Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-26T01:47:44.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Fifteen Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning

from Part I - Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

By
David F. Feldon ,
Soojeong Jeong  and
Richard E. Clark
Edited by
Richard E. Mayer  and
Logan Fiorella
Richard E. Mayer
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Logan Fiorella
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

The chapter begins with a quick summary and research update on earlier lists of 10 questionable multimedia principles. We then add five additional principles that have gained traction in recent years. The updated 10 former questionable beliefs include the unfulfilled expectations that multimedia instruction: (1) yields more learning than live instruction or older media, (2) is more motivating than other instructional media, (3) provides animated pedagogical agents that aid learning, (4) accommodates different learning styles and so maximizes learning for more students; and also benefits learning by allowing and encouraging (5) student managed constructivist and discovery approaches, (6) autonomy and control over the sequencing of instruction, (7) higher order thinking skills, (8) incidental learning of enriching information, (9) interactivity, and (10) authentic learning environments and activities.

Keywords

mythsquestionnable principlesanimated pedagogical agentslearning stylesdiscovery approachesvirtual reality
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning , pp. 25 - 40
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamin, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Cognitive ability and non-ability trait determinants of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 15–20.Google Scholar
Aksayli, N., Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). The cognitive and academic benefits of CogMed: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 229–243.Google Scholar
Allcoat, D., & von Mühlenen, A. (2018). Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpert, W. T., Couch, K. A., & Harmon, O. R. (2016). A randomized assessment of online learning. American Economic Review, 106(5), 378–382.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406.Google Scholar
Bagarukayo, E., Weide, T., Mbarika, V., & Kim, M. (2012). The impact of learning driven constructs on the perceived higher order cognitive skills improvement: Multimedia vs. text. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(2), 120–130.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.Google Scholar
Barton, C. (ed.) (2019). The Research-ED Guide to Education Myths: An Evidence-Informed Guide for Teachers. Melton: John Catt Educational.Google Scholar
Bediou, B., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., Tipton, E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2018). Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berliner, D., & Glass, G. (eds.) (2014). 50 Myths & Lies That Threaten America’s Public Schools: The Real Crisis in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., … & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.Google Scholar
Bettinger, E. P., Fox, L., Loeb, S., & Taylor, E. S. (2017). Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. American Economic Review, 107(9), 2855–2875.Google Scholar
Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Tamim, R. M., Schmid, R. F., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2016). Technology-supported student interaction in post-secondary education: A meta-analysis of designed versus contextual treatments. Computers & Education, 96, 15–28.Google Scholar
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six‐campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94–111.Google Scholar
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237.Google Scholar
Calude, C., & Longo, G. (2017). The deluge of spurious correlations in big data. Foundations of Science, 22, 595–612.Google Scholar
Cambridge English Dictionary (n.d.). Principle. Available from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ (last accessed April 2021).Google Scholar
Chen, Z. (2012). We care about you: Incorporating pet characteristics with educational agents through reciprocal caring approach. Computers & Education, 59, 1081–1088.Google Scholar
Cheng, L., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Antonenko, P. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christodoulou, D. (2014). Seven Myths about Education. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E. (1982). Antagonism between achievement and enjoyment in ATI studies. Educational Psychologist, 17(2), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E. (1989). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathantics. In Mandl, H., De Corte, E., Bennett, N., & Friedrich, H. F. (eds.), Learning and Instruction. European Research in an International Context. Volume II. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In Tobias, S. and Duffy, T. M. (eds.), Constructivist Theory Applied to Instruction: Success or Failure? (pp. 158–183). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, R. E. (2012) Learning from Media: Arguments, Analysis and Evidence (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Choi, S. (2005). Five design principles for experiments on the effects of animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 209–225.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2014). Ten common but questionable principles of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 151–173). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., Howard, K., & Early, S. (2006). Motivational challenges experienced in highly complex learning environments. In Elen, J., & Clark, R. E. (eds.), Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Theory and Research (pp. 27–43). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., Kirschner, P. A., & Sweller, J. (2012). Putting students on the path to learning: The case for fully guided instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 6–11.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Saxberg, B. (2012). The “active ingredients” approach to the development and testing of evidence-based instruction by instructional designers. Educational Technology, 52(5), 20–25.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Saxberg, B. (2018). Engineering motivation using the belief–expectancy–control framework. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 2(1), 4–32.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Saxberg, B. (2019, March). 4 Reasons Good Employees Lose Their Motivation. Harvard Business Review. Available from https://hbr.org/2019/03/4-reasons-good-employees-lose-their-motivation?autocomplete=true (last accessed April 21, 2021).Google Scholar
Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: A Handbook for Research on Interactions. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Davis, R. O. (2018). The impact of pedagogical agent gesturing in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 24, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P., & Hulshof, C. (2015). Urban Myths about Learning and Education. Waltham, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. A., & Hulshof, C. (2019). More Urban Myths about Learning and Education: Challenging Eduquacks, Extraordinary Claims, and Alternative Facts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C., & Long, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dembo, M. H., & Howard, K. (2007). Advice about the use of learning styles: A major myth in education. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dengel, A., & Mägdefrau, J. (2019). Presence is the key to understanding immersive learning. In Beck, D., Pena-Rios, A., Ogle, T., Economou, D., Mentzelopoulos, M., Morgado, L., Eckhardt, C., Pirker, J., Koitz-Hristov, R., Richter, J., Gutl, C., & Gardner, M. (eds.), Immersive Learning Research Network. iLRN 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 1044, pp. 185–198). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification.” In Lugmayr, A., Franssila, H., Safran, C., & Hammouda, I. (eds.), MindTrek 2011 (pp. 9–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: What is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: A critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 9.Google Scholar
Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., & Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 75–88.Google Scholar
Domagk, S. (2010). Do pedagogical agents facilitate learner motivation and learning outcomes?: The role of the appeal of agent’s appearance and voice. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domagk, S., Schwarz, R. N., & Plass, J. L. (2010) Interactivity in multimedia learning: An integrated model. Computers and Human Behavior, 25(1), 1024–1033.Google Scholar
Dovis, S., van Rentergem, J., & Huizenga, H. (2015). Does CogMed working memory training really improve inattention in daily life? A Reanalysis. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119522.Google Scholar
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (eds.) (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction, a Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dunn, R, & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching Students through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Elfeky, A. I. M. (2019). The effect of personal learning environments on participants’ higher order thinking skills and satisfaction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(4), 505–516.Google Scholar
Facione, P. A. (1990). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test – College Level: Interpreting the CCTST, Group Norms and Sub-scores (Technical Report No. 4). Millbrae: California Academic Press.Google Scholar
Faiella, F., & Ricciardi, M. (2015). Gamification and learning: A review of issues and research. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 11(3), 1–12.Google Scholar
Ferdig, R., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (eds.) (2020). Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Figlio, D., Rush, M., & Yin, L. (2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(4), 763–784.Google Scholar
Fontana, L. A., Dede, C., White, C. S., & Cates, W. M. (1993). Multimedia: A Gateway to Higher-Order Thinking Skills. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center for Interactive Educational Technology.Google Scholar
Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 13–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillette, C., Rudolph, M., Kimble, C., Rockich-Winston, N., Smith, L., & Broedel-Zaugg, K. (2018). A meta-analysis of outcomes comparing flipped classroom and lecture. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 82(5), Article 6898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gredler, M., & Shields, C. (2004). Does no one read Vygotsky’s words? Commentary on Glassman. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Martens, R. L. (2005). The surplus value of an authentic learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(3), 509–521.Google Scholar
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.Google Scholar
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219–236.Google Scholar
Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., and Oliver, R. (2014) Authentic learning environments. In Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., & Bishop, M. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 401–412). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homer, B., Plass, J., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 786–797.Google Scholar
Husmann, P. R., & O’Loughlin, V. D. (2018). Another nail in the coffin for learning styles? Disparities among undergraduate anatomy students’ study strategies, class performance, and reported VARK learning styles. Anatomical Sciences Education, 12, 6–19.Google Scholar
James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 19–31.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.Google Scholar
Karbach, J., & Verhaeghen, P. (2014). Making working memory work: A meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults. Psychological Science, 25(11), 2027–2037.Google Scholar
Karich, A. C., Burns, M. K., & Maki, K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 392–410.Google Scholar
Kassai, R., Futo, J., Demetrovics, Z., & Takacs, Z. K. (2019). A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near- and far-transfer effects among children’s executive function skills. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability. Cognition, 116(3), 321–340.Google Scholar
Khacharem, A., Zoudji, B., & Kalyuga, S. (2015). Expertise reversal for different forms of instructional designs in dynamic visual representations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 756–767.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Thayne, J., & Wei, Q. (2017). An embodied agent helps anxious students in mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 219–235.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). The assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.Google Scholar
Kozma, R. (1994) Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, N. C., & Bente, G. (2010) Personalizing e-learning: The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–87.Google Scholar
Krassmann, A., Melo, M., Peixoto, B., Pinto, D., Bessa, M., & Bercht, M. (2020). Learning in virtual reality: Investigating the effects of immersive tendencies and sense of presence. In Chen, J. Y. C., & Fragomeni, G. (eds.), International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction (HCII 2020, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 12191, pp. 270–286). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Lajoie, S. P. (2003). Reassessing aptitude: Introduction to a special issue in honor of Richard E. Snow. Educational Psychologist, 38(2), 79–83.Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., & Reddock, C. M. (2017). A meta-analytic investigation of objective learner control in web-based instruction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(4), 455–478.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 660–664.Google Scholar
Lohman, D. F. (1986). Predicting mathemathantic effects in the teaching of higher-order thinking skills, Educational Psychologist, 21(3), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makin, S. (2016). Memory games. Nature, 531, S10–S11.Google Scholar
Makransky, G., Borre‐Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), 691–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. (2001). What good is educational psychology? The case of cognition and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 83–88.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001) When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster a deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 390–397.Google Scholar
Merrill, D. M. (2006). Hypothesized performance on complex tasks as a function of scaled instructional strategies. In Elen, J., & Clark, R. E. (eds.), Handling Complexity in Learning Environments: Research and Theory (pp. 265–282). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Moos, D. C., & Marroquin, E. (2010). Multimedia, hypermedia, and hypertext: Motivation considered and reconsidered. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 265–276.Google Scholar
