PowerPoint-Präsentation

  • Susanne Krist
  • Katharina Noll
  • Rebekka Pick
  • Anika Pielstick
  • Sharmina Sayeed
  • Lukas Schmid
  • Michael Schneider
Chapter
First Online:

Zusammenfassung

Die Ergänzung eines gesprochenen Vortrags durch die Präsentation von Schlüsselbegriffen, Bildern oder Filmen erhöht die Behaltensleistung, führt zu besser vernetzten Gedächtnisrepräsentationen und wird von Studierenden begrüßt. Eine Präsentation ist effektiv, wenn ihre äußere Gestaltung die Aufmerksamkeit und das Arbeitsgedächtnis nicht unnötig belastet, sodass dem Publikum während der Präsentation möglichst viele mentale Ressourcen zur Verarbeitung der eigentlichen Lerninhalte zur Verfügung stehen. Die Verwendung von Schlüsselbegriffen anstelle von Sätzen oder Halbsätzen auf Folien erhöht die Effektivität stark. Alle überflüssigen Bilder, Texte oder Animationseffekte sind zu vermeiden. Inhaltlich Zusammengehöriges sollte auch zeitlich und räumlich zusammen präsentiert werden. Es ist lernförderlich, wenn Dozierende eine ergänzende Dokumentation der Inhalte zur Verfügung stellen, zum Beispiel eine Datei mit einem Skript oder mit den Präsentationsfolien.

