SEARCH TERMS
Type of Search:  
 

Browse for all materials in these categories:

Review Existing Presentations

Graphics Large Format Graphics Multimedia Print Website Design
Log In  Dynamic Digital Advertising
 

Additional Reading

The following resources may help you learn more about the theories used to develop the CORE approach to PowerPoint. Free abstracts and full publications are linked whenever possible.

Click here for a printer friendly version.

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

Atkinson C. Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft PowerPoint to Create Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press; 2005.

Collins J. Giving a PowerPoint presentation: The art of communicating effectively. Radiographics; 2004;24(4):1185-92.

Goodman A. Why Bad Presentations Happen to Good Causes. Denver, CO: Cause Communications; 2006. Available at http://www.agoodmanonline.com/publications/.

Harris RL. Information Graphics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999.

Kalyuga S, Chandler P, Sweller J. Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. J Educ Psychol; 2000;92(1):126-36.

Mautone PD, Mayer RE. Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol; 2001; 93(2):377-89.

Mayer RE. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001.

Mayer RE. Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educ Psychol; 1997; 32(1):1-19.

Mayer RE, Fennell S, Farmer L, Campbell J. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. J Educ Psychol; 2004;96(2):389-95.

Mayer RE, Massa LJ. Three facets of visual and verbal learners: Cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference. J Educ Psychol; 2003;95(4):833-41.

Mayer RE, Moreno R. A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principles. Paper presented at the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (ACM SIGCHI) Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Los Angeles, CA; April 1998.

Moreno R, Mayer RE. A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning; 2000;2(2):E-pub.

Moreno R, Mayer RE. Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. J Educ Psychol ; 1999; 91(2):358-68.

Munter M, Paradi D. Guide to PowerPoint. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2006.

Murphy P. A Cognitive Psychologist’s Approach to Educational Technology. 2006. Accessed December 21, 2006.

Nouri H, Shahid A. The effect of PowerPoint presentations on student learning and attitudes. Global Perspectives on Accounting Education ; 2005;2:53-73.

Paradi D. Presentation Lessons from “An Inconvenient Truth”. 2007. Accessed May 15, 2007.

Paradi D. What Annoys Audiences about PowerPoint Presentations? 2005. Accessed December 21, 2006.

Smith SM, Woody PC. Interactive effect of multimedia instruction and learning styles. Teach Psychol; 2000; 27(3):220-23.

Sorden S. A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science Journal ; 2005;8:263-79.

Stein K. The dos and don’ts of PowerPoint presentations. J Am Diet Assoc; 2006;106(11):1745-8.

Tufte ER. The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2006.

Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2 nd Ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2001.

Tufte ER. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1990.

Wallen ES, Mulloy KB. Multimedia for occupational safety and health training: A pilot study examining a multimedia learning theory. Ind Health; 2006;44(4):661-64.

[back to top]

Dual Coding Theory

Angeli C, Valanides N. Examining the effects of text-only and text-and-visual instructional materials on the achievement of field-dependent and field-independent learners during problem-solving with modeling software. Educational Technology Research & Development; 2004;52(4):23-36.

Clark JM, Paivio A. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review; 1991; 3(3):149-210.

Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol; 2001;93(1):187-98.

Mayer RE, Steinhoff K, Bower G, Mars R. A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research & Development; 1995;43(1):31-41.

Moreno R, Mayer RE. Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. J Educ Psychol ; 2002; 94(1):156-63.

Moreno R, Mayer RE. A coherence effect in multimedia learning: The case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. J Educ Psychol; 2000;92(1):117-25.

Paivio A. Dual coding theory and education. Chapter prepared for the Pathways to Literacy Achievement for High Poverty Children conference; University of Michigan School of Education; September 29-October 1, 2006.

Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.

Slykhuis DA, Wiebe EN, Annetta LA. Eye-tracking students’ attention to PowerPoint photographs in a science education setting. Journal of Science Education & Technology; 2005;14(5-6):509-20.

[back to top]

Cognitive Load Theory

Atkinson C. The Cognitive Load of PowerPoint: Q&A with Richard E. Mayer . 2004. Accessed December 21, 2006.

Chandler P, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction; 1991;8(4):293-332.

Khalil MK, Paas F, Johnson TE, Payer AF. Interactive and dynamic visualizations in teaching and learning of anatomy: A cognitive load perspective. Anat Rec B New Anat; 2005; 286B(1):8-14.

Leahy W, Chandler P, Sweller J. When auditory presentations should and should not be a component of multimedia instruction. Appl Cogn Psychol; 2003; 17(4):401-18.

Mayer RE, Chandler P. When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?J Educ Psychol; 2001; 93(2):390-97.

Morrison GR, Anglin GJ. Research on cognitive load theory: Application to e-learning. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2005; 53(3):94-104.

Schnotz W, Rasch T. Enabling, facilitating, and inhibiting effects of animations in multimedia learning: Why reduction of cognitive load can have negative results on learning. Educational Technology Research & Development; 2005;53(3):47-58.

Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science; 1988;12(2):257-85.

[back to top]

Model of Working Memory

Baddeley A. Working memory. C R Acad Sci III; 1998;321(2-3):167-73.

Brunyé TT, Taylor HA, Rapp DN, Spiro AB. Learning procedures: the role of working memory in multimedia learning experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology; 2006;20(7):917-40.

Chincotta D, Underwood G, Ghani KA, et al. Memory span for Arabic numerals and digit words: Evidence for a limited-capacity, visuo-spatial storage system. Q J Exp Psychol A; 1999;52(2):325-51.

Repovs G, Baddeley A. The multi-component model of working memory: explorations in experimental cognitive psychology. Neuroscience; 2006;139(1):5-21.

[back to top]

Programming and Web site design by Dynamic Digital Advertising

PowerPoint is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation