Video Upload Options

References

1. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R., "Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning." Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52, 2003.
2. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R, "Interactive multimodal learning environments." Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309-326, 2007.
3. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J., "Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load." John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
4. Harskamp, E. G., Mayer, R. E., & Suhre, C., "Does the modality principle for multimedia learning apply to science classrooms?" Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 465-477, 2007.
5. Chang, C. C., & Yang, F. Y., "Exploring the cognitive loads of high-school students as they learn concepts in web-based environments," Computers & Education, 55(2), 673-680, 2010.
6. Issa, N., Mayer, R. E., Schuller, M., Wang, E., Shapiro, M. B., & DaRosa, D. A., "Teaching for understanding in medical classrooms using multimedia design principles," Medical education, 47(4), 388-396, 2013.
7. TEDx Talks (2016-12-13), Visual feasts of the mind: matching how we teach to how we learn | David Roberts | TEDxLoughboroughU, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyhTg26w-A&index=5&list=PLoI1XyYg-D9WW51FPWUWLi4ZEp_mVZv5c, retrieved 2017-01-05 
8. "Life after Death by PowerPoint | Inspire – teaching and learning in the Social Sciences". https://inspiringsocsci.pressbooks.com/chapter/life-after-death-by-powerpoint/. 
9. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J., "Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes," Journal of educational psychology, 87(2), 319, 1995.
10. Gerven, P. W., Paas, F., Merriënboer, J. J., Hendriks, M., & Schmidt, H. G., "The efficiency of multimedia learning into old age," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 489-505, 2003.
11. Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., "An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animations," Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 46-52, 2011.
12. Spanjers, I. A., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J., "An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples," Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46-52, 2011.
13. Blayney, P., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. "Interactions between the isolated–interactive elements effect and levels of learner expertise: Experimental evidence from an accountancy class," Instructional Science, 38(3), 277-287, 2010.
14. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J., "Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction," Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136, 2000.
15. Sweller, J (June 1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive Science 12 (2): 257–285.
16. Mayer, R.E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L., "When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons." Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73, 1996.
17. Harp, S.F., & Mayer, R.E. "How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning." Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414–434, 1998.
18. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J., "Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes." Journal of educational psychology, 87(2), 319, 1995.
19. Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R., "A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual coding hypothesis." Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490, 1998.
20. Moreno, R., "Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods." Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 765–781, 2007.
21. Spanjers, I. A., van Gog, T., Wouters, P., & van Merriënboer, J. J., "Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing." Computers & Education, 59(2), 274-280, 2012.
22. Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R., "What contributes to the split-attention effect? Role of text segmentation, picture labeling, and spatial proximity." Learning and Instruction, 20, 216–224, 2010.
23. Baddeley, A.D.; G.J. Hitch (1974). "Working Memory". in Bower, G.A.. The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. 8. New York: Academic Press. pp. 47–89. http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/articles/BaddeleyA1974a.pdf. 
24. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-78749-9. https://archive.org/details/multimedialearni0000maye. 
25. Clark, Ruth C.; Mayer, Richard E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. 
26. "Basic principles for online and multimedia learning". EdGurus.com. http://www.edgurus.com/the-basics.html. 
27. Park, B., Moreno, R., Seufert, T., & Brü., "Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study." Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 5-10, 2011.
28. Magner, U. I., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A., "Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments." Learning and Instruction, 29, 141-152, 2014.
29. Crooks, S. M., Cheon, J., Inan, F., Ari, F., & Flores, R. "Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect." Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1063-1071, 2012.
30. Ibrahim, M., Antonenko, P. D., Greenwood, C. M., & Wheeler, D. "Effects of segmenting, signalling, and weeding on learning from educational video." Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 220-235, 2012.
31. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J., "Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation." Applied cognitive psychology, 21(6), 713-729, 2007.
32. Savoji, A.P.; Hassanabadi, H.; Fasihipour, Z. (2011). "The modality effect in learner-paced multimedia learning.". Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30: 1488–1493. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.288.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.sbspro.2011.10.288
33. Khacharem, A., Spanjers, I. A., Zoudji, B., Kalyuga, S., & Ripoll, H., "Using segmentation to support the learning from animated soccer scenes: An effect of prior knowledge." Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 154-160, 2013.
34. Spanjers, I. A., Wouters, P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merrienboer, J. J., "An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples." Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46-52, 2011.
35. Hatsidimitris, G., & Kalyuga, S., "Guided self-management of transient information in animations through pacing and sequencing strategies." Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(1), 91-105, 2013
36. Kartal, G., "Does language matter in multimedia learning? Personalization principle revisited." Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 615, 2010.
37. Wang, N., Johnson, W. L., Mayer, R. E., Rizzo, P., Shaw, E., & Collins, H., "The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(2), 98-112, 2008.
38. McLaren, B.M., DeLeeuw, K.E., & Mayer, R.E. (2011). A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69, 70–79, 2011.
39. Mayer, R.E., Dow, G., & Mayer, S., "Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?" Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806–813, 2003.
40. Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E., Spires, H., & Lester, J., "The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?" Cognition and Instruction, 19, 177–214, 2001.
