Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 202–232.Google Scholar

Alwitt, L. F., Anderson, D. R., Lorch, E. P., & Levin, S. R. (1980). Preschool children's visual attention to attributes of television. Human Communication Research, 7, 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, D. R., & Lorch, E. P. (1983). Looking at television: Action or reaction? In Bryant, J. and Anderson, D. R. (Eds.), Children's understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 1–33). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, R. E., & Raths, J. (2001). A taxonomy of learning for teaching: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison-Wesley-Longman.Google Scholar

Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Ayres, P. (2006). Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 135–146). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baddeley, A. D. (1999). Human memory. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar

Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 408–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baggett, P., & Ehrenfeucht, A. (1983). Encoding and retaining information in the visuals and verbals of an educational movie. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 31, 23–32.Google Scholar

Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bodemer, D., Ploetzner, R., Feuerlein, I., & Spada, H. (2004). The active integration of information during learning with dynamic and interactive visualisations. Learning and Instruction, 14, 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Brunken, R., Plass, J., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2004). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science, 32, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brunken, R., Steinbacher, S., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Experimental Psychology, 49, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Calvert, S. L., & Scott, M. C. (1989). Sound effects for children's temporal integration of fast-paced television content. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 33, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., and Churchill, E. (Eds.). (2000). Embodied conversational agents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Catrambone, R. (1994). Improving examples to improve transfer to novel problems. Memory and Cognition, 22, 606–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Catrambone, R. (1995). Aiding subgoal learning: Effect on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Catrambone, R. (1998) The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples to improve transfer to novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). Textbooks for learning. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Clark, R. E., & Solomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 464–478). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

,Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 807–840). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). The effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agent in multimedia educational environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features, and redundancy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

DeLeeuw, K., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). A comparison of three measures of cognitive load: Evidence for separable measures of intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Diao, Y., & Sweller, J. (2007). Redundancy in foreign language reading comprehension instruction: Concurrent written and spoken presentations. Learning and Instruction, 17, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dillon, A., & Jobst, J. (2005). Multimedia learning with hypermedia. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 569–588). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elen, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Setting the scene: Complexity and learning environments. In Elen, J. & Clark, R. E. (Eds.), Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (Eds.). (1993). Instructional message design: Principles from the behavioral and cognitive sciences (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–134). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Garner, R., Alexander, P., Gillingham, M., Kulikowich, J., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garner, R., Brown, R., Sanders, S., & Menke, D. (1992). Seductive details and learning from text. In Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., and Krapp, A. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 239–254). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garner, R., Gillingham, M., & White, C. (1989). Effects of seductive details on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2004). Designing examples to reduce intrinsic cognitive load: Molar versus modular presentation of solution procedures. Instructional Science, 32, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations?Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15, 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harskamp, E., Mayer, R. E., Suhre, C., & Jansma, J. (2007). Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms?Learning and Instruction, 18, 465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hegarty, M., & Kriz, S. (2007). Effects of knowledge and spatial ability on learning from animation. In Lowe, R. & Schnotz, W. (Eds.), Learning with animation (pp. 3–29). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1992). Situational interest and its impact on reading expository writing. In Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 215–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1986). Interestingness: A neglected variable in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 179–194.Google Scholar

Hidi, S., & Baird, W. (1988). Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students' recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inglese, T., Mayer, R. E., & Rigotti, F. (2007). Using audiovisual TV interviews to create visible authors that reduce the learning gap between native and non-native speakers. Learning and Instruction, 16, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jamet, E., & Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 588–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction. Educational Psychology, 17, 329–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 446–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalyuga, S. (2005). Prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325–337). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S. (2005). The prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325–338). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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 ScholarPubMed

Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Timing of information presentation in learning statistics. Instructional Science, 32, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2005). The management of cognitive load during complex cognitive skill acquisition by means of computer-simulated problem solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Merrienboer, J. J. G (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why would anyone read a story anyway?Poetics, 9, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar

Landauer, T. K. (1995). The trouble with computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Leahy, W., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lepper, M. R., Woolverton, M., Mumme, D., & Gurtner, J. (1993). Motivational techniques of expert human tutors: Lessons for the design of computer-based tutors. In Lajoie, S. P. & Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 75–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In Willows, D. M. & Houghton, H. A. (Eds.), The psychology of illustration, vol. 1 (pp. 51–86). New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In Britton, B. K., Woodward, A., and Binkley, M. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Loman, N. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). Signaling techniques that increase the understandability of expository prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 402–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorch, R. F., & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 537–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling the topic structure of a text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Low, R., & Sweller, J. (2005). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 147–158). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1989a). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1989b). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1992). Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1993). Illustrations that instruct. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (vol. 4, pp. 253–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1999a). Instructional technology. In Durso, F. T., Nickerson, R. S., Schvaneveldt, R. W., Dumais, S. T., Lindsay, D. S., & Chi, M. T. H. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 551–569). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (1999b). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2000). The challenge of multimedia literacy. In Pailliotet, A. W. & Mosenthal, P. B. (Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of media, multimedia, and hypermedia (pp. 363–376). Norwood, NJ: JAI/Ablex.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discover learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005b). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005c). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 183–200). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005d). Principles for multimedia learning based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2005e). Introduction to multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–17). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005f). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Mayer, R. E. (2005g). The failure of educational research to impact educational practice: Six obstacles to educational reform. In Phye, G. D., Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions (pp. 67–81). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2008a). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google ScholarPubMed

