You are here:

The Instructional Functionality of Multiple Adjunct Aids
ARTICLE

,

E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology Volume 9, Number 2, ISSN 1324-0781

Full Text

Abstract

Adjunct aids are instructional interventions inserted in textbooks in view of supporting learners to process the information. Different types of adjunct aids are assumed to support different cognitive processes. Research on adjunct aids has focussed on the learning effects of single types of adjunct aids. In this study, the learning effects of combinations of adjunct aids are studied. After completing a pre-test, 255 students studied a text presented on 21 separate computer screens in one of eight conditions. Their use of the adjunct aids was logged. After studying the text, a post-test was administered. Results show no impact of conditions on either knowledge or transfer items. However, when the use of the adjunct aids is considered, it is shown that this result can be explained by referring to the use of the aids at least for knowledge items. (Contains 5 tables and 4 figures.)

Citation

Elen, J. & Louw, L.P. (2006). The Instructional Functionality of Multiple Adjunct Aids. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2),. Retrieved August 11, 2024 from .

This record was imported from ERIC on April 19, 2013. [Original Record]

ERIC is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

Copyright for this record is held by the content creator. For more details see ERIC's copyright policy.

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. André, T. (1979). Does answering higher level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280-318
  2. André, T. (1987). Questions and learning from reading. Questioning Exchange, 1 (1), 47-86.
  3. 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 o Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Second Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  4. Ausubel, D. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the lLearning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
  5. Clark, R.E. (1988). When teaching kills learning: Research on mathemathantics. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, H.F. Friedrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context. (Vol. 2.2, pp. 1-22). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
  6. Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 71, 64-73.
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  8. Elen, J. (1995). Blocks on the Road to Instructional Design Prescriptions: A methodology for I.D.-research exemplified. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  9. Elen, J., & Lowyck, J. (2000). Instructional metacognitive knowledge: A qualitative study of conceptions of freshmen about instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 421-444.
  10. 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.
  11. Grabowski, B.L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Second Edition (pp. 719-743). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Klausmeier, H.J. (1980). Learning and Teaching Concepts. New York: Academic Press.
  13. Levie, W.H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: A review of research. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 30(4), 195-232.
  14. Martens, R., Valcke, M., Poelmans, P., & Daal, M. (1996). Functions, use and effects of embedded support devices in printed distance learning materials. Learning and Instruction, 6, 77-93.
  15. Mayer, R.E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Education Research, 49 (2), 371-383.
  16. Mayer, R.E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357-371.
  17. Mayer, R.E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional-design theories and models. Volume II. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Rothkopf, E.Z. (1970) "The concept of mathemagenic activities" Review of Educational Research, 40, 325-336.
  20. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and instruction, 3, 227-238.
  21. Rothkopf, E.Z. (1996) Control of mathemagenic activities. In D.H.Jonassen, (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: McMillan.
  22. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156.
  23. Twohig, P.I. (1982). The effects of examples on the comprehension of textbooks. Virginia: University of Virginia, Department of Psychology. (Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association, 1982, Minneapolis).
  24. Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse C²omprehension. New York: Academic Press.
  25. Wade, S. (1992). How Interest Affects Learning From Text. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, and A. Krapp (Eds.), The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (pp. 255-278. Hillsdale,

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links