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

Literatur

  1. Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, l. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263. doi:10.1037/a0026147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, E. G., Thomas, G. S., & Shennum, W. A. (1975). Memory for a lecture: Effects of notes, lecture rate, and informational density. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00033-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apperson, J. M., Laws, E. L., & Scepansky, J. A. (2006). The impact of presentation graphics on students experience in the classroom. Computers & Education, 47(1), 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 135–146). New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Babb, K. A., & Ross, C. (2009). The timing of online lecture slide availability and its effect on attendance, participation, and exam performance. Computers & Education, 52, 868–881. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B. R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relations to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers & Education, 41(1), 77–86. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00027-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing, 9(5), 347–363. doi:10.1002/mar.4220090502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. In Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boswell, D. A. (1980). Evaluations of transparencies for psychology instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 7, 171–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman, D. P. (1998). Presentations: Proven techniques for creating presentations that get results. Holbrook, MA: Adams.Google Scholar
  13. Brunyé, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877–895. doi:10.1002/acp.1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chung, S. T. L. (2004). Reading speed benefits from increased vertical word spacing in normal peripheral vision. Optometry and Vision Science, 81(7), 525–535.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colcombe, S., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: A meta-analytic study. Psychological Science, 14(2), 125–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 51–57. doi:10.1177/0963721409359277.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). PowerPoint presentation technology and the dynamics of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 147–160. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9017-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daniels, L. (1999). Introducing technology in the classroom: PowerPoint as a first step. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 10(2), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105–134. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doumont, J.-L. (2005). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication, 52(1), 64–70.Google Scholar
  25. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Etnier, J. L., Salazar, W., Landers, D. M., Petruzzello, S. J., Han, M., & Nowell, P. (1997). The influence of physical fitness and exercise upon cognitive functioning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise in Psychology, 19(3), 249–277.Google Scholar
  27. Fiore, S. M., Cuevas, H. M., & Oser, R. L. (2003). A picture is worth a thousand connections: The facilitative effects of diagrams on mental model development and task performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 117–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ginns, P., & Fraser, J. (2010). Personalization enhances learning anatomy terms. Medical Teacher, 32(9), 776–778. doi:10.3109/01421591003692714.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color as executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Management Science, 43(10), 1387–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hardin, E. E. (2007). Presentation software in the college classroom: Don’t forget the instructor. Technology in Teaching, 31(1), 53–57. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3401_13.Google Scholar
  33. Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seducative details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haskell, W. L., Lee, I.-M., Pate, R. R., Powell, K. E., Blair, S. N., Franklin, B. A., et al. (2007). Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation, 116(9), 1081–1093. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATION.107.185649.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 58–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17, 722–738. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jessen, F., Heun, R., Erb, M., Granath, D.-O., Klose, U., Papassotiropoulos, A., et al. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 74(1), 103–112. doi:10.1006/brln.2000.2340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. doi:10.1037/a0026923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kartal, G. (2010). Does language matter in multimedia learning? Personalization principle revisited. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 615–624. doi:10.1037/a0019345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Katt, J., Murdock, J., Butler, J., & Pryor, B. (2008). Establishing best practices for the use of PowerPoint™ as a presentation aid. Human Communication, 11(2), 189–196.Google Scholar
  42. Kiewra, K. A. (1985a). Providing the instructor’s notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 33–39. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2001_5.Google Scholar
  43. Kiewra, K. A. (1985b). Students’ note-taking behaviors and the efficacy of providing the instructor’s notes for review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 378–386.Google Scholar
  44. Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242–262. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kobayashi, K. (2006). Combined effects of note-taking/-reviewing on learning and the enhancement through interventions: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology, 26(3), 459–477. doi:10.1080/01443410500342070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kosslyn, S. M., Kievit, R. A., Russell, A. G., & Shephard, J. M. (2012). PowerPoint presentation flaws and failures: A psychological analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 230. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00230.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Legge, G. E., Pelli, D. G., Rubin, G. S., & Schleske, M. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading: I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Legge, G. E., Rubin, G. S., & Luebker, A. (1987). Psychophysics of reading: The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Research, 27(7), 1165–1177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levasseur, D. G., & Sawyer, J. K. (2006). Pedagogy meets PowerPoint: A research review of the effects of computer-generated slides in the classroom. Review of Communication, 6(1–2), 101–123. doi:10.1080/15358590600763383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Locke, E. A. (1977). An empirical study of lecture notetaking among college students. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 93–99.Google Scholar
  52. Lowry, R. B. (1999). Electronic presentation of lectures: Effect upon student performance. University Chemistry Education, 3(1), 18–21.Google Scholar
  53. Mansfield, J. S., Legge, G. E., & Bane, M. C. (1996). Font effects in normal and low vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 37(8), 1492–1501.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Marsh, E. J., & Sink, H. E. (2010). Access to handouts of presentation slides during lecture: Consequences for learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 691–706. doi:10.1002/acp.1579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, J. (2004). A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 724–733. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Näsänen, R., Karlsson, J., & Ojanpää, H. (2001). Display quality and the speed of visual letter search. Displays, 22, 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nguyen-Michel, S. T., Unger, J. B., Hamilton, J., & Spruijt-Metz, D. (2006). Associations between physical activity and perceived stress/hassles in college students. Stress and Health, 22, 179–188. doi:10.1002/smi.1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., et al. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465, 775–778. doi:10.1038/nature09042.Google Scholar
  65. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. doi:10.1037/h0084295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2011). Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5–10. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Generative effects of note-taking during science lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 34–38. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 291–312. doi:10.1002/acp.1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pratt, C. B. (2003). The misuse of PowerPoint. In Public Relations Quarterly, 48(3), 20–24.Google Scholar
  72. Raver, S. A., & Maydosz, A. S. (2010). Impact of the provision and timing of instructor-provided notes on university students’ learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(3), 189–200. doi:10.1177/1469787410379682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 359–379. doi:10.1037/a0029082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reinwein, J. (2012). Does the modality effect exist? And if so, which modality effect? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 1–32. doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9180-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7, 216–237. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Savoy, A., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Information retention from PowerPoint™ and traditional lectures. Computers & Education, 52(4), 858–867. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schnettler, B., Knoblauch, H., & Pötzsch, F. S. (2007). Die PowerPoint-Präsentation: Zur Performanz technisierter mündlicher Gattungen in der Wissensgesellschaft. In B. Schnettler, & H. Knoblauch (Hrsg.), PowerPoint-Präsentationen (S. 9–34). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  78. Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sheedy, J. E., Subbaram, M. V., Zimmerman, A. B., & Hayes, J. R. (2005). Text legibility and the letter superiority effect. Human Factors, 47(4), 797–815. doi:10.1518/001872005775570998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sibley, B. A., & Etnier, J. L. (2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta-analysis. Pediatic Exercise Science, 15, 243–256.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, P. J., Blumenthal, J. A., Hoffman, B. M., Cooper, H., Strauman, T. A., Welsh-Bohmer, K., et al. (2010). Aerobic exercise and neurocognitive performance: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(3), 239–252. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d14633.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stanford Center on Longevity & Max Planck Institute for Human Development (2009). Expert consensus on brain health.Google Scholar
  83. Stern, E., Aprea, C., & Ebner, H. G. (2003). Improving cross-content transfer in text processing by means of active graphical representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203–215. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Susskind, J. E. (2008). Limits of PowerPoint’s power: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes but not their behavior. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1228–1239. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sweller, J. (2005). The redundancy effect in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Hrsg.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (S. 159–167). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G. v., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Szabo, A., & Hastings, N. (2000). Using IT in the undergraduate classroom: Should we replace the blackboard with PowerPoint? Computers & Education, 35, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thompson, C. PowerPoint makes you dumb. (2003, December 14). New York Times.Google Scholar
  91. Thompson, E., Palacios, A., & Varela, F. J. (1992). Ways of coloring: Comparative color vision as a case study for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 1–26. doi:10.1017/S0140525×00067248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint: Pitching out corrupts within. Cheshire: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
  93. Um, E. R., Plass, J. L., Hayward, E. O., & Homer, B. D. (2012). Emotional design in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 485–498. doi:10.1037/a0026609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. VanKim, N. A., & Nelson, T. F. (2013). Vigorous physical activity, mental health, perceived stress, and socializing among college students. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(1), 7–15. doi:10.4278/ajhp.111101-QUAN-395.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vaynman, S., & Gomez-Pinilla, F. (2006). Revenge of the „sit“: How lifestyle impacts neuronal and cognitive health through molecular systems that interface energy metabolism with neuronal plasticity. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 84, 699–715. doi:10.1002/jnr.20979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wecker, C. (2012). Slide presentations as speech suppressors: When and why learners miss oral information. Computers & Education, 59(2), 260–273. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilmoth, J., & Wybraniec, J. (1998). Profits and pitfalls: Thoughts on using a laptop computer and presentation software to teach introductory social statistics. Teaching Sociology, 26(3), 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wolfson, S., & Case, G. (2000). The effects of sound and colour on responses to a computer game. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 183–192. doi:10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00037-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yager, D., Aquilante, K., & Plass, R. (1998). High and low luminance letters, acuity reserve, and font effects on reading speed. Vision Research, 38, 2527–2531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Yue, C. L., Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: An undesired desirable difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 266–277. doi:10.1037/a0031971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Krist
    • 1
  • Katharina Noll
    • 1
  • Rebekka Pick
    • 1
  • Anika Pielstick
    • 1
  • Sharmina Sayeed
    • 1
  • Lukas Schmid
    • 1
  • Michael Schneider
    • 2
  1. 1.Bachelorstudiengang PsychologieUniversität Trier – Fachbereich ITrierDeutschland
  2. 2.Abtlg. für Pädagogische PsychologieUniversität Trier – Fachbereich ITrierDeutschland

Personalised recommendations