Mayer, R. E. (2008b). Research-based guidelines for multimedia instruction. In Boehm-Davis, D. A. (Ed.), Annual review of human factors in ergonomics (vol. 3, pp. 127–147). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E. (2008c). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256–265.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Heiser, H., & 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

Mayer, R. E., & Jackson, J. (2005). The case for coherence in scientific explanations: Quantitative details hurt qualitative understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 13–18.

Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Johnson, W. L., Shaw, E., & Sandhu, S. (2006). Constructing computer-based tutors that are socially sensitive: Politeness in educational software. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 54, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pretraining: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Mautone, P. D., & Prothero, W. (2002). Pictorial aids for learning by doing in a multimedia geology simulation game. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Sims, V., & Tajika, H. (1995). A comparison of how textbooks teach mathematical problem solving in Japan and the United States. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 443–460.Google Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. (2006). Problem solving. In Alexander, P. A. & Winne, P. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McLaren, B. M., Lim, S-J., Gagnon, F., Yaron, D., & Koedinger, K. R. (2006). Studying the effects of personalized language and worked examples in the context of a web-based intelligent tutor. In Ikeda, M., Ashley, K. D., & Chan, T-W. (Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 318–328). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. (2000). Learning a procedural task: Effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 555–575.3.0.CO;2-4>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, G. (1956). The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mohr, P., Glover, J., & Ronning, R. R. (1984). The effect of related and unrelated details on the recall of major ideas in prose. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R. (2005). Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 507–524). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Moreno, R. (2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the methods-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999a) Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999b). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 215–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000a). A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000b). Engaging students in active learning: The case for personalized multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 724–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002a). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002b). Learning science in virtual reality multimedia environments: Role of methods and media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 598–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Personalized messages that promote science learning in virtual environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Moreno, R., & Ortegano-Layne, L. (2008). Using cases as thinking tools in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 449–465.CrossRef

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

Moreno, R., & Valdez, A. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nass, C., & Brave, S. (2005). Wired for speech: How voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Naumann, J., Richter, T., Flender, J., Cristmann, U., & Groeben, N. (2007). Signaling in expository hypertexts compensates for deficits in reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 791–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nolen, S. (1995). Effects of a visible author in statistics texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

O'Neil, H. F. (Ed.). (2005). What works in distance learning: Guidelines. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

O'Neil, H. F. (2008). What works in distance learning: Sample lessons based on guidelines. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

O'Neil, H. F., Mayer, R. E., Herl, H., Thurman, R., & Olin, K. (2000). Instructional strategies for virtual environments. In O'Neil, H. F. & Andrews, D. H. (Eds.), Aircraft training: Methods, technologies, and assessment (pp. 105–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (2006). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Paxton, R. (1997). “Someone with like a life wrote it”: The effects of visible author on high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paxton, R. (2002). The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a historical problem. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 197–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Phye, G. D., Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (Eds.). (2005). Empirical methods for evaluating educational interventions. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multiple aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plass, J. L., & Jones, L. C. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 467–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Kneser, C., & Spada, H. (1999). Learning to relate qualitative and quantitative problem representations in a model-based setting for collaborative problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 177–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2002). Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Purnell, K. N., Solman, R. T., & Sweller, J. (1991). The effects of technical illustrations on cognitive load. Instructional Science, 20, 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reder, L. M, & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rieber, L. P. (2005). Multimedia learning in games, simulations, and microworlds. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 549–568). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Roy, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Salomon, G. (1994). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34, 344–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Shirey, L. (1992). Importance, interest, and selective attention. In Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 281–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Shirey, L., & Reynolds, R. (1988). Effect of interest on attention and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simon, H. A. (1974). How big is a chunk?Science, 183, 482–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sternberg, R. J. (1980). Metaphors of mind: Conceptions of the nature of human intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Stull, A., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 808–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (2005a). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sweller, J. (2005b). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 159–168). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load and selective attention as factors in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tarmizi, R., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. (1983). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Tufte, E. R. (1990). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar

Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L. (2005). The four-component instructional design model: Multimedia principles in environments for complex learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 71–93). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2006). Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: Balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merrienboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wade, S. (1992). How interest affects learning from text. In Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., and Krapp, A. (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development (pp. 255–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wade, S., and Adams, R. (1990). Effects of importance and interest on recall of biographical text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H. (2008). The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 66, 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked out examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weiner, B. (1992). Motivation. In Alkin, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (6th ed.; pp. 860–865). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar