Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 153–180 | Cite as

Picture or Text First? Explaining Sequence Effects when Learning with Pictures and Text

Review Article


The present article reviews 42 studies investigating the role of sequencing of text and pictures for learning outcomes. Whereas several of the reviewed studies revealed better learning outcomes from presenting the picture before the text rather than after it, other studies demonstrated the opposite effect. Against the backdrop of theories on memory representations, these results are explained by a recency effect: that is, recall of information should be superior for the medium (text or picture) presented second, and thus, in closer temporal proximity to the assessment. As a consequence, the type of knowledge assessed (text-based vs. picture-based) and its congruence with the more recent medium should determine whether better learning results are found when presenting the picture or text first. Against the backdrop of theories on mental model construction, results were explained by a facilitation effect for the medium (text or picture) presented second. As a consequence, the relative complexity of information conveyed by the picture and by the text should determine which medium is better to be processed first, with less complex information being processed first leading to better comprehension. To conclude, the review suggests that it is not so much the sequence of text and pictures per se that affects learning outcomes than these boundary conditions (i.e., type of assessed knowledge, relative complexity of text, and picture). Accordingly, the present review seeks to stimulate further research along the boundary conditions to better understand the processes involved when learning with text and pictures.


Learning with text and pictures Sequential presentation Multimedia Multiple external representations Graphic organizers 


