Advertisement

Cognitive Load Theory and Human Movement: Towards an Integrated Model of Working Memory

  • Stoo SeppEmail author
  • Steven J. Howard
  • Sharon Tindall-Ford
  • Shirley Agostinho
  • Fred Paas
REVIEW ARTICLE
First Online:

Abstract

Cognitive load theory (CLT) applies what is known about human cognitive architecture to the study of learning and instruction, to generate insights into the characteristics and conditions of effective instruction and learning. Recent developments in CLT suggest that the human motor system plays an important role in cognition and learning; however, it is unclear whether models of working memory (WM) that are typically espoused by CLT researchers can reconcile these novel findings. For instance, often-cited WM models envision separate information processing systems—such as Baddeley and Hitch’s (1974) multicomponent model of WM—as a means to interpret modality-specific findings, although possible interactions with the human motor system remain under-explained. In this article, we examine the viability of these models to theoretically integrate recent research findings regarding the human motor system, as well as their ability to explain established CLT effects and other findings. We argue, it is important to explore alternate models of WM that focus on a single and integrated control of attention system that is applied to visual, phonological, embodied, and other sensory and nonsensory information. An integrated model such as this may better account for individual differences in experience and expertise and, parsimoniously, explain both recent and historical CLT findings across domains. To advance this aim, we propose an integrated model of WM that envisions a common and finite attentional resource that can be distributed across multiple modalities. How attention is mobilized and distributed across domains is interdependent, co-reinforcing, and ever-changing based on learners’ prior experience and their immediate cognitive demands. As a consequence, the distribution of attentional focus and WM resources will vary across individuals and tasks, depending on the nature of the specific task being performed; the neurological, developmental, and experiential abilities of the individual; and the current availability of internal and external cognitive resources.

Keywords

Cognitive load theory Working memory model Attention Human movement Gesturing Learning 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., Ginns, P., Howard, S. J., Leahy, W., & Paas, F. (2015). Giving learning a helping hand: finger tracing of temperature graphs on an iPad. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 427–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9315-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). London: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, P. L. (1993). Why goal-free problems can facilitate learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 376–381.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: when instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 348–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (1990). Locus of difficulty in multi-stage mathematics problems (Ph.D. thesis). The American Journal of Psychology, 103(2), 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baddeley, A. D. (1983). Working memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 302(1110), 311–324.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1983.0057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory (p. 1986). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Baddeley, A. D., & Lieberman, K. (1980). Spatial working memory. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 521–539). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(04), 637–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bauhoff, V., Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). Distance matters: spatial contiguity effects as trade-off between gaze switches and memory load. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 863–871.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  17. Broadbent, D. E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psychologica, 50(3), 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brucker, B., Ehlis, A.-C., Häußinger, F. B., Fallgatter, A. J., & Gerjets, P. (2015). Watching corresponding gestures facilitates learning with animations by activating human mirror-neurons. An fNIRS study, 36(C), 27–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014). Learning from observing hands in static and animated versions of non-manipulative tasks. Learning and Instruction, 34, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
  21. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2017). Extending cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion: evidence from the spacing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 61(2), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9426-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Choi, H. H., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chu, M., & Kita, S. (2008). Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 706–723.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chu, M., Meyer, A., Foulkes, L., & Kita, S. (2013). Individual differences in frequency and saliency of speech-accompanying gestures: the role of cognitive abilities and empathy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 694–709.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033861.supp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769–786.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cook, S. W., Duffy, R. G., & Fenn, K. M. (2013). Consolidation and transfer of learning after observing hand gesture. Child Development, 84(6), 1863–1871.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cook, S. W., Mitchell, Z., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition, 106(2), 1047–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cook, S. W., Yip, T. K., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(4), 594–610.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.567074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: an integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cumming, C. E., & Rodda, M. (1985). The effects of auditory deprivation on successive processing. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 17(3), 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Delaney, P. F., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., & Spirgel, A. (2010). Spacing and testing effects: a deeply critical, lengthy, and at times discursive review of the literature. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory (Vol. 53, pp. 63–147). New York: Academic.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53003-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton. Original work published 1946.Google Scholar
  38. De Koning, B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: a helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 683–689.Google Scholar
  39. Ebbinghaus, H. (1885/1964). Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Oxford: Dover.Google Scholar
  40. Engelkamp, J. (1995). Visual imagery and enactment of actions in memory. British Journal of Psychology, 86(2), 227–240.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02558.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Engelkamp, J., Seiler, K. H., & Zimmer, H. D. (2005). Differential relational encoding of categorical information in memory for action events. Memory & Cognition, 33(3), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Engelkamp, J., Zimmer, H. D., Mohr, G., & Sellen, O. (1994). Memory of self-performed tasks: self-performing during recognition. Memory & Cognition, 22(1), 34–39.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(1), 19–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Foglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(3), 319–325.Google Scholar
  46. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313–331.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: a meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gluckman, M., Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2014). Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children’s science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(2), 266–273.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). How gesture promotes learning throughout childhood. Child Development Perspectives, 3(2), 106–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267–272.  https://doi.org/10.1086/659964?ref=search-gateway:4d5c7866182d0f01d9bef79f563ad121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 12(6), 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Healey, M. K., Hasher, L., & Danilova, E. (2011). The stability of working memory: do previous tasks influence complex span? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 573–585.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024587.
  53. Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 217–240.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hu, F. T., Ginns, P., & Bobis, J. (2014). Does tracing worked examples enhance geometry learning? Australian Journal of Educational Developmental Psychology, 14, 45–49.Google Scholar
  55. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(S1), 123–S144.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169–183.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.2.169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kapler, I. V., Weston, T., & Wiseheart, M. (2015). Spacing in a simulated undergraduate classroom: long-term benefits for factual and higher-level learning. Learning and Instruction, 36, 38–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–831.Google Scholar
  60. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: a meta-analysis. Learning an Instruction, 17(6), 722–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Holsanova, J., Holmberg, N., & Holmqvist, K. (2009). Reading information graphics: the role of spatial contiguity and dual attentional guidance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1215–1226.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Juan Pascual-Leone, (1970) A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32 301–345Google Scholar
  63. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178–191.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Macedonia, M., & Klimesch, W. (2014). Long-term effects of gestures on memory for foreign language words trained in the classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(2), 74–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mavilidi, M. F., Okely, A. D., Chandler, P. A., Cliff, D. P., & Paas, F. (2015). Effects of integrated physical exercises and gestures on preschool children’s foreign language vocabulary learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 413–426.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9337-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (p. 2009). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 319–334.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Novack, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Learning from gesture: how our hands change our minds. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Novack, M., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Woodward, A. L. (2015). Learning from gesture: how early does it happen? Cognition, 142, 138–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Paivio, A., & Okovita, H. W. (1971). Word imagery modalities and associative learning in blind and sighted subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10(5), 506–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pascual-Leone, J., & Baillargeon, R. (1994). Developmental measurement of mental attention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(1), 161–200.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549401700110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pascual-Leone, J., & Smith, J. (1969). The encoding and decoding of symbols by children: a new experimental paradigm and a neo-Piagetian model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 8(2), 328–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(69)90107-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17(4), 398–422.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Ping, R., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Gesturing saves cognitive resources when talking about nonpresent objects. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pouw, W., Mavilidi, M.-F., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2016). Gesturing during mental problem solving reduces eye movements, especially for individuals with lower visual working memory capacity. Cognitive Processing, 17(3), 269–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-016-0757-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pouw, W. T. J. L., de Nooijer, J. A., Van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A. & Paas, F. (2014a). Toward a more embedded/extended perspective on the cognitive function of gestures. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pouw, W., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014b). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27(1), 169–192.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rhodes, G. (1987). Auditory attention and the representation of spatial information. Perception & Psychophysics, 42(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rudner, M., Andin, J., & Rönnberg, J. (2009). Working memory, deafness and sign language. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 495–505.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00744.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 164–176.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schmalenbach, S. B., Billino, J., Kircher, T., van Kemenade, B. M., & Straube, B. (2017). Links between gestures and multisensory processing: individual differences suggest a compensation mechanism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 635–638.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Attention control, memory updating, and emotion regulation temporarily reduce the capacity for executive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(2), 241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: new insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 226–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schroeder, N. L., & Cenkci, A. T. (2018). Spatial contiguity and spatial split-attention effects in multimedia learning environments: a meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kühnert, T., Brunnett, G., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: the effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education, 92-93(c), 64–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Measuring cognitive load in embodied learning settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith, D., Davis, B., Niu, K., Healy, E., Bonilha, L., Fridriksson, J., Morgan, P. S., & Rorden, C. (2009). Spatial attention evokes similar activation patterns for visual and auditory stimuli. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. A. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sweller, J., Levine, M., 1982. (1982). Effects of goal specificity on means–ends analysis and learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8(5), 463–474.Google Scholar
  105. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar
  107. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 104–132.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104.
  109. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror neuron system and observational learning: implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wilson, M. (2001). The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(1), 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (1997). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: evidence from American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 313–320.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (2003). The effect of irrelevant visual input on working memory for sign language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339–347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Early Start and School of EducationUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Education, and Child StudiesErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options