Exploring the effects of seductive details with the 4-phase model of interest

Learning and Motivation

Volumn 55, Issue , 2016, Pages 65-77

  Wang, Zhe ^a   Adesope, Olusola ^a  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Interest; Recall; Seductive detail; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976371958     PISSN: 00239690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2016.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Abercrombie S. Transfer effects of adding seductive details to case-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2013, 38:149-157.
2. Ainley M., Hidi S., Berndorff D. Interest, learning: and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, 94:545-561.
3. Apter B.J. Do computerized training programmes designed to improve working memory work?. Educational Psychology in Practice 2012, 28(3):257-272.
4. Bauer D.J., Curran P.J. Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2005, 40:373-400.
5. Beckmann J. Taming a beast of burden - on some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20:250-264.
6. Bergin D.A. Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist 1999, 34:87-98.
7. Bjork E., Bjork R. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the real world 2009, 55-64. Worth Publishers. M.A. Gernsbacher, R.W. Pew, L.M. Hough, J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.).
8. Broughton S.H., Sinatra G.M., Reynolds R.E. The nature of the refutation text effect: an investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research 2010, 103(6):407-423. 10.1080/00220670903383101.
9. Chen A., Ennis C.D. Goals, Interests, and Learning in physical education. The Journal of Educational Research 2004, 97(6):329-339. 10.3200/JOER.97.6.329-339.
10. Chen A., Darst P.W., Pangrazi R.P. An examination of situational interest and its sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 71:383-400.
11. Choi H.-H., van Merrienboer, Paas F. Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: toward a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychological Review 2014, 26:225-244.
12. Cierniak G., Scheiter K., Gerjets P. Explaining the split-attention effect: is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load?. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25:315-324.
13. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA.
14. Csikszentmihalyi M., Rathunde K., Whalen S. Talented teenagers: the roots of success and failure 1993, University Press, New York: Cambridge.
15. D'Mello S., Lehman B., Pekrun R., Graesser A. Confusion can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:153-170.
16. DeLeeuw K.E., Mayer R.E. A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology 2008, 100:223-234.
17. Deci E.L. The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: a self-determination theory perspective. The role of interest in learning and development 1992, 43-69. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, A. Krapp (Eds.).
18. Doolittle P.E., Altstaedter L.L. The effect of working memory capacity on multimedia learning: does attentional control result in improved performance?. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 2009, 2:7-23.
19. Durik A.M., Harackiewicz J.M. Different strokes for different folks: how individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99(3):597-610.
20. Field A.P. Discovering statistics using SPSS (and sex and drugs and rock'n'roll) 2009, Sage, London. 3rd ed.
21. Fisher S.L., Ford J.K. Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personal Psychology 1998, 51:397-420.
22. Flynn T., Storandt M. Supplemental group discussions in memory training for older adults. Psychology and Ageing 1990, 5(2):171-182.
23. Garner R., Gillingham M.G., White C.S. Effects of 'seductive details' on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction 1989, 6:41-57.
24. Graesser A.C. Learning, thinking: and emotions with discourse technologies. American Psychologist 2011, 66:746-757.
25. Harackiewicz J.M., Barron K.E., Tauer J.M., Carter S.M., Elliot A.J. Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000, 92:316-330.
26. Harp S.F., Maslich A.A. The consequences of including seductive details during lecture. Teaching of Psychology 2005, 32:100-103.
27. Harp S.F., Mayer R.E. The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: on the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, 89(1):92-102.
28. Harp S.F., Mayer R.E. How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 1998, 50:414-434.
29. Harrison T.L., Shipstead Z., Hicks K.L., Hambrick D.Z., Redick T.S., Engle R.W. Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence. Psychological Science 2013, 24(12):2409-2419.
30. Hidi S., Baird W. Interestingness-a neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science 1986, 10:179-194.
31. Hidi S., Baird W. Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly 1988, 23:465-483.
32. Hidi S., Harackiewicz J.M. Motivating the academically unmotivated: a critical issue for the 21 st century. Review of Educational Research 2000, 70:151-179.
33. Hidi S., Renninger K.A. The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist 2006, 41(2):111-127.
34. Ismail H.N., Kuldas S., Hamzah A. Do students need more motivational resources or more cognitive resources for better learning?. Social and Behavioral Sciences 2013, 97:325-332.
35. Kaiser H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 1974, 39:31-36.
36. Kintsch W. Learning from text, levels of comprehension: or: why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics 1980, 9:87-89.
37. Kirschner F., Kester L., Corbalan G. Cognitive load theory and multimedia learning: task characteristics and learning engagement: the current state of the art. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27:1-4.
38. Kunter M., Baumert J., Koller O. Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17:494-509.
39. Lawson M.A., Lawson H.A. New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research 2013, 83(3):432-479.
40. Lee Y. Measuring cognitive load with electroencephalography and self-report: focus on the effect of english-medium learning for Korean students. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 2013, 2-11. 10.1080/01443410.2013.860217.
41. Lehman S., Schraw McCrudden M.T., Hartley K. Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2007, 32:569-587.
42. Leppink J., Paas F., van Gog T., van der Vleuten C.P.M., van Merrienboer J.J.G. Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction 2014, 30:32-42.
43. Leutner D. Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:174-175.
44. Linnenbrink-Garcia L., Durik A.M., Conley A.M., Barron K.E., Tauer J.M., Karabenick S.A., et al. Measuring situational interest in academic domains. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2010, 70(4):647-671. 10.1177/0013164409355699.
45. Madrid R.I., Canas J.J. The effect of reading strategies and prior knowledge on cognitive load and learning with hypertext. The Ergonomics Open Journal 2009, 2:124-132.
46. Magner U.I., Schwonke R., Aleven V., Popescu O., Renkl A. Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:141-152.
47. Mayer R.E., Estrella G. Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction. Learning and Instruction 2014, 33:12-18.
48. Mayer R.E., Fiorella L. Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2014, 279-315. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
49. Mayer R.E., Bove W., Bryman A., Mars R., Tapangco L. When less is more: meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology 1996, 88:64-73.
50. Mayer R.E., Griffith E., Jurkowitz I.T.N., Rothman D. Increased interestingness of extraneous details in a multimedia science presentation leads to decreased learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2008, 14:329-339.
51. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning 2001, University Press, New York: Cambridge.
52. Mayer R.E. Introduction to multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2014, 1-24. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed. R.E. Mayer (Ed.).
53. Moreno R., Mayer R.E. A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology 2000, 92:117-125.
54. Moreno R., Mayer R.E., Spires H.A., Lester J.C. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?. Cognition and Instruction 2001, 19:177-213.
55. Moreno R. Instructional technology: promise and pitfalls. Technology-based education: bringing researchers and practitioners together 2005, 1-19. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT. L. Pytlik Zillig, M. Bodvarsson, R. Bruning (Eds.).
56. Moreno R. Optimising learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2007, 21:765-781.
57. Park B., Moreno R., Seufert T., Brunken R. Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27:5-10.
58. Park B., Plass J.L., Brunken R. Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:125-127.
59. Park B., Flowerday T., Brunken R. Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior 2015, 44:267-278.
60. Pintrich P.R. Motivation and classroom learning. Handbook of psychology: educational psychology 2003, 103-122. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. W.M. Reynolds, G.E. Miller (Eds.).
61. Plass J.L., Heidig S., Hayward E.O., Homer B.D., Um E. Emotional design in multimedia learning: effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction 2014, 29:128-140.
62. Renninger K.A., Hidi S. Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement: and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist 2011, 46:168-184.
63. Renninger K.A., Ewen L., Lasher A.K. Individual interest as context in expository text and mathematical word problems. Learning and Instruction 2002, 12:467-491.
64. Renninger K.A. Individual interest and development: implications for theory and practice. The role of interest in learning and development 1992, 361-395. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, A. Krapp (Eds.).
65. Renninger K.A. Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the search for optimal motivation and performance 2000, 373-404. Academic Press, New York. C. Sansone, J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.).
66. Rey G.D. A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review 2012, 7:216-237.
67. Rogosa D. Comparing nonparallel regression lines. Psychological Bulletin 1980, 88:307-321.
68. Rogtans J.I., Schmidt H.G. Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:58-67.
69. Salomon G. On the nature of pedagogic computer tools: the case of the writing partner. Computers as cognitive tools 1993, 179-196. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. S.J. Derry (Ed.).
70. Sanchez C.A., Wiley J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34(2):344-355.
71. Sansone C. What's interest got to do with it? Potential trade-offs in the self-regulation of motivation. Psychology of self-regulation: cognitive, affective, and motivational processes 2009, 35-51. Psychology Press, New York, NY. J.P. Forgas, R. Baumiester, D. Tice (Eds.).
72. Sansone C., Weir C., Harpster L., Morgan C. Once a boring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, 63:379-390.
73. Schnotz W., Fries S., Horz H. Motivational aspects of cognitive load theory. Contemporary motivation research: from global to local perspectives 2009, 69-96. Hogrefe & Huber, Gottingen and New York. M. Wosnitza, S.A. Karabenick, A. Efklides, P. Nenniger (Eds.).
74. Schraw G., Lehman S. Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review 2001, 13(1):2001.
75. Sweller J., van Merrienboer J.J.G., Paas F.G.W.C. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 1998, 10:251-296.
76. Sweller J. Instructional design in technical areas 1999, ACER Press, Camberwell, Australia.
77. Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous: and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review 2010, 22:123-138.
78. Towler A., Kraiger K., Sitzmann T., Overberghe C.V., Cruz J., Ronen E., et al. The seductive details effect in technology-delivered instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly 2008, 21:65-86.
79. Um E., Plass J.L., Hayward E.O., Homer B.D. Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 2011, 104:485-498.
80. Van Merrienboer J.J.G., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent development and future directions. Educational Psychology Review 2005, 17:147-177.
81. Wu A.D., Zumbo B.D. Understanding and using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research 2008, 87:367-392.