Which of the following in NOT a design principle for computer-based training

Try the new Google Books

Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features

Which of the following in NOT a design principle for computer-based training

Try the new Google Books

Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features

Which of the following in NOT a design principle for computer-based training

  • Abercrombie, S. (2013). Transfer effects of adding seductive details to case-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alemdag, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2018). A systematic review of eye-tracking research on multimedia learning. Computer and Educations, 125, 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, G. J., Vaez, H., & Cunningham, K. L. (2004). Visual Representations and Learning: The Role of Static and Animated Graphics. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 865–916). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

  • Azabdaftari, B., & Mozaheb, M. A. (2012). Comparing vocabulary learning of EFL learners by using two different strategies: Mobile learning vs. flashcards. The Eurocall Review, 20(2), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, A., Cheng, I., Prasad, M., & Rao, G. (2007). Multimedia adaptive computer based testing: An overview. Multimedia and Expo, 2007 IEEE International Conference on. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2007.4285034.

  • Başoğlu, E. B., & Akdemir, Ö. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flashcards. TOJET: the Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddow, P. A. (2018). Cognitive load theory for test design. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices. Issues, innovations and applications (2nd ed., pp. 199–212). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beddow, P. A., Elliott, S. N, & Kettler, R. J. (2009). Accessibility rating matrix. Retrieved on July 2018 from https://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/docs/pdf/PRO/TAMI_Accessibility_Rating_Matrix.pdf

  • Bully, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219–239. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024003219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 174–205). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning with dual-task methodology: Auditory load and modality effects. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021812.96911.c5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H.-H., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of the physical environment on cognitive load and learning: Towards a new model of cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9262-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chua, Y. P., & Don, Z. M. (2013). Effects of computer-based educational achievement test on test performance and test takers’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1889–1895. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2013.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Helle, L. (2017). Prospects and pitfalls in combining eye-tracking data and verbal reports. Frontline Learning Research, 5(3), 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmqvist, K., Nystro¨m, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., van de Jarodzka, H., & Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Jarodzka, H., Janssen, N., Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2015). Avoiding split attention in computer-based testing: Is neglecting additional information facilitative? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 803–817. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.1217433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory: How many types of load does it really need? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2017). Students’ views on the helpfulness of multimedia components of digital flashcards in mobile-assisted vocabulary learning. In K. Borthwick, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL in a climate of change: Adapting to turbulent global conditions - short papers from EUROCALL 2017 (pp. 170–176). Research-publishing.net.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Park, B., Malone, S., & Jarodzka, H. (2016). Toward a cognitive theory of multimedia assessment (CTMMA). In M. J. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–23). Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2017). Differentiating different types of cognitive load: A comparison of different measures. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 503–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9404-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korbach, A., & Brünken Park, B. (2017). Measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning: A comparison of different objective measures. Instructional Science, 45(4), 515–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9413-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. Y., Holmqvist, K., Miyoshi, K., & Ashida, H. (2017). Effects of detailed illustrations on science learning: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 45, 557–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9417-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. C., & Yu, Y. C. (2017). Effects of presentation modes on mobile-assisted vocabulary learning and cognitive load. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1155160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, M. A., Ihme, J. M., Saß, S., & Köller, O. (2016). How representational pictures enhance students’ performance and test-taking pleasure in low-stakes assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, M. A., Eitel, A., Strobel, B., & Köller, O. (2017). Identifying processes underlying the multimedia effect in testing: An eye-movement analysis. Learning and Instruction, 47, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2016.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology) (pp. 279–315). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2019). Taking a new look at seductive details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 139–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ögren, M., Nyström, M., & Jarodzka, H. (2016). There’s more to the multimedia effect than meets the eye: Is seeing pictures believing? Instructional Science, 44(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9397-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.124.3.372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, K. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461

  • Rijksoverheid (2018). Referentieniveaus taal en rekenen [website]. Retrieved on 6th Juli 2018 from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/taal-en-rekenen/referentiekader-taal-en-rekenen

  • Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 55. The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory (Vol. 1). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102219372820535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, G., Jebbett, L., & Roberts, K. (2004). Inspecting pictures for information to verify a sentence: Eye movements in general encoding and in focused search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 57, 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: Different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers and Human Behavior, 25, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., Paas, F., van Merriënboer, J., & Witte, P. (2005). Uncovering the problem-solving process: Cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gog, T., & Jarodzka, H. (2013). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance cognitive and metacognitive processes in computer-based learning environments. In R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies. Springer international handbooks of education (pp. 143–156). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallen, E., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2005). The function of annotations in the comprehension of scientific texts: Cognitive load effects and the impact of verbal ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., & Adesope, O. O. (2014). Effects of seductive details on multimedia learning. Journal of Studies in Education, 4, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i3.6024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, B., & Chen, F. (2007). Towards automatic cognitive load measurement from speech analysis. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human-computer interaction. Interaction design and usability. HCI 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, 4550. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73105-4_111

    Chapter  Google Scholar 


Page 2

From: Designing computer-based tests: design guidelines from multimedia learning studied with eye tracking

   Original items Adapted items p-value
  N M (SD) M (SD)
Performance     
 Item difficulty 33 .58 (.32) .74 (.24) .03*
Visual search     
 Relative fixation duration item stem 29 13% (.05) 19.81% (.08)  < .001*
 Relative fixation duration item stimulus 29 53.25% (.11) 47.24% (.12)  < .001*
 Revisits item 29 10.87 (4.70) 17.34 (7.30)  < .001*
 Revisits context 29 28.07 (11.99) 22.21 (9.31)  < .001*
Cognitive load     
 Mean fixation duration (ms) 29 353.62 (79.18) 358.26 (91.51) n.s.
 Mean duration of silent pauses (sec) 29 33.23 (15.77) 25.99 (10.60)  < .001*