Advertisement

Theory and Practice

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Dissonance Taxonomy 

References

  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 https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181208/Google 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