Cited by 119Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills

Open access
Kester, Liesbeth, Kirschner, Paul A, van Merriënboer, Jeroen J.G, Baumer, Anita·2001·Computers in Human Behavior

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0747-5632(01)00011-5

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Simultaneously performing learning tasks and studying high-complexity supportive information would almost certainly cause cognitive overload.

    “Simultaneously performing the tasks and studying the information would almost certainly cause cognitive overload (Kester et al., 2001;Marcus, Cooper, & Sweller, 1996).”

    From Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning (2003) · cites this paper as Kester et al., 2001

    Section 2 recommends presenting supportive information before task clusters, and section 2.1 explains that working-memory capacity is limited. These passages support separating study of supportive information from task performance, but they do not say that doing both simultaneously would almost certainly cause cognitive overload. The Discussion (section 6) calls the preferred timing an assumption needing further support. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Procedural information is best presented precisely when it is needed during task performance.

    “The second is called procedural information and is best presented precisely when it is needed during task performance; it pertains to the how-to instructions for the application of rules (Kester, Kirschner, van Merriënboer, & Baumer, 2001).”

    From Taking the Load Off a Learner's Mind: Instructional Design for Complex Learning (2003) · cites this paper as Kester, Kirschner, van Merriënboer, & Baumer, 2001

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Cheng, T. C. E. & Podolsky, S. (1993). In P. Jarvis (Ed.), Just-in-time manufacturing. An introduction. London: Chapman & Hall.
  2. De Croock, M. B. M. (1999). The transfer paradox. Training design in troubleshooting skills. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, the Netherlands.
  3. Evans, J. L., Homme, L. E., & Glaser, R. (1962). The ruleg system for the construction of programmed verbal learning sequences. The Journal of Educational Research, 55(9), 513-518.
  4. Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1979). Instructional message design. Principles from the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
  5. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 371-383.
  6. Mayer, R. E. (1983). Inductive reasoning: thinking as hypothesis testing. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Thinking, problem solving, cognition (2nd ed.; pp. 81-113). New York: Freeman & Company.
  7. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual- coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.
  8. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models. A new paradigm of instructional (1st ed.; pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Sweller, J., Van Merrie¨nboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A.
Affiliations
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-07
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
373-391
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081481971
Cited by
119
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
schema construction, proceduralization, elaboration, extraneous cognitive load, split-attention effect, transfer performance, instructional design, teacher professional development

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