The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Mayer, R. E. (2014) · The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005 · Cited by 1,976
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312 · Cited by 1,315
Meta-analysis of the modality effect
Ginns, P. (2005) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.001 · Cited by 547
Reading speed and prose memory in older and younger adults.
Hartley, J. T., Stojack, C. C., Mushaney, T. J., Annon, T. A. K., & Lee, D. W. (1994) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.9.2.216 · Cited by 73
Beyond Knowledge: The Legacy of Competence
(2008) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8827-8 · Cited by 43
Cited by
Using multimedia for e‐learning
Mayer, R. E. (2017) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12197 · Cited by 747
Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1787 · Cited by 344
Signaling text-picture relations in multimedia learning: A comprehensive meta-analysis
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2016) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.003 · Cited by 242
Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014) · The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139547369.016 · Cited by 212
Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load: a Comparison of Different Measures
Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2018) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9404-8 · Cited by 153
Measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning: a comparison of different objective measures
Korbach, A., Brünken, R., & Park, B. (2017) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-017-9413-5 · Cited by 98
Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors
Kalyuga, S. (2012) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.12.002 · Cited by 93
How Inspecting a Picture Affects Processing of Text in Multimedia Learning
Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.2922 · Cited by 85
The Split-Attention Principle in Multimedia Learning
Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2021) · The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning · doi:10.1017/9781108894333.020 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U.
- Venue
- Learning and Instruction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100-110
- ISSN
- 0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017421506
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 15.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