This research was funded by the Pact for Research and Innovation of the Competition Fund of the Leibniz Gemeinschaft.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.Google Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S. E., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00033-8.Google Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, S., Wood, D., & O’Malley, C. (1998). There is more than one way to solve a problem: evaluating a learning environment that supports the development of children’s multiplication skills. Learning and Instruction, 8, 141–157. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00013-3.Google Scholar
  4. *Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. The Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44–48.Google Scholar
  5. Anglin, G. J., Vaez, H., & Cunningham, K. L. (2004). Visual representations and learning: the role of static and animated graphics. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 865–916). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Antes, J. R., & Kristjanson, A. F. (1991). Discriminating artists from nonartists by their eye-fixation patterns. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 893–894. doi: 10.2466/pms.1991.73.3.893.Google Scholar
  7. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1993). The recency effect: implicit learning with explicit retrieval? Memory & Cognition, 21, 146–155. doi: 10.3758/BF03202726.Google Scholar
  8. *Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material in forming dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 408. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.408 Google Scholar
  9. Bétrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. *Borges, M. A., & Robins, S. L. (1980). Contextual and motivational cue effects on the comprehension and recall of prose. Psychological Reports, 47, 263–268. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1980.47.1.263 Google Scholar
  11. *Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9 Google Scholar
  12. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 182–197. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182.Google Scholar
  13. *Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction, 20, 155–166. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014 Google Scholar
  14. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26. doi: 10.1023/A:1013176309260.Google Scholar
  15. Charness, N., Reingold, E. M., Pomplun, M., & Stampe, D. M. (2001). The perceptual aspect of skilled performance in chess: evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 29, 1146–1152. doi: 10.3758/BF03206384.Google Scholar
  16. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: the dual process of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Chin, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). Why do words hurt? Content, process, and criterion shift accounts of verbal overshadowing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 396–413. doi: 10.1080/09541440701728623.Google Scholar
  18. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, S. E. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X.Google Scholar
  19. De Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140.Google Scholar
  20. *Dean, R. S., & Enemoh, P. A. C. (1983). Pictorial organization in prose learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 20–27. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(83)90031-0 Google Scholar
  21. *Dean, R. S., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1981). Influence of spatial organization in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 57–64. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.73.1.57 Google Scholar
  22. Dodson, C. S., Johnson, M. K., & Schooler, J. W. (1997). The verbal overshadowing effect: why descriptions impair face recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25, 129–139. doi: 10.3758/BF03201107.Google Scholar
  23. *Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., & Schüler, A. (2013a). How inspecting a picture affects processing of text in multimedia learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 451–461. doi: 10.1002/acp.2922 Google Scholar
  24. *Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013b). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002 Google Scholar
  25. Fletcher, J. D., & Tobias, S. (2005). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 117–133). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Folker, S., Ritter, H., & Sichelschmidt, L. (2005). Processing and integrating multimodal material: the influence of color-coding. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 690–695). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.16.3.430.Google Scholar
  28. Ginns, P. (2006). Integrating information: a meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–525. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001.Google Scholar
  29. Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129–151. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90008-L.Google Scholar
  30. Gyselinck, V., & Tardieu, H. (1999). The role of illustrations in text comprehension: what, when, for whom, and why? In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 195–218). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Gyselinck, V., Jamet, E., & Dubois, V. (2008). The role of working memory components in multimedia comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 353–374. doi: 10.1002/acp.1411.Google Scholar
  32. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1996). The role of information reduction in skill acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 304–337. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1996.0009.Google Scholar
  33. Hegarty, M. (2011). The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: implications for design. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 446–474. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01150.x.Google Scholar
  34. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 717–742. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1993.1036.Google Scholar
  35. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animations and external animations in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 325–360. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1.Google Scholar
  36. Henderson, J. M. (2003). Human gaze control during real-world scene perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 498–504. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.09.006.Google Scholar
  37. *Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2008). Verbalizing events: overshadowing or facilitation?. Memory and Cognition, 36, 392–402. doi:10.3758/MC.36.2.392Google Scholar
  38. *Huff, M., & Schwan, S. (2012). The verbal facilitation effect in learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction, 22, 376–385. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.03.001 Google Scholar
  39. Hyönä, J. (2010). The use of eye movements in the study of multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 172–176. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.013.Google Scholar
  40. Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Van Gog, T. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: how experts and novices interpret dynamic stimuli. Learning and Instruction, 20, 146–154. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.019.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, 71–115. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(81)80005-5.Google Scholar
  42. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329–354. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.87.4.329.Google Scholar
  43. *Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (2010). What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization. Instructional Science, 38, 679–705. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9095-8 Google Scholar
  44. *Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F., & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373–401. doi: 10.1023/A:1003270723360 Google Scholar
  45. Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., & Kealy, W. A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 47–62. doi: 10.1007/BF02297511.Google Scholar
  46. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5.Google Scholar
  47. Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: diagnosing x-ray pictures. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311–342). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Levie, W. H., & Lentz, R. (1982). Effects of text illustrations: a review of research. Educational Communication and Technology, 30, 195–232.Google Scholar
  49. Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration (Basic research, Vol. 1, pp. 51–85). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Lowe, R. K. (1993). Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram. Learning and Instruction, 3, 157–179. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(93)90002-H.Google Scholar
  51. Lowe, R. K. (1994). Selectivity in diagrams: reading beyond the lines. Educational Psychology, 14, 467–491. doi: 10.1080/0144341940140408.Google Scholar
  52. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11, 377–397. doi: 10.1007/BF03173279.Google Scholar
  53. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 257–274. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003.Google Scholar
