Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 182–208 | Cite as

Interactive distance education: a cognitive load perspective

  • Slava Kalyuga
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Evidence-based approaches to the design of the next generation of interactive distance education need to take into account established multimedia learning principles. Cognitive load theory is a theory that has significantly contributed to the development of such principles. It has applied our knowledge of major features and processing limitations of human cognitive architecture to enhancing the effectiveness of instructional methods and techniques. The paper describes major assumptions and principles of cognitive load theory followed by its general recommendations for instructional methods and techniques, and then by implications for the design of interactive multimedia learning in distance education.

Keywords

Distance education Interactive multimedia learning Cognitive load theory Human cognitive architecture Instructional design Working memory 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance and online learning: using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 82–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009a). Prior knowledge in learning from a non-linear electronic document: Disorientation and coherence of the reading sequences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amadieu, F., van Gog, T., Paas, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009b). Effects of prior knowledge and concept-map structure on disorientation, cognitive load, and learning. Learning and Instruction, 19, 376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, R., & Cromley, J. G. (2004). Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55, 267–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bétrancourt, M., & Bisseret, A. (1998). Integrating textual and pictorial information via pop-up windows: An experimental study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 17, 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boucheix, J.-M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cerpa, N., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Some conditions under which integrated computer-based training software can facilitate learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 345–367.Google Scholar
  15. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, S. Y., Fan, J.-P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems: Experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Instructional prescriptions for learner control. Educational Technology, 32, 14–20.Google Scholar
  19. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Towards a personalized task selection model with shared instructional control. Instructional Science, 34, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crooks, S., White, D., Srinivasan, S., & Wang, Q. (2008). Temporal, but not spatial, contiguity effects while studying an interactive geographic map. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17, 145–169.Google Scholar
  25. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.Google Scholar
  27. Erhel, S., & Jamet, E. (2006). Using pop-up windows to improve multimedia learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Federico, P.-A. (1980). Adaptive instruction: Trends and issues. In R. Snow, P.-A. Federico, & W. Montague (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 1, cognitive process analyses of aptitude (Vol. 1, pp. 1–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Federico, P.-A. (1999). Hypermedia environments and adaptive instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 15, 653–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. S. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schuh, J. (2008). Information comparisons in example-based hypermedia environments: Supporting learners with processing prompts and an interactive comparison tool. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kalyuga, S. (2006a). Assessment of learners’ organized knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kalyuga, S. (2006b). Rapid cognitive assessment of learners’ knowledge structures. Learning and Instruction, 16, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kalyuga, S. (2007a). Enhancing instructional efficiency of interactive e-learning environments: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kalyuga, S. (2007b). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kalyuga, S. (2008). Relative effectiveness of animated and static diagrams: An effect of learner prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 852–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001a). Learner experience and efficiency of instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors, 46, 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001b). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kalyuga, S., & Plass, J. (2007). Managing cognitive load in instructional simulations. In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), Proceedings of the IADIS international conference e-learning 2007 (Vol. 1, pp. 27–34). July 6–8, 2007, Lisbon, Portugal. International Association for Development of the Information Society (IADIS) Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Koedinger, K., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lee, C. H., & Kalyuga, S. (2011a). Effectiveness of different pinyin presentation formats in learning Chinese characters: A cognitive load perspective. Language Learning, 61(4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, C. H., & Kalyuga, S. (2011b). Effectiveness of on-screen pinyin in learning Chinese: An expertise reversal for multimedia redundancy effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lee, H., Plass, J. L., & Homer, B. D. (2006). Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lin, B., & Hsieh, C. (2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research review. Computer & Education, 37, 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Locatis, C., Letourneau, G., & Banvard, R. (1989). Hypermedia and instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lowe, R. K. (2003). Animation and learning: Selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction, 13, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mayer, R. E., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mayer, R. E., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Ayres, P. (2007). Creating retroactive and proactive interference in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 795–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003a). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003b). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Merrill, D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2005). Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., O’Dell, J. K., & Schultz, C. W. (1988). Adapting text presentations to media attributes: Getting more out of less in CBI. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Niemec, P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H. (1996). Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15, 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nückles, M., Hübner, S., Dümer, S., & Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effects in writing-to-learn. Instructional Science, 38, 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Paas, F., Van Gerven, P. W. M., & Wouters, P. (2007). Instructional efficiency of animation: Effects of interactivity through mental reconstruction of static key frames. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 783–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Penrose, R. (1999). The emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds and the laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Hayward, E. O. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21, 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16, 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skills acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ross, S. M. (1984). Matching the lesson to the student: Alternative adaptive designs for individualized learning systems. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 11, 42–47.Google Scholar
  97. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & O’Dell, J. K. (1989). Uses and effects of learner control of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ross, S. M., & Rakow, E. (1982). Adaptive instructional strategies for teaching rules in mathematics. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30, 67–74.Google Scholar
  99. Samaras, H., Giouvanakis, T., Bousiou, D., & Tarabanis, K. (2006). Towards a new generation of multimedia learning research. AACE Journal, 14, 3–30.Google Scholar
  100. Schwan, S., & Garsoffky, B. (2004). The cognitive representation of filmic event summaries. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schwan, S., & Riempp, R. (2004). The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: Learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 14, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shapiro, A. M. (1999). The relationship between prior knowledge and interactive overviews during hypermedia-aided learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20, 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Spector, M. J., Christensen, D. L., Sioutine, A. V., & McCormack, D. (2001). Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Steinberg, E. R. (1989). Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977–1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 117–121.Google Scholar
  105. Stoyanov, S., & Kirshner, P. (2004). Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive e-learning: ALFANET project case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  107. Sweller, J. (2008). Human cognitive architecture. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 369–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  108. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tabbers, H., Martens, R., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tennyson, R. (1975). Adaptive instructional models for concept acquisition. Educational Technology, 15, 7–15.Google Scholar
  113. Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies as design variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 28, 169–176.Google Scholar
  115. Tennyson, R. D., & Rothen, W. (1979). Management of computer-based instruction: Design of an adaptive control strategy. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 5, 126–134.Google Scholar
  116. Tergan, S. (1997). Multiple views, contexts, and symbol systems in learning with hypertext/hypermedia: a critical review of research. Educational Technology. July–August, 5–18Google Scholar
  117. Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1990). Strategies for programming instruction in high school: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6, 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design principles for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Weiss, R., Knowlton, D., & Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: A theoretically based heuristic for effective design. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  123. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options