Cited by 762Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?

Mayer, Richard E., Chandler, Paul·2001·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

In 2 experiments, students received 2 presentations of a narrated animation that explained how lightning forms followed by retention and transfer tests. In Experiment 1, learners who were allowed to exercise control over the pace of the narrated animation before a second presentation of the same material at normal speed (part-whole presentation) performed better on transfer but not retention tests compared with learners who received the same 2 presentations in the reverse order (whole-part presentation). In Experiment 2, learners who were allowed to exercise control over the pace of the narrated animation across 2 presentations (part-part presentation) performed better on transfer but not retention tests compared with learners who received the same 2 presentations at normal speed without any learner control (whole-whole presentation). These results are consistent with cognitive load theory and a 2-stage theory of mental model construction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.390

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The self-pacing effect: giving learners control over the pace of an instructional animation is beneficial, probably because it helps them deal with the transient nature of this information.

    “The self-pacing effect was reported by Mayer and Chandler (2001), who found that it was beneficial to give learners control over the pace of an instructional animation, probably because it helps them deal with the transient nature of this information.”

    From Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later (2019) · cites this paper as Mayer and Chandler (2001)

  • Experiment 2 employed a learning material on lightning formation widely used in prior studies.

    “Experiment 2 employed a learning material on lightning formation that has been widely used in prior studies in educational psychology (e.g., Mayer and Chandler, 2001; Mayer et al., 2003; Bender et al., 2021).”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Mayer and Chandler, 2001

  • Experiment 2 used a prior meteorological knowledge questionnaire designed by Mayer and Chandler (2001) to exclude participants scoring higher than six.

    “Prior to viewing the video, participants completed a questionnaire assessing prior meteorological knowledge, consisting of eight items rated on an 11-point scale. This questionnaire was designed and used (among others) by Mayer and Chandler (2001) to retrospectively exclude participants scoring higher than six.”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Mayer and Chandler, 2001

  • The instructional materials used were derived from well-established materials.

    “Moreover, the instructional materials used were derived from well-established materials (e.g., Mayer and Chandler, 2001; Pan et al., 2023), and the outcome measures targeted both factual recall and application, which are domains where testing effects typically emerge (Yang et al., 2021).”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Mayer and Chandler, 2001

  • Experiment 2 participants who scored above six on the prior meteorological knowledge questionnaire were excluded.

    “Following the original procedure (Mayer and Chandler, 2001), participants who scored above six were excluded from the study.”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Mayer and Chandler, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2001-06
Volume
93
Issue
2
Pages
390-397
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2014654802
Cited by
762
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 45
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (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
multimedia learning, learner control, retention, transfer, cognitive load theory, mental model construction, two-stage model, lightning formation

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