Theory and Practice

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology book series (BRIEFSECT)


All properly designed interfaces within a learning environment have a cognitive theory at its core which dictates how the learner progresses through the system based upon its reactions to the user’s actions.


Dissonance Taxonomy 


  1. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Chapter: 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). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.Google Scholar
  3. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson & Company.Google Scholar
  4. Frantiska, J. J. (2001). Misconception to concept: Employing cognitive flexibility theory-based hypermedia to promote conceptual change in ill-structured domains (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts-Amherst.Google Scholar
  5. Frantiska, J. J. (2004). From pebbles to boulders: Information chunking in educational websites. E-learn 04’ Conference, Washington, DC, November 2, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Holland, J. G., & Skinner, B. F. (1961). The analysis of behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives, book 2: Affective domain. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Laureano-Cruces, A. L., Sanchez-Guerrero, L., Velasco-Santos, P., & Mora-Torres, M. (2017). The interface: An object that is hated and loved. In J. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn: World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 380–388). Vancouver, BC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 7, 2018, from Scholar
  10. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. G. (1997). Mastering the possibilities: A process approach to instructional design. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Shambaugh, N., & Magliaro, S. G. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  16. Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House.Google Scholar
  17. Skinner, B. F. (1987). A thinking aid. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 379–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vu Minh, C., & Herbst, P. (2008). Learning to teach: Web-based interactive rich-media technologies supporting cognitive flexibility in teacher education. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2008 (pp. 4579–4586). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationWalden UniversityNorth ChelmsfordUSA

Personalised recommendations