SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Baddeley AD, 1986: Working Memory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
  • Baddeley AD, 1999: Human Memory. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
  • Barkhordar A, Pollard D, Hobkirk JA, 2000: A comparison of written and multimedia material for informing patients about dental implants. Dent Update 27, 8084.
  • Betrancourt M, 2005: The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 287296.
  • Clark RE, Paivio A, 1991: Dual coding theory and education. Educ Psychol Rev 3, 149210.
  • Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD, 1998: Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 48, 151162.
  • Gonzales C, 1996: Does animation in user interfaces improve decision making? In: Bilger R, Guest S, Trauber MJ (eds), Proceedings of Computer Human Interaction. ACM Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 2734.
  • Harp SF, Mayer RE, 1998: How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. J Educ Psychol 90, 414434.
  • Hegarty M, Kriz S, Cate C, 2003: The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cogn Instr 2, 325360.
  • Kalyuga S, Chandler P, Sweller J, 2000: Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. J Educ Psychol 92, 126136.
  • Kartal G, 2010: Does language matter in multimedia learning? Personalization principle revisited. J Educ Psychol 102, 615624.
  • Maat H, Lentz L, 2010: Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Couns 80, 113119.
  • Mayer RE, 2001: Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Mayer RE (ed), 2005: The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Mayer RE, Anderson RB, 1991: Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J Educ Psychol 83, 484490.
  • Mayer RE, Anderson RB, 1992: The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 84, 444452.
  • Mayer RE, Moreno R, 1998: A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. J Educ Psychol 90, 312320.
  • Mayer RE, Moreno R, 2003: Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 38, 4352.
  • Mayer RE, Bove W, Brynman A, Mars R, Tapangco L, 1996: When less is more: meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. J Educ Psychol 88, 6473.
  • Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S, 2001: Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93, 187198.
  • Mayer RE, Mathias A, Wetzell K, 2002a: Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. J Exp Psychol Appl 8, 147154.
  • Mayer RE, Mautone P, Prothero W, 2002b: Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. J Educ Psychol 94, 171185.
  • Mayer RE, Fennell S, Farmer L, Campbell J, 2004: A personalization effect in multimedia learning: students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. J Educ Psychol 96, 389395.
  • Mayer RE, Griffith E, Naftaly I, Rothman D, 2008: Increased interestingness of extraneous details leads to decreased learning. J Exp Psychol Appl 14, 329339.
  • Meade CD, Diekmann J, Thornhill DG, 1992: Readibility of American Cancer Society patient education literature. Oncol Nurs Forum 19, 5155.
  • Moreno R, Mayer RE, 1999: Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol 91, 358368.
  • Moreno R, Mayer RE, 2000a: A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. J Educ Psychol 92, 117125.
  • Moreno R, Mayer RE, 2000b: Engaging students in active learning: the case for personalized multimedia messages. J Educ Psychol 92, 724733.
  • Moreno R, Mayer RE, 2004: Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. J Educ Psychol 96, 165173.
  • Moreno R, Mayer RE, Spires HA, Lester D, 2001: The case for social agency in computer-based multimedia learning: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cogn Instr 19, 177214.
  • Mousavi S, Low R, Sweller J, 1995: Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J Educ Psychol 87, 319334.
  • Murphy PW, Chesson AL, Walker L, Arnold CL, Chesson LM, 2000: Comparing the effectiveness of video and written material for improving knowledge among sleep disorders clinic patients with limited literacy skills. South Med J 93, 297304.
  • Paivio A, 1986: Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Petterson T, Dornan TL, Albert T, Lee P, 1994: Are information leaflets given to elderly people with diabetes easy to read? Diabet Med 11, 111113.
  • Pollock E, Chandler P, Sweller J, 2002: Assimilating complex information. Learn Instruct 12, 6186.
  • Roedinger HL, Karpicke JD, 2006: The power of testing memory: basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci 1, 181210.
  • Tindall-Ford S, Chandler P, Sweller J, 1997: When two sensory modes are better than one. J Exp Psychol Appl 3, 257287.
  • Trevisan MS, Oki AC, Senger PL, 2010: An exploratory study of the effects of time compressed animated delivery multimedia technology on student learning in reproductive physiology. J Sci Educ Technol 19, 293302.
  • Wittrock MC, 1989: Generative processes of comprehension. Educ Psychol 24, 345376.