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

Try the new Google Books

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

• Abercrombie, S. (2013). Transfer effects of adding seductive details to case-based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 149–157. //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. //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. //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. //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 //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461

• Rijksoverheid (2018). Referentieniveaus taal en rekenen [website]. Retrieved on 6th Juli 2018 from //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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. //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