The case for multimedia presentations in learning: A theory of synergy

Multimedia and Literacy Development: Improving Achievement for Young Learners

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 44-56

  Neuman, Susan B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85075666791     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203892152-10     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Anderson, D., & Collins, P. (1988). The impact on children's education: Television's influence on cognitive development (Working Paper No. 2). Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
2. Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.
3. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21-30.
4. de Jong, M., & Bus, A. (2004). The effects of electronic books in fostering kindergarten children's emergent story understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 378-393.
5. Duchan, J. (2004). The foundational role of schemas in children's language and literacy learning. In C.A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 380-397). New York: Guilford Press.
6. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7-19.
7. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
8. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. New York: Signet Books.
9. Mander, J. (1978). Four arguments for the elimination of television. New York: William Morrow.
10. Mayer, R., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390-397.
11. Mayer, R.E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions, Educational Psychologist, 32, 1-19.
12. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Meringoff, L., Vibbert, M., Char, C., Fernie, D., Banker, G., & Gardner, H. (1983). How is children's learning from television distinctive? Exploiting the medium methodologically. In J. Bryant & D. Anderson (eds), Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 151-180). New York: Academic Press.
14. Moody, K. (1980). Growing up on television: The TV effect. New York: Times Books.
15. Neuman, S.B. (1995). Literacy in the television age: The myth of the TV effect (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
16. Neuman, S.B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implication for early literacy development. In D. Dickinson & S.B. Neuman (eds), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 29-40). New York: Guilford Press.
17. Neuman, S.B., Roskos, K., Wright, T., & Lenhart, L. (2007). Nurturing knowledge: Linking literacy to math, science, social studies and much more. New York: Scholastic.
18. Olson, D.R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 84-108.
19. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20. Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, 16-45.
21. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (2003). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 34-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Sadowski, M., & Willson, V. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 137-154.
24. Salomon, G. (1974). Internalization of filmic schematic operations in interactions with learners aptitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 499-511.
25. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647-658.
26. Salomon, G. (1994). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Singer, D., & Singer, J. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
29. Stein, N., & Glenn, C. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R.O. Freedle (Ed.), Advances in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
30. Stone, C.A., Silliman, E., Ehren, B., & Apel, K. (eds) (2004). Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (challenges in language and literacy). New York: Guilford.
31. Winn, M. (1977). The plug-in drug. New York: Viking Press.