Book contents
- Multimedia Comprehension
- Multimedia Comprehension
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 A Short History of Multimedia Sign Systems
- Chapter 3 Basic Forms of Representations
- Chapter 4 Comprehension of Text
- Chapter 5 Comprehension of Pictures
- Chapter 6 Integrative Comprehension of Texts and Pictures
- Chapter 7 Quasi-symbiotic Relations between Text and Picture Comprehension
- Chapter 8 Beyond Comprehension
- Chapter 9 Practical Implications
- Concluding Remarks
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2023
Book contents
- Multimedia Comprehension
- Multimedia Comprehension
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 A Short History of Multimedia Sign Systems
- Chapter 3 Basic Forms of Representations
- Chapter 4 Comprehension of Text
- Chapter 5 Comprehension of Pictures
- Chapter 6 Integrative Comprehension of Texts and Pictures
- Chapter 7 Quasi-symbiotic Relations between Text and Picture Comprehension
- Chapter 8 Beyond Comprehension
- Chapter 9 Practical Implications
- Concluding Remarks
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Multimedia Comprehension , pp. 218 - 227Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131–152.Google Scholar
Atkinson, C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short-term memory. Scientific American, 225, 82–90.Google Scholar
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2022). The split attention principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 199–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berendt, B., Barkowsky, T., Freksa, C., & Kelter, S. (1998). Spatial representation with aspect maps. In Freksa, C., Habel, C., & Wender, K. F. (Eds.), Spatial cognition – An interdisciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge (pp. 313–336). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bertin, J. (1967). Sémiologie Graphique. Les diagrammes, les réseaux, les cartes. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. (Translated 1983. Semiology of Graphics, by W. J. Berg.)Google Scholar
Bobis, J., Sweller, J., & Cooper, M. (1993). Cognitive load effects in a primary-school geometry task. Learning and Instruction, 3, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Conceptual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, P. (1990). What does gesture add to the spoken word? In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 108–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
Castro-Alonso, J. C., & Sweller, J. (2022). The modality principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 261–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P., & Mountain, J. (1988). Reconstruction of human evolution: Bringing together genetic, archeological, and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 86, 6002–6006.Google Scholar
Cermak, L. S., & Craik, F. I. M. (Eds.) (1979). Levels of processing in human memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1979). The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 159–181). New York: Academic Press.Google 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.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2007). Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, U., & Gärtner, H.-M. (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cohn, N. (2016). A multimodal parallel architecture: A cognitive framework for multimodal interactions. Cognition, 146, 304–323.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256.Google Scholar
Comenius, J. A. (1999). Orbis sensualium pictus [Facsimile of the 1887 edition]. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar
Cooney, J. B., & Swanson, H. L. (1987). Memory and learning disabilities: An overview. In Swanson, H. L. (Ed.), Memory and learning disabilities: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 1–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
Corkin, S., Amaral, D. G., González, R. G., Johnson, K. A., & Hyman, B. T. (1997). H. M.’s medial temporal lobe lesion: Findings from magnetic resonance imaging. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(10), 3964–3979.Google Scholar
Crowder, R. G. (1993). Auditory memory. In McAdams, S., & Bigand, E. (Eds.), Thinking in sound: The cognitive psychology of human audition (pp. 113–145). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, C. D., & Adachi, I. (2013). Conceptual metaphorical mapping in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). eLife. Published online October 22, 2013. Available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/326065433_Conceptual_metaphorical_mapping_in_chimpanzees_Pan_troglodytes. Last accessed August 26, 2022.Google Scholar
Damerow, P., Englund, R. K., & Nissen, H. J. (1994). Die Entstehung der Schrift. In Riese, B. (Ed.), Schrift und Sprache (pp. 90–101). Heidelberg: Spektrum akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Danks, J. H., & End, L. J. (1987). Processing strategies for reading and listening. In Horowitz, R., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 271–294). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuchar, M. (1990). Are the signs of language arbitrary? In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 168–179). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1935). Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. [On psychology of productive thinking.] Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171, 303–306.Google Scholar
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1996). Human cognitive neuropsychology. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Engelkamp, J., & Zimmer, H. D. (1994). The human memory. A multi-modal approach. Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245.Google Scholar
Fabrikant, S. I., & Montello, D. R. (2008). The effect of instructions on distance and similarity judgments in information spatializations. International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 22(4), 463–478.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Anes, M. (1994). Why study spoken language? In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 34–36). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity principles. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 185–198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, C. R. (1984). Markedness and topic continuity in discourse processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 487–493.Google Scholar
Gardner, B. T., & Gardner, R. A. (1975). Evidence for sentence constituents in the early utterances of child and chimpanzee. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 244–267.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. A., Gardner, B. T., & Van Cantfort, T. E. (Eds.) (1989). Teaching sign language to chimpanzees. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. C., & Sanford, A. (1983). Topic dependent effects in language processing. In Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Jarvella, R. J. (Eds.), The process of language understanding (pp. 271–296). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1954). The visual perception of objective motion and subjective movement. Psychological Review, 61(5), 304–314.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (Ed.) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goethe, J. W. von (1833). Theoretische Schriften, Maximen und Reflexionen. Stuttgart: Cotta’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graesser, A. C., & Zwaan, R. A. (1995). Inference generation and the construction of situation models. In Weaver, C. A. III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 117–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Green, R. (1981). Remembering ideas form text: The effect of modality of presentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 83–89.Google Scholar
