Lernen mit Medien

Chapter
Part of the X.media.press book series (XMEDIAP)

Zusammenfassung

In der Frühzeit des multimedialen Lernens war eine verbreitete Vorstellung „viel hilft viel“, d. h. Lernerfolge sind umso eher zu erwarten, je mehr Sinneskanäle angesprochen und je mehr unterschiedliche Symbolsysteme verwendet werden. Multimodale Präsentationsformate mit Bildern, Videos oder Animationen sollten zum Lernen motivieren und es Lernenden mit unterschiedlichen Lernstilen ermöglichen, entsprechend ihrer Vorlieben entdeckend zu lernen. Den Lernprozess sollten Pädagogische Agenten überwachen und steuern, um optimale Lernerfolge zu gewährleisten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255.-291). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. J., & Anderson, M. C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15 (3), 433.-440.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-time-memory. Scientific American, 225, 82.-90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working Memory. Science, 255, 556.-559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53.-62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293.-332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1983). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448.-456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Goal configurations and processing strategies as moderators between instructional design and cognitive load: Evidence from hypertext-based instruction. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 33.-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glenberg, A. M., Smith, S. M., & Green, C. (1977). Type I rehearsal: Maintenance and more. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 339.-352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 32.-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1.-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980a). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317.-345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychologie of Education, 11, 377.-397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marsh, R. L., Sebrechts, M. M., Hicks, J. L., & Landau, J. D. (1997). Processing strategies and secondary memory in very rapid forgetting. Memory & Cognition, 25, 173.-181.Google Scholar
  19. Mayer, R. E. (1988). From novice to expert. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 569.-580). Amsterdam, New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, R. E. (1999). The promise of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/ Merrill.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 31.-48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In L. Pytlik-Zillig, M. Bodvarsson & R. Bruning (Eds.), Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together (pp. 1.-19). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1.-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding-approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Peterson, L. R., & Peterson, M. J. (1959). Short-term retention of individual verbal items. Journal of experimental Psychology, 58, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reimann, P. (1997). Lernprozesse beim Wissenserwerb aus Beispielen. Analyse, Modellierung, Förderung. Bern: Hans Huber.Google Scholar
  30. Renkl, A. (2002). Worked-out examples: instructional explanations support learning by self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12(5), 529.-556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Renkl, A. (2005). The Worked-Out Examples Principle in Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 229.-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15.-22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. .- An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ.: Erlbaum.MATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 49.-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141.-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482.-488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Vic: ACER Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 19.-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 351.-362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176.-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tinsdall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes ar better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychologie: Applied, 3, 257.-287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Bruggen, J. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1.-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: effects of worked examples on training efficieny. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 87.-105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Schuurman, J. G., de Croock, M. B. M., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: effects on cognitive load, transfer test performance and training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 11.-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 245.-376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Personalised recommendations