CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 780Visual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsOnline and Blended Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THE SPLIT‐ATTENTION EFFECT AS A FACTOR IN THE DESIGN OF INSTRUCTION

CHANDLER, PAUL, SWELLER, JOHN·1992·British Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

S ummary . Cognitive load theory suggests that many conventional instructional formats are ineffective as they involve extraneous cognitive activities, which interfere with learning. The split‐attention effect provides one example of the consequences of inappropriate cognitive activities caused by poor instructional design. Learners are often forced to split their attention between and mentally integrate disparate sources of information (e.g., text and diagrams) before the instructional material can be rendered intelligible. This preliminary process of mental integration, while an essential precursor to learning, is likely to impose a heavy extraneous cognitive load. Physical integration (e.g., combining text and diagrams) may reduce cognitive load and so facilitate learning. This study reports findings from two experiments investigating the split‐attention effect. Using an engineering programming language (Numerical Control programming), the first experiment investigated the possible advantage of physically integrating text and diagrams. In a normal training environment, the integrated instructions group outperformed the conventional group. Experiment 2 was designed to see if the split‐attention effect would generalise to an area where mutually referring segments of text are conventionally separated, namely, empirical reports in psychology and education. In a laboratory study, Experiment 2 showed that students in an integrated group spent less time processing instructions ye…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–780 of 780

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
CHANDLER, P., & SWELLER, J.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
SWELLER, JOHN
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1992-06
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
233-246
ISSN
  • 0007-0998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8279
DOI
10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x
OpenAlex
W2141019025
Cited by
767
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 44
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 6920 d)
Locations
British Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
split-attention effect, cognitive load theory, instructional design, extraneous cognitive load, physical integration, mental integration, NC programming, reading comprehension, learning from text

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