Greer, B., De Bock, D., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). The Isis problem as an experimental probe and teaching resource. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 28(4), 237–246.Google Scholar
Grice, M. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. The William James Lectures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Guthrie, J. T., Taboada, A., & Shular Coddington, C. (2007). Engagement practices for strategy learning in concept-oriented reading instruction. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies. Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 241–266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 353–374.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google 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(3), 414–434.Google Scholar
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Stevenson, H., Azuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Hildyard, A., & Olson, D. R. (1978). Memory and inference in the comprehension of oral and written discourse. Discourse Processes, 1, 91–117.Google Scholar
Hochpöchler, U., Schnotz, W., Rasch, T., Ullrich, M., Horz, H., McElvany, N., Schroeder, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Dynamics of mental model construction from text and graphics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1105–1126.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, D. L., Standish, C. D., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P. B., Milton, J. A., Zilhão, J., Alcolea-González, J. J., Cantalejo-Duarte, P., Collado, H., de Balbín, R., Lorblanchet, M., Ramos-Muñoz, J., Weniger, G.-Ch., & Pike, A. W. G. (2018). U-Th dating of carbonate crusts reveals Neandertal origin of Iberian cave art. Science, 359(6378), 912–915.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136.Google Scholar
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2022). The redundancy in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 212–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamermans, K., Pouw, W., Fassi, L., Aslanidou, A., Paas, F., & Hostetter, A. B. (2019). The role of gesture as simulated action in reinterpretation of mental imagery. Acta Psychologica, 197, 131–142.Google Scholar
Kanizsa, G. (1955). Margini quasi-percettivi in campi con stimolazione omogenea. Rivista di psicologia, 49(1), 7–30. [English translation (1987): Quasi-perceptual margins in homogeneously stimulated fields. (With a 1986 addendum.) In Meyer, G. E. and Petry, S. (Eds.), The perception of illusory contours (pp. 40–49). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Kanizsa, G. (1968). Percezione attuale, esperienza passata e l’“esperimento impossibile” [Actual perception, past experience and the “impossible experiment”]. In Kanizsa, G. & Vicario, G. B (Eds.), Ricerche sperimentali sulla percezione [Experimental investigations on perception] (pp. 10–47). Trieste, Italy: Università degli studi di Trieste. Republished in the March–June 2019 issue of Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 46, 299–323.Google Scholar
King, A. (2007). Beyond literal comprehension: A strategy to promote deep understanding of text. In McNamara, D. S. (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies. Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 267–290). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A constructive-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.Google Scholar
Kita, S. (Ed.) (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Knauff, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2002). Visual imagery can impede reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 30(3), 363–371.Google Scholar
Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994b). Image and brain. The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Caterino, L. C. (1994). Reference maps as a framework for remembering text. In Schnotz, W. & Kulhavy, R. W. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 153–162). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Kürschner, C., & Schnotz, W. (2008). Das Verhältnis gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache bei der Konstruktion mentaler Repräsentationen. Psychologische Rundschau, 59(3), 139–149.Google Scholar
Kürschner, C., Schnotz, W. & Eid, M. (2006). Konstruktion mentaler Repräsentationen beim Hör- und Leseverstehen. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 18(2), 48–59.Google Scholar
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.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.Google Scholar
Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 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., & Binkley, M. R. (Eds.), Learning from textbooks: Theory and practice (pp. 95–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Liu, K., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Visual working memory for briefly presented scenes. Journal of Vision, 5, 650–658.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377–397.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J. M. (2011). Cueing complex animations: Does direction of attention foster learning processes? Learning and Instruction, 21(5), 650–663.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. K., Schnotz, W., & Boucheix, J. M. (2022). The animation composition principle in multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 313–323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B. (1999). Knowledge representation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1989). Constructing more meaningful relationships: Mnemonic instruction for special populations. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 83–111.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1‒19.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Meyer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–49). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Instruction based on visualizations. In Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 427–445). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.) (2014). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.) (2022). Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380–386.Google 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.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1976). Evolution and the diversity of life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible art. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.Google Scholar
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1995). The minimalist hypothesis: Directions for research. In Weaver, C. A. III, Mannes, S., & Fletcher, C. R. (Eds.), Discourse comprehension. Essays in honor of Walter Kintsch (pp. 97–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1990). Moving pictures. In Barlow, H., Blakemore, C., & Weston-Smith, M. (Eds.), Images and understanding (pp. 180–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., & King, A. (2001). Rereading strategically: The influences of comprehension ability and a prior reading on the memory for expository text. Reading Psychology, 22, 41–65.Google Scholar
Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & TenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific text. Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 232–246.Google Scholar
Montgomery, H. (1984). Mental models and problem solving: Three challenges to a theory of restructuring and insight. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 29, 85–94.Google Scholar
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.Google Scholar
Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by minimizing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.Google Scholar
Murai, C., Kosugi, D., Tomonaga, M., Tanaka, M., Matsuzawa, T., & Itakura, S. (2005). Can chimpanzee infants (Pan troglodytes) form categorical representations in the same manner as human infants (Homo sapiens)? Developmental Science, 8(3), 240–254.Google Scholar
Ogden, L. K., & Richards, J. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In Keane, M., & Gilhooly, K. (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 1–44). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2006). Building the gist of a scene: The role of global image features in recognition. Progress in Brain Research, 155, 23–36.Google Scholar
Orrill, C. H., Sexton, S., Lee, S.-O., & Gerde, C. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ abilities to use and make sense of drawn representations. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008 in Utrecht.Google Scholar
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1932). Collected papers, II. Elements of logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle, R. (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Povinelli, D. J., Bering, J. M., & Giambrone, S. (2003). Chimpanzees’ “Pointing”: Another error of the argument by analogy. In Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 35–68). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rasch, R. (2003). 42 Denk- und Sachaufgaben. Wie Kinder mathematische Aufgaben lösen und diskutieren. Stuttgart: Klett, Kallmeyer, Kaulis.Google Scholar
Rieben, L., & Perfetti, C. (1991). Learning to read: Basic research and its implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Robin, H. (1992). The scientific image: From cave to computer. New York: Harry N. Abrams Inc.Google Scholar
Rosch, E., & Lloyd, B. B. (1978). Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. (2022). Multimedia learning from multiple documents. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 521–536). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 200–215.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49(2), 121–133.Google Scholar
Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Seufert, T., & Brünken, R. (2010). Working memory interference during processing texts and pictures: Implications for the explanation of the modality effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 164–176.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344–355.Google Scholar
Sanders, J. R. (1973). Retention effects of adjunct questions in written and oral recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 181–186.Google Scholar
Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & Lewin, R. (1994). Kanzi: The ape at the brink of the human mind. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279–294.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2011). Colorful bouquets in multimedia research: A closer look at the modality effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 269–276.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed. (pp. 72–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W. (2022). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 82–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (1999). Einflüsse der Visualisierungsform auf die Konstruktion mentaler Modelle beim Bild- und Textverstehen [Effects of the visualization form on the construction of mental models in picture and text comprehension]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 46, 216–235.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36(3), 175–190.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Lowe, R. K. (2008). A unified view of learning from animated and static graphics. In Lowe, R. K., & Schnotz, W. (Eds.), Learning with animation. Research implications for design (pp. 304–356). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., Mengelkamp, C., Baadte, C., & Hauck, G. (2014). Focus of attention and choice of text modality in multimedia learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(3), 483–501.Google Scholar
Schnotz, W., & Wagner, I. (2018). Construction and elaboration of mental models through strategic conjoint processing of text and pictures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 850–863.Google Scholar
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research, Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–25.Google Scholar
Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Schmidt-Weigand, F. (2011). Boundary conditions and constraints of the modality effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 25, 211–220.Google Scholar
Silveira, J. (1971). Incubation: The effect of interruption timing and length on problem solution and quality of problem processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon, USA.Google Scholar
Stiller, K. D., Freitag, A., Zinnbauer, P., & Freitag, C. (2009). How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 184–203.Google Scholar
Stringer, C. B. (1992). Replacement, continuity and the origin of Homo sapiens. In Bräuer, G., & Smith, F. H. (Eds.), Continuity or replacement. Controversies in Homo sapiens evolution (pp. 9–24). Rotterdam: Balkema.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Torralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30, 745–757.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Vidal-Abarca, E., Mañá, A., & Gil, L. (2010). Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 817–826.Google Scholar
Visalberghi, E., Fragaszy, D. M., & Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (1995). Performance in a tool-using task by common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), bonobos (Pan paniscus), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 109(1), 52–60.Google Scholar
Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations. Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M. (1938). Laws of organization in perceptual forms in a source book for Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Winn, W. D. (1994). Contributions of perceptual and cognitive processes to the comprehension of graphics. In Schnotz, W., & Kulhavy, R. (Eds.), Comprehension of graphics (pp. 3–27). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zhao, F., Schnotz, W., Wagner, I., & Gaschler, R. (2020). Texts and pictures serve different functions in conjoint mental model construction and adaptation. Memory & Cognition, 48(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6, 292–297.Google Scholar