Comparing the Efficacy of Different Signaling Techniques
Robert K. Atkinson
Division of Psychology in Education
Arizona State University
robert.atkinson@asu.edu
Lijia Lin & Caroline Harrison
Division of Psychology in Education
Arizona State University
ABSTRACT: This experiment examined which type, or a combination, of attention-gaining and
attention-directing techniques foster learning in a multimedia learning environment. One hundred
and sixty-nine participants were randomly assigned to the cells of a 3 x 3 factorial design where
the first factor was attention-gaining techniques (none, highlighting, or flashing) and the second
factor was attention-directing techniques [none, realistic/concrete pointer (i.e., human hand with
pointing finger), or symbolic/abstract pointer (i.e., arrow)]. The results revealed that participants
assigned to the static attention-gaining condition (highlighting) outperformed their peers in the
other two conditions (no attention-gaining technique and flashing) on learning outcome measures.
Participants in the hand and arrow attention-direction conditions produced significantly higher
scores on the posttest than their peers that were not provided these attention-directing techniques.
Introduction
Information is presented through different modalities (auditory and visual modality) to help learners
construct their mental representations in a complex multimedia environment. Due to the limited capacity of working
memory (Miller, 1956), learners cannot attend to all of the incoming information in such a complex environment.
Instead, they will visually search what they consider relevant and important information to match the information
coming from the auditory channel. Such cognitively high-visual-search activity has been found to result in poor
performance (Jeung, Chandler & Sweller, 1997).
This may be explained by cognitive load theory (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, van Merrienboer,
& Paas, 1998), which assumes three subcomponents—intrinsic load, extraneous load and germane load. (The
intrinsic load cannot be altered for a designated material, whereas the extraneous load is unnecessary and can be
altered by appropriate instructional design. Once the extraneous load is lowered, learners can engage more for
understanding, thus fostering germane load.) High-visual-search activities in the multimedia environment impose
high extraneous load and low germane load, which do not foster understanding. From the perspective of cognitive
load theory (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998), signaling is one effective way
to reduce extraneous cognitive load (Mayer & Moreno, 2003; Wouters, Paas, & van Merriënboer, 2008) and thus
foster germane cognitive load. Based on the three essential processes specified in the cognitive theory of multimedia
learning (Mayer, 2005), the signaling principle states that emphasizing relevant information by means of visual
indicators (e.g., typographical signals such as bolding, flashing, pointers, color coding of related information) gains
and directs attention, helps learners organize information by making explicit relations that might otherwise have to
be inferred, and helps them integrate related information into one coherent mental representation (Mautone &
Mayer, 2001). Therefore, in order to enhance deep and meaningful learning, the issue of how to gain and direct
learner’s attention to the important information becomes crucial.
Signaling to Gain Attention
The signaling technique, by adding non-content information to the learning environment, is intended to
enhance learner’s attention which leads to essential cognitive processing. There are quite a few signaling techniques
to gain learners’ attention, such as coloring, highlighting and flashing. Although in Harp and Mayer’s paper-based
instruction, no effect of signaling (highlighting) was found (Harp and Mayer, 1998), research studies in the
computer-based environment have shown positive results of signaling compared to non-signaling in the past
decades. Coloring technique was found to promote learning and reduce cognitive load in some experiments (Jamet,
Gavota & Quaireau, 2008; Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 1999). The cognitive function of electronic flashing was
investigated in the experiment conducted by Jeung, Chandler, & Sweller (Experiment 2, Jeung, Chandler, &
Sweller, 1997). Participants studying a complex geometric diagram accompanied with narration and visual
indicators (flashing) outperformed their counterparts who were presented with materials with no visual indicators
(either a diagram with on-screen statements or a diagram with narrated statements). In another experiment, cued
animation (highlighting relevant parts by darkening all other parts on graphics) was found to enhance learners’
comprehension on cardiovascular system (de Koning, Tabbers, Rikers, & Paas, 2007). A weak signaling effect was
also found in a non-scientific context (using materials to teach instructional design strategies) (Tabbers, Martens, &
van Merriënboer, 2004). Therefore, based on the previous literatures, we expect that object-related attention-gaining
techniques will effectively promote learning in a scientific multimedia context (e.g., the human cardiovascular
system). Regarding the effectiveness of different attention-gaining techniques (e.g., highlighting vs. flashing), the
results were uncertain. From the cognitive perspective, we expect that the dynamic manipulation (flashing) may be
more effective to enhance attention than the static highlighting due to its dynamism.
Signaling to Direct Attention
Signaling has the cognitive function to direct learner attention by pointing to the relevant information in the
learning environment. Most research on external attention pointers involves the investigation of gestures of animated
pedagogical agent in multimedia learning environment.
Animated pedagogical agents are lifelike characters that complement multimedia instruction by providing
instruction through verbal and nonverbal modes of communication. According to social agency theory (Mayer,
2003; Atkinson, Mayer & Merrill, 2005), the social cues (voice, locomotion, gaze and gestures) provided by the
animated agent are expected to enhance human-computer interaction—learners in such learning environments will
perceive to have conversations with a human by interacting with the animated agent. Research studies revealed that
the animated pedagogical agent not only has a social impact on learning and perception in multimedia environment,
but also has cognitive functions provided by the agents’ specific features, such as gaze, gestures, locomotion. The
experiments conducted by Atkinson (Atkinson, 2002) shed some light on this issue. The animated agent, which is a
non-anthropomorphic agent (Peedy the Parrot), delivered instructional explanations and solutions steps of worked
examples while using nonverbal cues such as gestures and gaze to direct the learner’s attention. Results showed that
there was an image effect— visually presenting an animated agent gesturing and glancing to the material with
narration is more effective to promote learning than presenting voice only. Atkinson thus pointed out that the
nonverbal cues (gaze and gestures) of the animated agent may have the same function as a visual indicator to direct
learners’ attention, which was also found in previous research (Jeung et al, 1997).
Nevertheless, literature reveals that there is a mixed effect of presenting the agent with gesture—positive
effect was found in experiments conducted by Lusk and Atkinson (Lusk, & Atkinson, 2007) and Baylor and Kim
(Baylor & Kim, 2009), whereas negative effect was found in some other experiments (Choi & Clark, 2006 and
Craig, Gholson, & Driscoll, 2002). Therefore, systematically investigating specific features of the animated agents
(e.g. human hand pointing) is needed, as some potential positive effects of agent features may well be suppressed by
other irrelevant and in fact harmful features, adding up to a zero effect, if the agent is presented to its maximum
amount. Lusk and Atkinson (2007) investigated the effect of the degree of agent embodiment in the context of
worked examples —presenting a full agent to direct learner attention by narration, gesture and gaze, a minimum
agent only providing verbal explanations and no agent. The results tended to favor the fully embodied agent, which
employed attention directing techniques. However, as the whole body of the agent was presented in both fully
embodied and minimally embodied conditions, it is unconvincing to contribute the result to the effect of agent
pointing. Therefore, in the present experiment, we will investigate the effect of only presenting a human hand
pointer, no agent’s head and body, compared to the non-pointing condition.
In Mautone and Mayer’s study (Mautone, & Mayer, 2001), signaled animation using arrows failed to affect
learning compared to non-signaled condition. Such failure of the abstract signaling device (arrow) remind us to not
only look into the issues of complexity of graphics and prior knowledge level (Mautone, & Mayer, 2001), but also
consider the issue from the social-motivational perspective—such abstract attention pointer may not engage learner
into the learning activities. A realistic attention pointer (e.g., a human hand pointer) may engage the learner more.
Nevertheless from the cognitive perspective, it may be argued that it is the attention-directing function that affects
learning, rather than the realism. Therefore, a deictic human hand may have the same cognitive function as an
abstract arrow. Research has suggested that instruction should be designed parsimoniously (Choi, & Clark, 2006)
and should exclude extraneous elements (Harp & Mayer, 1998; Mayer, & Moreno, 2002). In the present experiment,
we will investigate which type of attention-directing technique (concrete pointing finger vs. abstract arrow) is more
effective to promote learning, and whether such attention-directing techniques are effective in multimedia
environment.
Overview of the experiment
The purpose of the experiment is to examine which type, or a combination, of attention-gaining and
attention-directing techniques foster learning in a multimedia learning environment.
Independent variables
Attention-gaining techniques and attention-directing techniques are the two independent variables
manipulated in this experiment. It was designed to investigate the signaling principle by testing the cognitive
effectiveness of using (A) target-related, attention-gaining techniques, that is, (A1) no attention attention-gaining
techniques (A2) versus highlighting (static attention getter) versus (A3) flashing (dynamic attention getter). In
addition, this experiment will also explore the use of (B) attention-directing techniques to target, that is, (B1) no
pointer versus (B2) realistic/concrete pointer (i.e., human hand with pointing finger) versus (B3) symbolic/abstract
pointer (i.e., arrow).
Research Questions
In this experiment, three research questions will be addressed:
1) What type of attention-gaining techniques (flashing or highlighting) is most effective for facilitating
learning in a multimedia environment?
2) What type of attention-directing techniques (concrete image/pointing finger or abstract image/arrow) is
most effective for facilitating learning in a multimedia environment?
3) Is there an interaction between attention-gaining and attention-directing techniques?
From a cognitive perspective, both attention-gaining and attention-directing techniques are expected to
improve learning outcomes and reduce subjective cognitive load. The experiment will assess the comparative
effectiveness of these two categories, used separately and in combination. Secondly, this experiment will assess the
comparative effectiveness of static versus dynamic object attention getters (highlighting vs. flashing), the
expectation being that a dynamic manipulation will elicit higher attention and result in better cognitive processing.
Thirdly, this experiment will compare the effectiveness of realistic versus abstract attention pointers, the expectation
being that cognitively, there will be no difference. From a socio-motivational perspective, the use of a human body
part (hand) with a deictic function (finger pointing to target) is expected to enhance viewer engagement due to
realism (as compared to a symbolic deictic, i.e., arrow).
Method
Participants and Design
169 participants (91 female and 78 male) from a large southwestern university volunteered to participate in
the experiment. They were primarily undergraduates from education, music, and social sciences. They were drawn
from educational psychology and introductory computer courses in the College of Education as well as through
recruiting from around the campus. Participants were either paid a small stipend ($20US) or were given class extra
credit.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of nine treatment groups as formed by the cells of a 3 x 3
factorial design: 1) a static circle to gain attention, 2) a flashing circle to gain attention, 3) an arrow to direct
attention, 4) a hand to direct attention, 5) a static circle with an arrow, 6) a static circle with a hand, 7) a flashing
circle with an arrow, 8) a flashing circle with a hand, or 9) a control group with no additional attention gaining or
directing cues.
Materials
The instructional material consisted of a multimedia lesson on the cardiovascular system created in Visual
Basic. It included embedded 2-D images and animations presented as Adobe Flash files.
The lesson portion of the environment included 24 separate screens of instruction. Each of these screens
included content presented through narration accompanied by a Flash file containing images or animations to
illustrate the audio content. All of the animations were presented on the left side of the screen with the navigational
and animation controls presented on the right side of the screen. Learners were also presented with their location
within the environment with the section number and the screen number at the top.
The program and content were adapted from a previous project created by Atkinson et al (?). It covered
objectives related to the circulatory system such as the structure and function of the heart, blood, circulatory system,
and material exchange. Before starting the lesson content, learners were provided with a tutorial screen about the
environment. This screen gave a brief explanation of the program and demonstrated the animation and navigational
controls without any accompanying narration or animation.