41. Atkinson, R.K. (2002). Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 416–427, 2002.
42. Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S., "An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239, 2012.
43. Moreno, R., Reislein, M., & Ozogul, G., "Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning." Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 52-60, 2010.
44. Mayer, R.E., Mathias, A., & Wetzell, K., "Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pretraining: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 147–154, 2002.
45. Pollock, E., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J., "Assimilating complex information." Learning and Instruction, 12, 61–86, 2002.
46. Ayres, P., "Impact of reducing intrinsic cognitive load on learning in a mathematical domain." Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 287-298, 2006.
47. Clarke, T., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J., "The impact of sequencing and prior knowledge on learning mathematics through spreadsheet applications." Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 15-24, 2005.
48. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R.E., "Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening." Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156–163, 2002.
49. Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., & Hesse, F. W., "Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures." Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73-84, 2014.
50. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J., "Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction." Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332, 1991.
51. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. "Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction." Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126–136, 2000.
52. McLaren, B.M., DeLeeuw, K.E., & Mayer, R.E. "A politeness effect in learning with web-based intelligent tutors." International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69, 70–79, 2011.
53. Magner, U. I., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. "Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments." Learning and Instruction, 29, 141-152, 2014.
54. Muller, D. A.; Lee, K. J.; Sharma, M. D. (2008). "Coherence or interest: Which is most important in online multimedia learning?". Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 24 (2): 211–221. doi:10.14742/ajet.1223. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/muller.pdf. Retrieved October 19, 2008. 
55. Tabbers, Martens, Merriënboer. "The modality effect in multimedia instructions". Open University of the Netherlands. http://ou.nl/Docs/Expertise/OTEC/Publicaties/huib%20tabbers/Cognitive%20Science%202001%20Huib%20Tabbers.pdf. 
56. Reinwein (2012). "Does the Modality Effect Exist? and if So, Which Modality Effect?". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 41 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9180-4. PMID 21989625.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10936-011-9180-4
57. Meredith, S. and B. Newton (2003). "Models of eLearning: Technology Promise vs Learner Needs Literature Review." The International Journal of Management Education 3(3).
58. Wiki.Laptop.org http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Constructivism
59. "Informal description of Laurillard's Model". http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~rjr/dolweb/docs/laurillardmoddoc.htm. 
60. E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online – Gilly Salmon, Kogan Page, 2000, ISBN:0-7494-4085-6
61. Bloom, B. S., and D. R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 1
62. Bååth, J. A. (1982) "Distance Students' Learning – Empirical Findings and Theoretical Deliberations"
63. Areskog, N-H. (1995) The Tutorial Process – the Roles of Student Teacher and Tutor in a Long Term Perspective
64. Black, J. & McClintock, R. (1995) "An Interpretation Construction Approach to Constructivist Design."
65. Smith B, Reed P & Jones C (2008) ‘Mode Neutral’ pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning."
66. Allen, I. E., J. Seaman, et al. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States. Needham, M.A., The Sloan Consortium.
67. Salmon, G. (2005). E-moderating, the key to teaching and learning online. Routledge Falmer.
68. Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). "Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice". https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07519-000. 
69. Peter E. Williams and Chan M. Hllman(Feb.,2004). Differences in self-regulation for online learning between first-and second-generation college students.Research in Higher Education, Vol. 45, No.1, pp. 71-82.https://www.jstor.org/stable/40197287
70. Aparicio, M.; Bacao, F.; Oliveira, T. (2016). "An e-Learning Theoretical Framework". Educational Technology & Society 19 (1): 292–307. http://www.ifets.info/journals/19_1/24.pdf. 
71. Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1), 010113.
72. Barrett, T. J., Stull, A. T., Hsu, T. M., & Hegarty, M. (2015). Constrained interactivity for relating multiple representations in science: When virtual is better than real. Computers & Education, 81, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.009
73. Rau, M. A., & Schmidt, T. A. (2019). Disentangling Conceptual and Embodied Mechanisms for Learning with Virtual and Physical Representations. In S. Isotani, E. Millán, A. Ogan, P. Hastings, B. McLaren, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Education (Vol. 11625, pp. 419–431). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_35
74. null
75. Dawley, L., & Dede, C. (2014). Situated Learning in Virtual Worlds and Immersive Simulations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 723–734). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_58
76. Yuan, Y., Lee, C.-Y., & Wang, C.-H. (2010). A comparison study of polyominoes explorations in a physical and virtual manipulative environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00352.x
77. Durmu, S., & Karakirik, E. (2006). VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVES IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 7.
78. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
79. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463
80. Laurillard, D. (2006). Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Abingdon, Oxon., RoutledgeFalmer.
81. Galanouli, D., C. Murphy, et al. (2004). "Teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT-competence training." Computers and Education 43(1-2): 63-79.
82. Tam CW, Eastwood A. Available, intuitive and free! Building e-learning modules using web 2.0 services.Med Teach. 2012;34(12):1078-80. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.731105 https://doi.org/10.3109%2F0142159X.2012.731105
83. Ho, S. (2002). "Evaluating students' participation in on-line discussions". http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw02/papers/refereed/ho/paper.html.