You are here:

Towards a New Generation of Multimedia Learning Research Article

, , , , University of Macedonia, Greece

AACE Journal Volume 14, Number 1, ISSN 1065-6901 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

Invited as a paper from ED-MEDIA 2004

Empirical research regarding the impact of multimedia on learning can be traced back several decades before the large-scale invasion of multimedia learning resources (like Cd-ROM titles and Internet applications) into the educational field and originated from areas outside the educational community. Although the results are not decisive, two generations of multimedia research have contributed to establishing factors that influence effective multimedia design. We summarize the conclusions of the existing research, specifying key theoretical issues, research directions, and weaknesses associated with each generation. Emerging factors, which have begun constituting a third generation of multimedia design and learning research are discussed. Suggestions are made regarding future trends of multimedia design and learning research.

Citation

Samaras, H., Giouvanakis, T., Bousiou, D. & Tarabanis, K. (2006). Towards a New Generation of Multimedia Learning Research. AACE Journal, 14(1), 3-30. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved May 21, 2018 from .

Keywords

References

  1. Baddeley , A.D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  2. Bagui , S. (1998). Reasons for increased learning using multimedia. Journal of Educational Mutlimedia and Hypermedia, 7(1), 3-18.
  3. Bannert, M. (2002) Managing cognitive load–recent trends in cognitive load theory, Learning and Instruction, 12, 139-146.
  4. Multimedia learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 6 Biannual Workshop 2002 in Erfurt. Muenster: Waxmann.
  5. Di Vesta , F . (1987) . The cognitive movement and education . In J . Glover &
  6. t ions of animation to knowledge acquisition. In Proceedings of the 2003 Annual EDMEDIA Conference, (pp. 1112-1117) , Honolulu, HI.
  7. Hede , A . (2002) . An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning . Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 11(2), 177-191.
  8. Kirschner, P.A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: Implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 1-10.
  9. Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2) , 179-211.
  10. Kozma , R . (1994) . Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate . Educational Technology Research & Development , 42(2), 7-19.
  11. Kozma , R . (2003) . The material features of multiple representations and
  12. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Paivio , A . (1971) . Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt , Rinehart & Winston .
  14. Paivio , A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  15. Reimann , P . (2003) . Multimedia learning: Beyond modali ty (commentary) . Learning and Instruction , 13 , 245-252
  16. Rieber L.P. (2000). Computers, graphics& Learning. Madison, WI : Brown& Benchmark.
  17. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
  18. Tobias, S. (1987). Learner characteristics. In R. Gagné (Ed.) , Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 207-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  19. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb , they’re different: S talking the second tier. Tucson , AZ : Research Corporation.
  20. Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Schuurman, J.G., de Croock, M.B.M., & Paas, F.G. W.C. (2002). Redirecting learners’ attention during training: Effects on

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.