  54. Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 377–389. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.377.Google Scholar
  55. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.484.Google Scholar
  57. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.444.Google Scholar
  58. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.389.Google Scholar
  59. Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.638.Google Scholar
  60. *McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). The use of adjunct displays to facilitate comprehension of causal relationships in expository text. Instructional Science, 37, 65–86. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9036-3 Google Scholar
  61. *McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2011). The effect of diagrams on online reading processes and memory. Discourse Processes, 48, 69–92. doi: 10.1080/01638531003694561 Google Scholar
  62. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1.Google Scholar
  63. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). A meta‐analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 603–616. doi: 10.1002/acp.728.Google Scholar
  64. Meissner, C. A., Sporer, S. L., & Susa, K. J. (2008). A theoretical review and meta-analysis of the description-identification relationship in memory for faces. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 414–455. doi: 10.1080/09541440701728581.Google Scholar
  65. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97. doi: 10.1037/h0043158.Google Scholar
  66. Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482–488. doi: 10.1037/h0045106.Google Scholar
  67. *O’Keefe, E. J., & Solman, R. T. (1987). The influence of illustrations on children's comprehension of written stories. Journal of Literacy Research, 19, 353–377. doi: 10.1080/10862968709547611 Google Scholar
  68. Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.001.Google Scholar
  69. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. *Peverly, S. (1981). The effects of diagrams-before text vs. diagrams-after text in the processing of novel text information. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED212995)Google Scholar
  71. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372.Google Scholar
  72. Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. doi: 10.1080/17470210902816461.Google Scholar
  73. Reigeluth, C. M., Merrill, M. D., Wilson, B. G., & Spiller, R. T. (1980). The elaboration theory of instruction: a model for sequencing and synthesizing instruction. Instructional Science, 9, 195–219. doi: 10.1007/BF00177327.Google Scholar
  74. Robinson, D. H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105. doi: 10.1080/19388079809558257.Google Scholar
  75. *Robinson, D. H., & Kiewra, K. A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455 Google Scholar
  76. *Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399–415. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1994.1029 Google Scholar
  77. *Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Dubois, N. F., & Devaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept application. The Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17–31. doi: 10.1080/00220979809598342 Google Scholar
  78. *Robinson, D. H., Corliss, S. B., Bush, A. M., Bera, S. J., & Tomberlin, T. (2003). Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: a case for large bites?. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 25–41. doi: 10.1007/BF02504542 Google Scholar
  79. Rummer, R., Schweppe, J., Fürstenberg, A., Scheiter, K., & Zindler, A. (2011). The perceptual basis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 159–173. doi: 10.1037/a0023588.Google Scholar
  80. *Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2009). Do graphical overviews facilitate or hinder comprehension in hypertext?. Computers and Education, 53, 1308–1319. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.013 Google Scholar
  81. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647.Google Scholar
  82. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185–213. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048.Google Scholar
  83. Scheiter, K., & Eitel, A. (2010). The effects of signals on learning from text and diagrams: how looking at diagrams earlier and more frequently improves understanding. In A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, & N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference–6th International Conference, Diagrams 2010 (LNAI 6170 (pp. 264–270). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  84. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010a). A closer look at split visual attention in system- and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 100–110. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011.Google Scholar
  85. Schmidt-Weigand, F., Kohnert, A., & Glowalla, U. (2010b). Explaining the modality and contiguity effects: new insights from investigating students’ viewing behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 226–237. doi: 10.1002/acp.1554.Google Scholar
  86. Schnotz, W. (2002). Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 101–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1013136727916.Google Scholar
  87. Schnotz, W. (2005). An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 49–69). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 141–156. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.Google Scholar
  89. Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175–190. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9029-2.Google Scholar
  90. Schooler, J. W. (2002). Verbalization produces a transfer inappropriate processing shift. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 989–997. doi: 10.1002/acp.930.Google Scholar
  91. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1227–1243. doi: 10.1037/a0013247.Google Scholar
  92. Shah, P., Freedman, E. G., & Vekiri, I. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426–476). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. *Shaw, S., Nihalani, P., Mayrath, M., & Robinson, D. H. (2012). Graphic organizers or graphic overviews? Presentation order effects with computer-based text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 807–820. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9257-2 Google Scholar
  94. *Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1988). Effects of teacher-constructed pre-and post-graphic organizer instruction on sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall. The Journal of Educational Research, 82, 15–21Google Scholar
  95. *Snouffer, N. K., & Thistlethwaite, L. L. (1980). The effects of the structured overview and vocabulary pre-teaching upon comprehension levels of college freshmen reading physical science and history materials. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, 15, 11–16Google Scholar
  96. *Stalbovs, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2013, August). Which cognitive processes predict successful learning with multimedia? Paper presented at the Fifteenth Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  97. Stenning, K., & Oberlander, J. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140. doi: 10.1016/0364-0213(95)90005-5.Google Scholar
  98. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. doi: 10.1023/A:1022193728205.Google Scholar
  99. *Ullrich, M. (2011). Einflüsse der Verarbeitungsreihenfolge auf den Wissenserwerb mit Texten und Bildern [Influences of processing order on knowledge acquisition from text and images] (Doctoral dissertation, University of Koblenz-Landau). Retrieved from
  100. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  101. Van Gog, T., & Scheiter, K. (2010). Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 95–99. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.009.Google Scholar
  102. Van Gog, T., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Paas, F. (2009a). Attention guidance during example study via the model’s eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 785–791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.007.Google Scholar
  103. Van Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009b). Uncovering cognitive processes: different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.021.Google Scholar
  104. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312. doi: 10.1023/A:1016064429161.Google Scholar
  105. Verdi, M. P., & Kulhavy, R. W. (2002). Learning with maps and texts: an overview. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 27–46. doi: 10.1023/A:1013128426099.Google Scholar
  106. *Verdi, M. P., Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Rittschof, K. A., & Johnson, J. T. (1996). Text learning using scientific diagrams: Implications for classroom use. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 487–499. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0033Google Scholar
  107. *Verdi, M. P., Johnson, J. T., Stock, W. A., Kulhavy, R. W., & Whitman-Ahern, P. (1997). Organized spatial displays and texts: Effects of presentation order and display type on learning outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 303–317Google Scholar
  108. Weidenmann, B., Paechter, M., & Hartmannsgruber, K. (1999). Structuring and sequencing of complex text-picture combinations. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14, 185–202. doi: 10.1007/BF03172965.Google Scholar
  109. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Knowledge Media Research CenterTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations