• 1
    Cook DA, Garside S, Levinson AJ, Dupras DM, Montori VM. What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Med Educ2010;44:76574.
  • 2
    Mayer RE, Moreno R. Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educ Psychol Rev2002;14:8799.
  • 3
    Halas J. Film Animation: A Simplified Approach. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 1976;9–14.
  • 4
    Brisbourne MA, Chin SS, Melnyk E, Begg DA. Using web-based animations to teach histology. Anat Rec2002;269 (1):119.
  • 5
    Cutting C, Oliker A, Haring J, Dayan J, Smith D. Use of three-dimensional computer graphic animation to illustrate cleft lip and palate surgery. Comput Aided Surg2002;7 (6):32631.
  • 6
    Henderson BA, Ali R. Teaching and assessing competence in cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol2007;18 (1):2731.
  • 7
    Issa N, Schuller M, Santacaterina S, Shapiro M, Wang E, Mayer RE, DaRosa DA. Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Med Educ2011;45 (8):81826.
  • 8
    Mayer RE, ed. Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press 2005;1–15.
  • 9
    Paivio A. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1986;53–83.
  • 10
    Sweller J, van Merrienboer JJG, Paas FGWC. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev1998;10:25196.
  • 11
    Bartholomé T, Bromme R. Coherence formation when learning from text and pictures: what kind of support for whom?J Educ Psychol2009;101 (2):28293.
  • 12
    Martindale M. Mental models and text schemas: why computer-based tutorials should be considered a communication medium. J Comput Based Instr1993;20:10712.
  • 13
    Park O, Gittelman SS. Dynamic characteristics of mental models and dynamic visual displays. Instr Sci1995;23:30320.
  • 14
    Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE, ed. Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press 2005;1930.
  • 15
    Lowe RK. Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. Eur J Psychol Educ1999;14:22544.
  • 16
    Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ2010;44 (6):5439.
  • 17
    Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. Am Psychol2008;63 (8):7609.
  • 18
    Diao Y, Sweller J. Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learn Instr2007;17:7888.
  • 19
    Pollock E, Chandler P, Sweller J. Assimilating complex information. Learn Instr2002;12 (1):6186.
  • 20
    Segers E, Verhoeven L, Hulstijn-Hendrikse N. Cognitive processes in children’s multimedia text learning. Appl Cogn Psychol2008;22:37587.
  • 21
    van Gerven PWM, Paas F, van Merrienboer JJG, Hendriks M, Schmidt HG. The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age. Br J Educ Psychol2003;73:489505.
    Direct Link:
  • 22
    Mayer RE, Mathias A, Wetzell K. Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. J Exp Psychol2002;8:14754.
  • 23
    Mousavi SY, Low R, Sweller J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. J Educ Psychol1995;87 (2):31934.
  • 24
    Mayer RE, Moreno R. A split-attention affect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. J Educ Psychol1998;90:31220.
  • 25
    Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol2001;93 (1):18798.
  • 26
    Reinwein J. Does the modality effect exist? And if so, which modality effect?J Psychol Res2012;41:132.
  • 27
    Tabbers HK, de Koeijer B. Learner control in animated multimedia instructions. Instr Sci2010;38:44153.
  • 28
    Moreno R, Mayer RE. A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimising irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. J Educ Psychol2000;92:11725.
  • 29
    Harp SF, Mayer RE. How seductive details do their damage: a theory of cognitive interest in science learning. J Educ Psychol1998;90:41434.
  • 30
    Hidi S, Baird W. Interestingness – a neglected variable in discourse processing. Cogn Sci1986;10:17994.
  • 31
    Muller DA, Lee KJ, Sharma MD. Coherence or interest: which is most important in online multimedia learning?Austr J Educ Tech2008;24:21121.
  • 32
    Goetz ET, Sadoski M. Commentary: the perils of seduction: distracting details or incomprehensible abstractions?Read Res Q1995;30:50011.
  • 33
    Garner R, Gillingham MG, White CS. Effects of ‘seductive details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cogn Instr1989;6:4157.
  • 34
    Kalyuga S, Chandler P, Sweller J. Levels of expertise and instructional design. Hum Factors1998;40:117.
  • 35
    Mayer RE, Anderson RB. Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J Educ Psychol1991;83:48490.
  • 36
    Mayer RE, Anderson RB. The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol1992;84:44452.
  • 37
    Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: the role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol1999;91:35868.
  • 38
    Schwan S, Riempp R. The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots. Learn Instr2004;14:293305.
  • 39
    Mayer RE, Chandler P. When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?J Educ Psychol2001;93:3907.
  • 40
    Stull A, Hegarty M, Mayer RE. Getting a handle on learning anatomy with interactive 3D graphics. J Educ Psychol2009;101:80316.
  • 41
    Hayes AF, Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas2007;1:7789.