Nancekivell, S. E., Shah, P., & Gelman, S. A. (2020). Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neelen, M., & Kirschner, P. (2020). Evidence-Informed Learning Design: Creating Training to Improve Performance. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Newton, P. M., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education – Is the learning styles ‘myth’ important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), 1–8.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.Google Scholar
Park, S. (2015). The effects of social cue principles on cognitive load, situational interest, motivation, and achievement in pedagogical agent multimedia learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 211–229.Google Scholar
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. (2021). Cognitive and affective processes for learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 83–98.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.Google Scholar
Picciano, A. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
Post, L. S., Guo, P., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Effects of remote labs on cognitive, behavioral, and affective learning outcomes in higher education. Computers & Education, 140, 103596.Google Scholar
Redick, T. (2015). Working memory training and interpreting interactions in intelligence interventions. Intelligence, 50, 14–20.Google Scholar
Reich, J., Buttimer, C. J., Fang, A., Hillaire, G., Hirsch, K., Larke, L., Littenberg-Tobias, J., Moussapour, R., Napier, A., Thompson, M., & Slama, R. (2020). Remote Learning Guidance from State Education Agencies during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A First Look. Available from https://edarxiv.org/437e2 (last accessed April 21, 2021).Google Scholar
Rey, G. D., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Wirzberger, M., Schmitt, T. H., & Schneider, S. (2019). A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 389–419.Google Scholar
Richardson, J., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, G., Aksayli, N., Tatlidil, K., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), art.18.Google Scholar
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2016). Do the benefits of chess instruction transfer to academic and cognitive skills? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 18, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2020). Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 423–434.Google Scholar
Sala, G., Tatlidil, K. S., & Gobet, F. (2018). Video game training does not enhance cognitive ability: A comprehensive meta-analytic investigation. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: The differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 647–658.Google Scholar
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem Based Learning: An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework (CRLT Technical Report 16-01). Bloomington, IN: Center for Research on Learning and Technology.Google Scholar
Scheibe, C., & Rogow, F. (2012). The Teachers Guide to Media Literacy: Critical Thinking in a Multimedia World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I. S. (2013). Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 204–218.Google Scholar
Schrader, C., & Bastiaens, T. (2012). The influence of virtual presence: Effects on experienced cognitive load and learning outcomes in educational computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 648–658.Google Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., & Gotch, C. M. (2015). Persisting issues in pedagogical agent research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 183–204.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J., L. (2008). Motivation in Education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Schwaighofer, M., Fischer, F., & Bühner, M. (2015). Does working memory training transfer? A meta-analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist, 50, 138–166.Google Scholar
Seaborn, K., & Fels, D. I. (2015). Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 74, 14–31.Google Scholar
Selwyn, N. (2013). Education in a Digital World: Global Perspectives on Technology and Education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. S. (1970). Reconstruction of educational research. Review of Educational Research, 40(3), 371–396.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, S. S. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In Berliner, D. C., & Calfee, R. C. (eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 399–422). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simons, D., Boor, W., Charness, N., Gathercole, S., Chabris, C., Hambrick, D., & Stine-Morrow, E. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186.Google Scholar
Spencer-Smith, M., & Klingberg, T. (2015). Benefit of a working memory training program for inattention in daily life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0119522.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics. American Psychologist, 60(1), 46–59.Google Scholar
Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Rupert Herrenkohl, L., & Bell, P. (2005). Comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, future. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 125–157.Google Scholar
Stoney, S., & Oliver, R. (1999) Can higher order thinking and cognitive engagement be enhanced with multimedia. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning. Accessed from: http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/07/index.asp (last accessed April 2021).Google Scholar
Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2013) Online multimedia learning with mobile devices and desktop computers: An experimental test of Clark’s methods-not-media hypothesis. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 639–647.Google Scholar
Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David C. Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology, Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 214–216.Google Scholar
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary students ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173.Google Scholar
Turlik, M. (2009). Evaluating the results of a systematic review/meta-analysis. The Foot and Ankle Online Journal, 2(7), 5.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental Psychology in the Soviet Union. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Medford, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
VanLehn, K. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–539.Google Scholar
Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250–268.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. (2016). Big opportunities and big concerns of big data in education. TechTrends, 60, 381–384.Google Scholar
Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195–204.Google Scholar
Wilson, L. C. (2014, September). Introduction to meta-analysis: A guide for the novice. Available from www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/introduction-to-meta-analysis-a-guide-for-the-novice (last accessed April 21, 2021).Google Scholar
Wise, A., Chang, J., Duffy, T., & Del Valle, R. (2004). The effects of teacher social presence on student satisfaction, engagement, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 247–271.Google Scholar
Wise, A., & Shaffer, D. (2015). Why theory matters more than ever in the age of big data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(2), 2–13.Google Scholar
Yung, H. I., & Paas, F. (2015). Effects of cueing by a pedagogical agent in an instructional animation: A cognitive load approach. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 153–160.Google Scholar
Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 425–430.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×