Multiple representations and multimedia learning

International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2018, Pages 96-105

  Ainsworth, Shaaron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049284125     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781315617572     Document Type: Chapter

References (72)

1. Acevedo Nistal, A., Van Dooren, W., & Verschaffel, L. (2013). Students’ reported justifications for their repre-sentational choices in linear function problems: An interview study. Educational Studies, 39(1), 104-117. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2012.674636
2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive science, 27(4), 669-681. doi: 10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00033-8
4. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333(6046), 1096-1097. doi: 10.1126/science.1204153
5. Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27-49.
6. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. (2018). Embodied cognition in learning and teaching: Action, observation, and imagination. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 75-85). New York: Routledge.
7. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Vol. 2, pp. 206-226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86-107. doi: 10.1007/bf02504859
9. Bétrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge hand-book of multimedia learning (pp. 287-296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Bryfczynski, S., Pargas, R. P., Cooper, M. M., Klymkowsky, M., Hester, J., & Grove, N. P. (2015). Classroom uses for besocratic. In T. Hammond, S. Valentine, A. Adler, & M. Payton (Eds.), The impact of pen and touch technology on education (pp. 127-136). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
11. Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, technology, and change. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 309-328. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782553
12. Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471-500. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0904_4
13. Cromley, J. G., Perez, T. C., Fitzhugh, S. L., Newcombe, N. S., Wills, T. W., & Tanaka, J. C. (2013). Improving students’ diagram comprehension with classroom instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 81(4), 511-537. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2012.745465
14. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. doi: 10.1126/science.1230579
15. Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance Education, 29(2), 127-140. doi: 10.1080/01587910802154939
16. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
17. Eilam, B., & Poyas, Y. (2008). Learning with multiple representations: Extending multimedia learning beyond the lab. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 368-378. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.003
18. Eilam, B., Poyas, Y., & Hashimshoni, R. (2014). Representing visually: What teachers know and what they prefer. In B. Eilam & J. K. Gilbert (Eds.), Science teachers’ use of visual representations (pp. 53-83). Dordrecht: Springer.
19. Forbus, K., Usher, J., Lovett, A., Lockwood, K., & Wetzel, J. (2011). Cogsketch: Sketch under-standing for cognitive science research and for education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 648-666. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01149.x
20. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313-331. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001
21. Gooding, D. C. (2004). Cognition, construction and culture: Visual theories in the sciences. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(4), 551-593. doi: 10.1163/1568537042484896
22. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
23. Gordon, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualisation as an educational technology. Journal of the learning sciences, 4(3), 249-279. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0403_1
24. Habgood, M. P. J., & Ainsworth, S. E. (2011). Motivating children to learn effectively: Exploring the value of intrinsic integration in educational games. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 169-206. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.508029
25. Halverson, E., & Peppler, K. (2018). The Maker Movement and learning. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 285-294). New York: Routledge.
26. Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265-288. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1
27. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509-539. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
28. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (p. 247). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Keller, T., Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Garsoffky, B. (2006). Information visualizations for knowledge acquisition: The impact of dimensionality and color coding. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 43-65. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.006
30. Kerski, J. J. (2003). The implementation and effectiveness of geographic information systems technology and methods in secondary education. Journal of Geography, 102(3), 128-137. doi: 10.1080/00221340308978534
31. Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning from animations. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 424-433. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.05.002
32. Kontra, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Embodied learning across the life span. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 731-739. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01221.x
33. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemis-try laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105-143. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0902_1
34. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization in science and education (pp. 121-146). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.
36. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Bourne, J., Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., & Reid, E. (2005). English in urban class-rooms: Multimodal perspectives on teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.
37. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth 10000 words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65-99. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5
38. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Lee, V. R. (2010). Adaptations and continuities in the use and design of visual representations in U.S. middle school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1099-1126. doi: 10.1080/09500690903253916
40. Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33-47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
41. Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a com-plex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures. In M. T. Chi, R. E. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 257-274. doi: 10.1016/J.Learninstruc.2004.06.003
43. Lowe, R., Schnotz, w., & Rasch, T. (2010). Aligning affordances of graphics with learning task requirements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 452-459. doi: 10.1002/acp.1712
44. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43-71). New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 317-348. doi: 10.3102/00346543076003317
46. Moher, T. (2008). Learning and participation in a persistent whole-classroom seismology simulation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference for the Learning Science, Utrecht, Netherlands.
47. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
48. Peirce, C. S. (1906). Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist, 16, 492-546.
49. Polman, J. L., & Gebre, E. H. (2015). Towards critical appraisal of infographics as scientific inscriptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 868-893. doi: 10.1002/tea.21225
50. Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: A framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751-2773. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.626462
51. Price, S., Sakr, M., & Jewitt, C. (2016). Exploring whole-body interaction and design for museums. Interacting with Computers, 28(5), 569-583. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwv032
52. Puntambekar, S. (2018). Design-based research (DBR). In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 383-392). New York: Routledge.
53. Rau, M. A., Michaelis, J. E., & Fay, N. (2015). Connection making between multiple graphical representations: A multi-methods approach for domain-specific grounding of an intelligent tutoring system for chemistry. Computers & Education, 82, 460-485. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.009
54. Reimann, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2018). Expertise. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 54-63). New York: Routledge.
55. Roth, W. M., & Bowen, G. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159-194. doi: 10.2307/749672
56. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Furstenberg, A., Scheiter, K., & Zindler, A. (2011). The perceptual basis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied, 17(2), 159-173. doi: 10.1037/a0023588
57. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
58. Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144-161). London: Routledge.
59. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is easy and print is tough-The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647-658. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.
60. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Stalbovs, K., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Implementation intentions during multimedia learning: Using if-then plans to facilitate cognitive processing. Learning and Instruction, 35, 1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.002
62. Suebnukarn, S., Haddawy, P., Rhienmora, P., & Gajananan, K. (2010). Haptic virtual reality for skill acquisi-tion in endodontics. Journal of Endodontics, 36(1), 53-55. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.020
63. Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: (pp. 159-168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. doi: 10.1023/a: 1022193728205
65. Tversky, B. (2005). Spatial cognition: Embodied and situated. In P. Robbins & M. Aydede (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition (pp. 201-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. van der Meij, J., & de Jong, T. (2006). Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 199-212. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.007
67. van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(2), 95-99. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009
68. van Joolingen, W., Aukes, A. V., Gijlers, H., & Bollen, L. (2015). Understanding elementary astronomy by making drawing-based models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 256-264. doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9540-6
69. Virk, S., Clark, D., & Sengupta, P. (2015). Digital games as multirepresentational environments for science learning: Implications for theory, research, and design. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 284-312. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2015.1128331
70. White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: On the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489-547. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2010.542700
71. Yore, L., & Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modal-ity, and multimodal representational competency. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93-101. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9160-y
72. Zhang, J. J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179-217. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2102_3.