The instructional information within the lesson was divided into five sections with a varied number of
screens. Navigational aids allowed learners to control the pace of the instruction. They were able to take as much
time as they needed with each screen. On each content screen learners could stop and start the narration and
animation as often as needed. Animation and narration controls were located to the right of the animation. The same
button controlled both animation and narration in order to keep them synchronized. Within each instructional
section, learners could go back to previous pages or go forward to the next page. There was no limit as to how often
they could view a screen within a section. However, once a section had been completed learners could not go back
to review its content. Navigation controls were located at the bottom right of each screen below the animation and
sound controls.
Immediately following each section of instruction, learners were given four multiple choice practice
questions on the content just presented. Each question had five alternate choices. Each question was presented
individually on the left portion of the screen, replacing the animations. The navigation and animation controls were
not available during the practice. The primary purpose of these practice questions was to engage the learners and
encourage their attention to the material rather than to test their learning. For this reason a researcher told the
learners about the practice questions prior to the start of the lesson. Once learners reached the practice they could not
go back and review any of the prior instructional material. They could not proceed to the next question or section of
material until they had answered the question being presented. When the learner was ready, they would click on the
Next button to record the answer. Students were then given immediate feedback on each practice item. This was
presented with a pop-up message box to allow learners to review and process the feedback. If they chose the correct
answer they were presented with the message “Yes! That’s Correct”. If the answer that they chose was incorrect
they were given the correct answer as part of the feedback. Learners could review the question and feedback for as
long as necessary. When the learner was ready they would click on the OK button to continue to the subsequent
practice item, to begin the next section, or to complete the program.
All conditions included identical narration and practice within the environment. In addition, the content and
primary graphics of the narrations were also the same across all conditions. However, eight of the conditions
included either an attention directing device of a hand (Figure 1) or an arrow (Figure 2), an attention gaining device
of a static or flashing circle (Figure 3), or combinations of both (Figure 4) overlaid on the original visuals.
Figure 1 Hand directing attention
Figure 2 Arrow directing attention
Figure 3 Circle gaining attention
Figure 4 Combination of devices
Dependent Measures
Before instruction, learners were presented with a pretest to measure their prior knowledge of the
cardiovascular system content. This pretest consisted of 20 multiple choice questions and the questions were
presented one at a time. Participants were asked to read each statement and select the best answer from four possible
choices. They could not return to their previous questions. They were not given any feedback on their answer.
Examples of pretest questions include:
1. The purpose of the heart is to
a. remove wastes from the blood.
b. make new blood.
c. pump blood through the body.
d. transfer heat to the rest of the body.
2. Which of the following is most similar to the heart?
a. A pump because it pushes blood through the body.
b. A hose because blood travels in tubes.
c. A cup because it is open on the top.
d. A broom because it cleans the blood.
Learning outcomes were measured by the use of a posttest created for the material presented in the lesson.
The posttest consisted of 20 multiple choice items based on the content. As with the pretest, participants were given
a statement and asked to select the best choice from four possible answers. Again, questions were presented one at
time, there was no backtracking, and no feedback was provided.
Following are sample questions from the posttest.
1. The valves in the heart are like
a. gates.
b. windows.
c. closets.
d. chambers.
2. The right ventricle pumps blood to the
a. left atrium.
b. right atrium.
c. left ventricle.
d. lungs.
Text log files were created by the program while participants worked through the learning environment.
The log files were automatically created and updated as participants proceeded through the program. They recorded
the date and start time, participant experiment ID number, total time spent in the program, the answer selected and
whether it was correct for each testing or practice item, the total correct responses for the entire lesson, and
responses to the attitude questionnaires.
In addition to measuring prior knowledge and subsequent learning, participants completed several
questionnaires to measure their subjective cognitive load. These instruments were adapted from similar instruments
used by Linek, Gerjets, and Sheiter (2007) in their study using human voices. All of the attitude measures were
standardized to use an 8 point numbering scale, otherwise they were unchanged.
