981). Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 358-68.
110. 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, 39-53.
111. Hall, V. C., Bailey, J., &Tillman, C. (1997). Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 677-81.
112. Holley, C.D., Dansereau, D. F., McDonald, B. A., Garland, J. C., &Collins, K. W. (1979). Evaluation of a hierarchical mapping technique as an aid to prose processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 4, 227-37.
113. Igo, B. L., &Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach web-based, copy and paste note taking? Selective pasting and related learning outcomes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 512-29.
114. Kauffman, D. F., Zhao, R., &Yang, Y. (2011). Effects of online note taking formats and self-monitoring prompts on learning from online text: using technology to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 313-22.
115. Leopold, C., &Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22,16-26.
116. Leutner, D, Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mental imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284-9.
117. Leutner, D., &Schmeck, A. (2014). The drawing principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 433-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
118. Levin, J. R., &Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. Britton, A. Woodward, &M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from Textbooks: heory and Practice (pp. 95-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
119. Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (vol. 4; pp. 253-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
120. Nesbit, J. C., &Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413-48.
121. Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
122. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottage, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., &Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Research.
123. Ponce, H. R., &Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 121 -30.
124. Schwamborn, A., Mayer, R. E., hillmann, H., Leopold, C., &Leutner, D. (2010a). Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 872-9.
125. Schwamborn, A., hillmann, H., Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., &Leutner, D. (2010b). Der Einsatz von vorgegebenen und selbst generierten Bildern als Textverstehenshilfe beim Lernen aus einem naturwissenschaftlichen Sachtext [Using presented and self-generated pictures as learning aids for learning from science text]. Zeitschrift fur Padagogische Psychologie, 24, 221-33.
126. Schwamborn, A., hillmann, H., Opfermann, M., &Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 89-93.
127. Stull, A., &Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808-20.
128. Van Meter, P. (2001). Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,129-40.
129. 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 -66.
130. Van Meter, P., &Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285 -325.
131. Weinstein, C. E., &Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-27). New York, NY: Macmillan.
132. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345-76.
133. Anderson, R. C. &Kulhavy, R. W. (1972). Imagery and prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 242-3.
134. Bender, B. G., &Levin, J. R. (1978). Pictures, imagery, and retarded children’s prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 583-8.
135. Butcher, K. (2014). Multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 174-205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
136. Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G., &Outred, L. (1999). The effect of visual imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in year 2. Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 241-56.
137. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., &Swller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68-82.
138. De Koning, B. B., &Van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25, 261-87.
139. Driskell, J.E., Copper, C., &Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-92.
140. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). I mproving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 3-58.
141. Gambrell, L. B., &Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children’s story comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 264 -76.
142. Giesen, C., &Peeck, J. (1984). Effects of imagery instruction on reading and retaining literary text. Journal of Mental Imagery, 8, 79-90.
143. Ginns, P., Chandler, P., &Sweller, J. (2003). When imagining is effective: Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 229-51.
144. Jones, M. L., Levin, M. E., Levin, J. R., &Beitzel, B. D. (2000). Can vocabulary-learning strategies and pair-learning formats be profitably combined? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 256-62.
145. Leahy, W., &Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 857-75.
146. Leahy, W., &Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 266-76.
147. Leahy, W., &Sweller, J. (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273-83.
148. Leopold, C., &Mayer, R. E. (in press). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 000-000.
149. Leutner, D, Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mental imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 284-9.
150. Levin, J. R., McCormick, C. B., Miller, G. E., Berry, J. K., &Pressley, M. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19,121-36.
151. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY. Cambridge University Press.
152. Oakhill, J., &Patel, S. (1991). Can imagery training help children who have comprehension problems? Journal of Research in Reading, 14,106-15.
153. Pressley, M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 355-9.
154. Pressley, M. (1977). Children’s use of the keyword method to learn simple Spanish vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 465-72.
155. Rasco, R. W., Tennyson, R. D., &Boutwell, R. C. (1975). Imagery instructions and drawings in learning prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,188-92.
156. Raugh, M. R., &Atkinson, R. C. (1975). A mnemonic method for learning a second language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,1-16.
157. Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861-76.
158. Agarwal, P. K., &Roediger, H. L., III (2011). Expectancy of an open-book test decreases performance on a delayed closed-book test. Memory, 19, 836-52.
159. Allen, G. A., Mahler, W. A., &Estes, W. K. (1969). Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired-associates. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 8(4), 463-70.
160. Balch, W. R. (1998). Practice versus review exams and final exam performance. Teaching of Psychology, 25(3), 181-5.
161. Butler, A. C. (2010). Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning to repeated studying. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36 (5), 1118 -33.
162. Butler, A. C., &Roediger, H. L. III (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514 -27.
163. Butler, A. C., &Roediger, H. L. III (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory &Cognition, 36(3), 604-16.
164. Carpenter, S. K., &Kelly, J. W. (2012). Tests enhance retention and transfer of spatial learning. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 19, 443-8.
165. Cranney, J., Ahn, M., McKinnon, R., Morris, S., &Watts, K. (2009). The testing effect, collaborative learning, and retrieval-induced facilitation in a classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 919-40.
166. Daniel, D. B., &Broida, J. (2004). Using web-based quizzing to improve exam performance: lessons learned. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 207-8.
167. Duchastel, P. C. (1981). Retention of prose following testing with different types of tests. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 217-26.
168. Fazio, L. K., Agarwal, P. K., Marsh, E. J., &Roediger, H. L., III. (2010). Memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing on immediate and delayed tests. Memory &Cognition, 38, 407-18.
169. Foos, P. W., &Fisher, R. P. (1988). Using tests as learning opportunities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 179-83.
170. Glover, J. A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 392-9.
171. Johnson, C. I., &Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621-9.
172. Kang, S. H. K., McDaniel, M. A., &Pashler, H. (2011). Effects of testing on learning of functions. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 18, 998-1005.
173. Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., &Roediger, H. L., III (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528-58.
174. Karpicke, J. D., &Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-5.
175. Karpicke, J. D. &Roediger, H. L., III (2007a). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33,704-19.
176. Karpicke, J. D. &Roediger, H. L., III (2007b). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57,151-62.
177. Karpicke, J. D. &Roediger, H. L., III (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966-8.
178. Karpicke, J. D. &Roediger, H. L., III (2010). Is expanding retrieval a superior method for learning text materials? Memory and Cognition, 38,116-24.
179. Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves performance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29(3), 210-12.
180. Lyle, K. B., &Crawford, N. A. (2011). Retrieving essential material at the end of lectures improves performance on statistics exams. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 94-7.
181. Mayer, R. E. (1975). Forward transfer of different reading strategies evoked by testlike events in mathematics text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67,165-9.
182. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., &Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in the classroom: fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51-7.
183. McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., &Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4/5), 494-513.
184. McDaniel, M. A., Howard, C. D., &Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy: effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20, 516-22.
185. McDaniel, M. A., Agarwal, P. K., Huelser, B. J, McDermott, K. B., &Roediger, H. L., III (2011). Test-enhanced learning in a middle school science classroom: the effects of quiz frequency and placement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 399 -414.
186. McDaniel, M. A., Wildman, K. M., &Anderson, J. L. (2012). Using quizzes to enhance summative-assessment performance in a web-based class: an experimental study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1,18-26.
187. Nungester, R. J., &Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Testing versus review: effects on retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 18-22.
188. Pavlik, P. I., &Anderson, J. R. (2005). Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: an activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559 -86.
189. Richland, L. E., Kornell, N., &Kao, L. S. (2009). The pretesting effect: do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 243-57.
190. Roediger, H. L., III, &Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181 -210.
191. Roediger, H. L., III, &Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249 -55.
192. Rohrer, D., III, &Marsh, E. J. (2005). The positive and negative consequences of multiple-choice testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31(5), 1155-9.
193. Rohrer, D., Taylor, K., &Sholar, B. (2010). Tests enhance the transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 233 -9.