Cognitive load was measured by subjective rating technique. Participants were asked to self-report their
perceived cognitive load through five questions using an 8-point Likert scale. These five questions are 1) How much
mental and physical activity was required (e.g., thinking, deciding, calculating, remembering, looking, searching
etc.)? That is, was the learning task easy (simple, forgiving) or demanding (exacting or unforgiving)? 2) How hard
did you have to work in your attempt to understand the contents of the learning environment? 3) How successful do
you think you were in your attempt to understand the content of the learning environment? 4) How much effort did
you have to invest in order to navigate the learning environment (e.g., for deciding between different hyperlinks,
finding your way around)? and 5) How stressed (insecure, discouraged, irritated, annoyed) did you feel during the
learning task?
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in a computer lab. Participants were asked to sign a consent form stating
they agreed to participate and specify whether they were either paid or receiving extra credit for participating in the
experiment. After that, each participant was seated at an individual cubicle, facing a computer. Participants were
debriefed by a researcher about the goal and procedures of the experiment. Then, they started the pretest on the
computer. Once the pretest was completed, each participant was given a randomly assigned experiment ID number
to start the computer-based lesson. The intention of using the experiment ID number is to preserve the anonymity of
each participant. A posttest and a questionnaire were administered, once participants completed the computer-based
lesson. Upon completion of the posttest and the questionnaire, the participants were thanked and were either paid or
received course extra credit. The log file from the sessions was then preserved for analysis.
Scoring
Participants’ answers from the pretest, posttest, and practice items were automatically scored by the
environment and recorded as part of the text log file created with each session. The given answer was recorded then
compared to the correct answer and assigned either 1 if correct or 0 if incorrect. Using this information the number
of correct responses for the pretest, posttest, each section’s practice items, and all practice items within the lesson
were totaled and logged. The number corresponding to the selection on the scales for the attitude questions was also
recorded into the log. The log files were then imported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This allowed for
formatting and calculating the reverse coding and scales for the attitude questions. The data was then copied into
SPSS for complete data analysis.
Results
To analyze the posttest, a 3 x 3 ANCOVA was used with the pretest as a covariate. The first factor was
target-related, attention-gaining techniques (none, highlighting, or flashing). The second factor was attentiondirecting techniques to target [none, realistic/concrete pointer (i.e., human hand with pointing finger), or
symbolic/abstract pointer (i.e., arrow)]. Significant main effects were followed up with Fisher’s LSD post-hoc
pairwise comparison procedure.
A significant main effect was found for target-related, attention-gaining techniques, F (2, 159) = 6.45, MSE
= 6.32, p < .01. Pairwise post hoc tests revealed that the participants assigned to the static attention-gaining
condition (highlighting) outperformed their peers in the other two conditions: no attention-gaining technique and the
flashing approach. There was also a main effect for attention-directing techniques, F(2, 159) = 3.10, p < .05.
Pairwise post hoc tests indicated that the participants in the hand and arrow attention-direction conditions produced
significantly higher scores on the posttest than their peers that were not provided these attention-directing
techniques. There was no significant interaction between the two factors. The same results were reported for the
cognitive load measure. The static attention-gaining condition reported low perceived cognitive load than their peers
in the other two conditions: no attention-gaining technique and the flashing approach. The participants in the hand
and arrow attention-direction conditions reported lower perceived cognitive load than their peers that were not
provided these attention-directing techniques attention-directing techniques. While participants provided with the
hand pointer did outperform their peers on the posttest, they performed comparably to their peers provided with
arrows as attention-directing guides. There were also no differences on measures of cognitive load or intrinsic
motivation.
Conclusion and Discussion
From the cognitive perspective, in a complex multimedia environment, attention directing and attentiongaining techniques may promote cognitive processing due to enhanced learner attention. The results of the
experiment support the use of these techniques—both object-related attention getters and external attention pointers
improved learning outcomes while reducing subjective cognitive load. These findings are consistent with previous
studies (de Koning, Tabbers, Rikers, & Paas, 2007, Jeung, Chandler, & Sweller, 1997, Kalyuga, Chandler, &
Sweller, 1999). Also, these findings suggest that applying the non-content signaling devices in the multimedia
environment does not introduce extraneous elements and seductive details, which may be harmful to learning.