194. Rothkopf, E. Z. (1970). The concept of mathemagenic activities. Review of Educational Research, 40, 325-36.
195. Rothkopf, E. Z., &Bisbicos, E. (1967). Selective facilitative effects of interspersed questions on learning from written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 56-61.
196. Vaughn, K. E., &Rawson, K. A. (2011). Diagnosing criterion level effects on memory: what aspects of memory are enhanced by repeated retrieval? Psychological Science, 22, 1127 -31.
197. Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., &Roediger, H. L., III. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: rereading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 308-16.
198. Zaromb, F. M., &Roediger, H. L., III. (2010). The testing effect in free recall is associated with enhanced organizational processes. Memory &Cognition, 38, 995 -1008.
199. Ainsworth, S., &Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303.
200. Ainsworth, S., &Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303.
201. Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., &Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-79.
202. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., &Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-83.
203. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H. S., &Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345-63.
204. Berthold, K., &Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70-87.
205. Berthold, K., Roder, H., Knorzer, D., Kessler, W., &Renkl, A. (2011). The doubleedged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 69 -75.
206. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. L., &Brown, A. L. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies: investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 13(2), 221-52.
207. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 183-97.
208. Chamberland, M., St-Onge, C., Setrakian, J., Lanthier, L., Bergeron, L., Bourget, A. Rikers, R. (2011). The influence of medical students’ self-explanations on diagnostic performance. Medical Education, 45, 688 -95.
209. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.) Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
210. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73 -105.
211. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., &Glaser, R. (1989). Selfexplanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145 -82.
212. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., &LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-77.
213. Cho, Y. H., &Lee, S. E. (2013). The role of co-explanation and self-explanation in learning from design examples of PowerPoint presentation slides. Computers and Education, 69, 400-7.
214. Conati, C., &VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: a computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(4), 389-415.
215. de Bruin, A., Rikers, R., &Schmidt, H. (2007). The effect of self-explanation and prediction on the development of principled understanding of chess in novices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(2), 188-205.
216. de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., &Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25,183-94.
217. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). I mproving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4-58.
218. Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., &de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: differences in study processes between good and poor performers. Cognition and Instruction, 7(1), 41-54.
219. Fonseca, B. A., &Chi, M. T. H. (2011). Instruction based on self-explanation. In R. E. Mayer &P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Learning and Instruction (pp. 296-319). New York, NY: Routledge.
220. Gadgil, S., Nokes-Malach, T. J., &Chi, M. T. H. (2012). Effectiveness of holistic mental model confrontation in driving conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 22 (1), 47 -61.
221. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., &Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16,104-21.
222. Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzapfel, L., Nuckles, M., &Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 452-68.
223. Grobe, C. S., &Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16,122-38.
224. Grobe, C. S., &Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17, 612-34.
225. Hausmann, R. G. M., &Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7(1), 4-14.
226. Hilbert, T. S., &Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: self-explaining examples helps. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 267-74.
227. Hilbert, T. S., Renkl, A., Kessler, S., &Reiss, K. (2008). Learning to prove in geometry: learning from heuristic examples and how it can be supported. Learning and Instruction, 18, 54-65.
228. Hsu, C.-Y., &Tsai, C.-C. (2011). Investigating the impact of integrating self-explanation into an educational game: a pilot study. Edutainment Technologies (pp. 250-4). Taipei, Taiwan: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
229. Hsu, C.-Y., &Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Examining the effects of combining self-explanation principles with an educational game on learning science concepts. Interactive Learning Environments, 21 (2), 104 -15.
230. Johnson, C. I., &Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,1246-52.
231. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303-23.
232. Kurby, C. A., Magliano, J. P., Dandotkar, S. Woehrle, J., Gilliam, S., &McNamara, D. S. (2012). Changing how students process and comprehend texts with computer-based self-explanation training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47 (4), 429 -59.
233. Kwon, K., Kumalasari, C. D., &Howland, J. L. (2011). Self-explanation prompts on problem-solving performance in an interactive learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(2), 96-112.
234. Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., &Roediger, H. L., III. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674-82.
235. Lin, L., &Atkinson, R. K. (2013). Enhancing learning from different visualizations by self-explanation prompts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 83-110.
236. Matthews, P., &Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104,1-21.
237. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), he Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY. Cambridge University Press.
238. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY. Cambridge University Press.
239. Mayer, R. E., &Johnson, C. I. (2010). Adding instructional features that promote learning in a game-like environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42 (3), 241 -65.
240. McEldoon, K. L., Durkin, K. L., &Rittle-Johnson, B. (2013). Is self-explanation worth the time? A comparison to additional practice. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 615-32.
241. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38 (1), 1 -30.
242. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., &Boonthum, C. (2004). ISTART: interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments &Computers, 36 (2), 222-33.
243. McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., &Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34 (2), 147 -71.
244. Mwangi, W., &Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve compare word problems: the effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 173-99.
245. Nokes-Malach, T. J., VanLehn, K., Belenky, D. M., Lichtenstein, M., &Cox, G. (2013). Coordinating principles and examples through analogy and self-explanation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1237-73.
246. O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., &MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A comparison of selfexplanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434-45.
247. Pine, K. J., &Messer, D. J. (2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 35-51.
248. Pirolli, P., &Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12 (3), 235-75.
249. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., &Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291 -300.
250. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: a study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21 (1), 1 -29.
251. Renkl, A. (1999). Learning mathematics from worked-out examples: analyzing and fostering self-explanations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 477-88.
252. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., &Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: the effects of examples variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.
253. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1-15.
254. Schworm, S., &Renkl, A. (2006). Computer-supported example-based learning: when instructional explanations reduce self-explanations. Computers &Education, 46, 426 -45.
255. Schworm, S., &Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285-96.
256. Siegler, R. S., &Chen, Z. (2008). Differentiation and integration: guiding principles for analyzing cognitive change. Developmental Science, 11(4), 433-53.
257. Van der Meij, J., &De Jong, T. (2011). The effects of directive self-explanation prompts to support active processing of multiple representations in a simulation-based learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27 (5), 411-23.
258. Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., &Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233-62.
259. Wylie, R., &Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.; pp. 413-32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
260. Annis A., (1983). The processes and effects of peer tutoring. Human Learning, 2, 39-47
261. Bargh, J. A., &Schul, Y. (1980). On the benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593-604.
262. Benware, C. A., &Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 755-65.
263. Biswas, G., Leelawong, K., Schwartz, D., &Vye, N. (2005). Learning by teaching: a new agent paradigm for educational software. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19 (3-4), 363-92.
264. Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with teachable agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 649-69.
265. Cloward, R. D. (1967). Studies in tutoring. Journal of Experimental Education, 36(1), 14-25.
266. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-35.
267. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., &Kulik, C.-L. (1982). Education outcomes of tutoring: a meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237-48.
268. Coleman, E. B., Brown, A. L., &Rivkin, I. D. (1997). The effect of instructional explanations on learning from scientific texts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6 (4), 347-65.
269. Ehly, S., Keith, T. Z., Bratton, B. (1987). The benefits of tutoring: an exploration of expectancy and outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12,131-4.
270. Fantuzzo, J. W., Riggio, R. E., Connelly, S., &Dimeff, L. A. (1989). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on academic achievement and psychological adjustment: a component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,173-7.
271. Fiorella, L., &Mayer, R. E. (2013a). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281-8.
272. Fiorella, L., &Mayer, R. E. (2013b). Teaching as a Generative Learning Strategy. Poster presented at the Psychonomics Society Annual Meeting, Toronto, ON.
273. Fiorella, L., &Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75-85.
274. Galbraith, J., &Winterbottom, M. (2011). Peer-tutoring: what’s in it for the tutor? Educational Studies, 37 (3), 321-32.
275. Gregory, A., Walker, I., McLaughlin, K., &Peets, A. D. (2011). Both preparing to teach and teaching positively impact learning outcomes for peer teachers. Medical Teacher, 33(8), e417-e422.
276. Herberg, J. S., Levin, D. T., &Saylor, M. M. (2012). Social audiences can disrupt learning by teaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 213-19.
277. Holmes, J. (2007). Designing agents to support learning by explaining. Computers &Education, 48(4), 523-47.
278. King, A., StaffLeri, A., &Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 134-52.
279. Leelawong, K., &Biswas, G. (2008). Designing learning by teaching agents: the Betty’s Brain system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 18 (3), 181 -208.
280. Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., Cohen, W. W., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: lessons learned with SimStudent. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1152-63.
281. Morgan, R. F., &Toy, T. B. (1970). Learning by teaching: a student-to-student compensatory tutoring program in a rural school system and its relevance to the educational cooperative. Psychological Record, 20(2), 159-69.
282. Okita, S. Y., &Schwartz, D. L. (2013). Learning by teaching human pupils and teachable agents: the importance of recursive feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22 (3), 375 -412.
283. Okita, S. Y., Turkay, S., Kim, M., &Murai, Y. (2013). Learning by teaching with virtual peers and the effects of technological design choices on learning. Computers &Education, 63, 176 -96.
284. Palincsar, A. S., &Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 (2), 117 -75.
285. Renkl, A. (1995). Learning for later teaching: an exploration of meditational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction, 5, 21 -36.
286. Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327-51.
287. Roscoe, R. D., &Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534-74.
288. Roscoe, R. D., &Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: the role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36 (4), 321 -50.
289. Segedy, J. R., Kinnebrew, J. S., &Biswas, G. (2013). The effect of contextualized conversational feedback in a complex open-ended learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 71-89.
290. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. New York, NY: Longman.
291. Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642-55.
292. Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., &Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-38.
293. Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: manipulatives and reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 14-18.
294. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
295. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-45.
296. Belenky, D. M., &Schalk, L. (2014). The effects of idealized and grounded materials on learning, transfer, and interest: an organizing framework for categorizing external knowledge representations. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 27-50.
297. Bender, B. G., &Levin, J. R. (1976). Motor activity, anticipated motor activity, and young children’s associative learning. Child Development, 47(2), 560-2.
298. Biazak, J. E., Marley, S. C., &Levin, J. R. (2010). Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children’s memory for narrative passages? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 515-26.
299. Boulton-Lewis, G., Cooper, T., Atweh, B., Pillay, H., Wilss, L., &Mutch, S. (1997). Processing load and the use of concrete representations and strategies for solving linear equations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 16, 379-97.
300. Broaders, S. C., Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (2007). Making children gesture brings out implicit knowledge and leads to learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 539-50.
301. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., &Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3 (3), 160-4.
302. Brownell, W. A., &Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: a study on grade 3 subtraction. Duke University Research Studies in Education, 8 (1), 1-15.
303. Bruner, J. S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19 (1), 1 -15.
304. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., &Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research &Practice, 18 (2), 99 -111.
305. Carbonneau, K. J., Marley, S. C., &Selig, J. P. (2013). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of teaching mathematics with concrete manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 380-400.
306. Chu, M., &Kita, S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 706-23.
307. Chu, M., &Kita, S. (2011). The nature of gestures’ beneficial role in spatial problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 102-16.
308. Church, R. B., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (1986). The mismatch between gesture and speech as an index of transitional knowledge. Cognition, 23, 43-71.
309. Cook, S. W., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (2006). The role of gesture in learning: do children use their hands to change their minds? Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 211-32.
310. Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106,1047-58.
311. Cramer, K. A., Post, T. R., &delMas, R. C. (2002) Initial fraction learning by fourth -and fifth-grade students: A comparison of the effects of using the Rational Number Project Curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33 (2), 111 -44.
312. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., &Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340 (6130), 305 -8.
313. De Koning, B. B., &Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: an embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 501-21.
314. Fennema, E. H. (1972). The relative effectiveness of a symbolic and a concrete model in learning a selected mathematical principle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3 (4), 233-8.
315. Flannagan, R. (2013). Effects of learning from interaction with physical or mediated devices. Cognitive Processing, 14, 213-15.
316. Fujimura, N. (2001). Facilitating children’s proportional reasoning: a model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 589-603.
317. Fyfe, E. R., McNeil, N. M., Son, J. Y., &Goldstone, R. L. (2014). Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: a systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 1-17.
318. Glenberg, A. M. (2008). Embodiment for education. In P. Calvo &T. Gomila, Handbook of Cognitive Science: An Embodied Approach (pp. 355-72). Amersterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
319. Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., &Zhu, X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39, 27-39.
320. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., &Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424-36.
321. Goldin-Meadow, S., &Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating language. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257-83.
322. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., &Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267-72.
323. 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.
324. Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., Kriz, S., &Keehner, M. (2005). The role of gestures in mental animation. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 5, 330-56.
325. Hiebert, J., Wearne, D., &Taber, S. (1991). Fourth graders’ gradual construction of decimal fractions during instruction using different physical representations. Elementary School Journal, 91(4), 321-41.
326. Kieren, T. E. (1971). Manipulative activity in mathematics learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2, 228-34.
327. Klahr, D., Triona, L., Lara, M., &Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? he relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183-203.
328. Lucow, W. H. (1964). An experiment with the Cuisenaire method in grade three. American Educational Research Journal, 1(3), 159-67.
329. Manches, A., O’Malley, C., &Benford, S. (2010). The role of physical representations in solving number problems: a comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials. Computers and Education, 54 (3), 622-40.
330. Marley, S. C., &Carbonneau, K. J. (2014). Future directions for theory and research with instructional manipulatives: commentary on the special issue papers. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 91-100.
331. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., &Glenberg, A. M. (2007). Improving Native American children’s listening comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 537-50.
332. Marley, S. C., Levin, J. R., &Glenberg, A. M. (2010). What cognitive benefits does an activity-based reading strategy afford young Native American readers? Journal of Experimental Education, 78(3), 395-417.
333. Marley, S. C., &Szabo, Z. (2010). Improving children’s listening comprehension with a manipulation strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 227-38.
334. Marley, S. C., Szabo, Z., Leven, J. R., &Glenberg, A. M. (2011). Investigation of an activity-based text-processing strategy in mixed-age child dyads. Journal of Experimental Education, 79(3), 340-60.
335. Martin, T., &Schwartz, D. L. (2005). Physically distributed learning: adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29, 587 -625.
336. Mayer, R. E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: advance organizers and subject control of frame sequencing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,143-50.
337. McNeil, N. M., &Fyfe, E. R. (2012). “Concreteness fading” promotes transfer of mathematical knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 22, 440-8.
338. McNeil, N. M., &Jarvin, L. (2007). When theories don’t add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46(4), 309-16.
339. McNeil, N. M., Uttal, D. H., Jarvin, L., &Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems. Learning and Instruction, 19,171-84.
340. Miller, J. W. (1964). An experimental comparison of two approaches to teaching multiplication of fractions. Journal of Educational Research, 57(9), 468-71.
341. Moody, W. B., Abell, R., &Bausell, R. B. (1971). The effect of activity-oriented instruction upon original learning, transfer, and retention. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 2 (3), 207 -12.
342. Moreno, R. &Mayer, R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215 -48.
343. Noice, H., &Noice, T. (2001). Learning dialogue with and without movement. Memory &Cognition, 29(6), 820-7.
344. Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22 (1), 43-56.
345. Olympiou, G., &Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21-47.
346. Olympiou, G., Zacharia, Z. C., &de Jong, T. (2013). Making the invisible visible: enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation. Instructional Science, 41, 575-87.
347. Paas, F., &Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 27-45.
348. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York, NY: Norton.
349. Pine, K. J., Lufkin, N., &Messer, D. (2004). More gestures than answers: children learning about balance. Developmental Psychology, 40,1059-67.
350. Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., &Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (1), 51 -72.
351. Reimer, K., &Moyer, P. S. (2005). Third-graders learn about fractions using virtual manipulatives: a classroom study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(1), 5-25.
352. Rubman, C. N., &Waters, H. S. (2000). A, B seeing: the role of constructive processes in children’s comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 503-14.
353. Saltz, E., &Donnenwerth-Nolan, S. (1981). Does motoric imagery facilitate memory for sentences? A selective interference test. Journal of Verbal Learning &Verbal Behavior, 20 (3), 322 -32.
354. Schwartz, D. L., &Black, J. B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20, 457-97.
355. Sherman, J., &Bisanz, J. (2009). Equivalence in symbolic and nonsymbolic contexts: benefits of solving problems with manipulatives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 88-100.
356. 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 -13.
357. Smith, L. F., &Montani, T. O. (2008). The effects of instructional consistency: using manipulatives and teaching strategies to support resource room mathematics instructions. Learning Disabilities, 15 (2), 71 -6.
358. Sowell, E. J. (1989). Effects of manipulative materials in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(5), 498-505.
359. Stull, A. T., Barrett, T., &Hegarty, M. (2013). Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2546-56.
360. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., &Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition &Instruction, 30(4), 404 -34.
361. Suh, J., &Moyer, P. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26(2), 155-73.
362. Shireadgill-Sowder, J. A., &Juilfs, P. A. (1980). Manipulative versus symbolic approaches to teaching logical connectives in junior high school: an aptitude X treatment interaction study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11(5), 367-74.
363. Triona, L. M., &Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149-73.
364. Uttal, D. H., Liu, L. L., DeLoache, J. S. (1999). Taking a hard look at concreteness: Do concrete objects help young children learn symbolic relations? In L. Balter &C. S. Tamis-LeMonde (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 177-192). New York: Psychology Press.
365. Uttal, D. H., O’Doherty, K., Newland, R., Hand, L. L., &DeLoache, J. (2009). Dual representation and the linking of concrete and symbolic representations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 156-9.
366. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 9 (4), 625 -36.
367. Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., Wang, C.-H. et al. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307-16.
368. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., &Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447-57.
369. Zacharia, Z. C., &Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-31.
370. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., &Lovett, M. C. (2010). How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
371. Bourne, L. E., &Healy, A. F. (2014). Train Your Mind for Peak Performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
372. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., &McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make It Stick: he Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
373. Dembo, M. H., &Junge, L. G. (2005). Learning strategies. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), What Works in Distance Learning: Guidelines (pp. 25-40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
374. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning strategies: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
375. Flippo, R. F. &Caverly, D. C. (Eds.). Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
376. Jairam, D., Kiewra, K. A., Rogers-Kasson, S., Patterson-Hazley, M., &Marxhausen, K. (2014). SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems. Instructional Science, 42, 409-20.
377. Kiewra, K. A. (2005). Learn How to Study and SOAR to Success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
378. Levin, J. R. (1981). The mnemonic 80s: keywords in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 16, 65-82.
379. Levin, M. E., &Levin, J. R. (1990). Scientific mnemonomies: methods for maximizing more than memory. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 301-21.
380. Mayer, R. E. (1988). Learning strategies: an overview. In C. Weinstein, E. Goetz, &P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies (pp. 11-22). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
381. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: on their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405-12.
382. Mayer, R. E. (1994). Study habits and strategies. In T. Husen &T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed; pp. 5829-31). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
383. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-71.
384. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and Instruction (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
385. Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the Science of Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
386. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29,171-3.
387. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765-81.
388. Moreno, R., &Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-26.
389. Nist, S. L., &Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. in R. F. Flippo &D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. 75-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
390. O’Neil, H. F. (Ed.). (2005). What Works in Distance Learning: Guidelines. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
391. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottage, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., &Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U. S. Department of Education.
392. Pellegrino, J. W., &Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
393. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., &Snyder, B. L. (1995). Reading comprehension strategies. In M. Pressley &V. Woloshyn (Eds.), Cognitive Strategy Instruction hat Really Improves Children’s Academic Performance (pp. 57-100). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
394. Pressley, M. &Woloshyn, V. (Eds.). (1995). Cognitive Strategy Instruction hat Really Improves Children’s Academic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
395. Weinstein, C. E., &Mayer, R. E. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed; pp. 315-27). New York, NY: Macmillan.