However, the dynamic flashing condition did not elicit higher attention and result in better cognitive
processing than the static highlighting condition, which is out of our expectation. Based on the findings of de
Koning et al (de Koning, Tabbers, Rikers, & Paas, 2007), we explain that learners in the flashing condition may
obtain some non-signaled information, which is not reflected in the posttest. By holding both signaled and nonsignaled information in their working memory, learners’ cognitive load in the flashing condition would be at a
higher level than that in the highlighting condition. This indicates that learners studying the dynamic attention
getters do not perceive the content more accurately than the static condition. Therefore, dynamic visual
representations should be designed clearly to be perceived by the viewers, according to apprehension principle
(Tversky, Morrison, & Betrancourt, 2002).
From the socio-motivational perspective, the use of a human body part (hand) with a deictic function
(finger pointing to target) was expected to enhance learner engagement due to realism as compared to a symbolic
deictic, (i.e., arrow). On the other hand, from a cognitive perspective, we expect that there is no difference in
performance between the realistic versus abstract attention pointers (hand vs. arrow). The findings of this
experiment confirm our expectation from a cognitive perspective. We explain that only presenting part of human
body of the animated pedagogical agent may not provide sufficient social cues to promote learning. These findings
support the agent image effect on an opposite direction. From the cognitive perspective, we conclude that it is the
function of pointing that affects learning outcome and cognitive load, not the degree of realism of the pointer. This
implicates that instruction should be designed parsimoniously.
Finally, we must take several limitations into consideration. First, we assume that enhanced attention to the
selected information improves learning. And our findings indeed support this assumption. However, according to
Mayer, there are three essential processes for active learning: selecting relevant information, organizing selected
information and integrating selected information with prior knowledge (Mayer, 2005). Learners may have just
retained relevant information from their enhanced attention and deep understanding was not been fostered.
Therefore, in order to address this issue, in future research, it would be better to test both retention and transfer
knowledge which can clearly address whether signaling has promoted deeper understanding. Second, the present
experiment was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, which limits the generalizability of the findings. It may
be valuable to replicate the experiment in future in a real classroom setting, where there are more attention
distracters.
References
Atkinson, R. K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94, 416-427.
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(1), 117-139.
Baylor, A. L., & Kim, S. (2009). Designing nonverbal communication for pedagogical agents: When less is more.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 450-457.
Choi, S., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Cognitive and affective benefits of an animated pedagogical agent for learning
english as a second language. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 441-466.
Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., & Driscoll, D. M. (2002). Animated pedagogical agents in multimedia educational
environments: Effects of agent properties, picture features and redundancy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(2), 428-434.
de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2007). Attention cueing as a means to enhance
learning from an animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology.Special Issue: A Cognitive Load Approach to the
Learning Effectiveness of Instructional Animation, 21(6), 731-746.
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(3), 414-434.
Jamet, E., Gavota, M., & Quaireau, C. (2008). Attention guiding in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction,
18(2), 135-145.
Jeung, H., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). The role of visual indicators in dual sensory mode instruction.
Educational Psychology, 17, 329-433.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
Lusk, M. M., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Animated pedagogical agents: Does their degree of embodiment impact
learning from static or animated work examples? Applied Cognitive Psychology.Special Issue: A Cognitive
Load Approach to the Learning Effectiveness of Instructional Animation, 21(6), 747-764.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 377-389.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning. (pp. 31-48). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-419.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review,
14(1), 87-87.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments.
Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, Jeroen J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Multimedia instructions and cognitive load
theory: Effects of modality and cueing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 71-81.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247-262.
Wouters, P., Paas, F. G. W. C., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). How to optimize learning from animated
models: A review of guidelines based on cognitive load. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 645-675.
Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation instrument. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 4(2), 113-123.