Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
3 references
-
- Vol 2 RE: Chapters 1, 4, 5, 7
expertise reversal effectcognitive load theoryworked examplesredundancy effectadaptive instructionprior knowledgeJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Kalyuga reviews the expertise reversal effect: instructional methods that help novices can become ineffective or harmful as learners acquire domain knowledge. Cognitive load theory explains this change through the interaction between working-memory limits and schemas stored in long-term memory.
Key ideas
Novices lack schemas and therefore benefit from explicit explanations, worked examples, integrated information, and other external guidance. For knowledgeable learners, the same support may duplicate what their schemas already provide. Processing and reconciling redundant guidance then consumes resources without adding useful knowledge, so less guided problem solving can be superior. The review connects this evidence to aptitude–treatment interactions and surveys approaches for adapting instruction to current expertise, including fading worked steps, selecting formats according to prior knowledge, and rapid diagnostic assessment during learning. It emphasizes that expertise is domain- and task-specific rather than a fixed learner trait.
Why it matters
Effective adaptive instruction must therefore monitor changing knowledge and adjust support over time. The central design lesson is that no instructional format is universally best: guidance should be sufficient for the learner’s present needs and withdrawn as internal guidance develops.
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 4, App A
cognitive load theoryworking memory distributiontask complexitytransaction costsshared representationsindividual accountabilitytransferable schemasJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Kirschner, Paas, and Kirschner use cognitive load theory to explain when collaborative learning may be more efficient than individual learning. Working memory is limited, and complex tasks can exceed one learner’s processing capacity.
Key ideas
A group can distribute interacting information across several working memories, combine complementary knowledge, and build a shared representation. Collaboration also creates transaction costs: communicating, coordinating, resolving different interpretations, and maintaining shared awareness consume resources. For simple tasks these costs may outweigh the benefit, making individual work more efficient. As intrinsic task complexity rises, distribution can become advantageous, especially when members possess relevant knowledge and coordinate effectively. The authors review an inconsistent literature and propose task complexity as a key moderator rather than treating group learning as uniformly superior. They distinguish performance, learning, mental effort, and efficiency, since a group may solve a task without every member acquiring transferable schemas.
Why it matters
Instructional design should therefore select complex tasks, ensure individual accountability and participation, support coordination, and assess individual transfer. The article offers a theoretical framework and research agenda rather than a universal rule to put learners into groups.
-
- Vol 4 RE: Chapter 12
multimedia learningself-regulated learningcognitive loadgenerative activitiesmultimedia principlepersonalized explanationsstrategic monitoringcomputer-based instructionJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Kuhlmann, Bernacki, and Greene connect cognitive theory of multimedia learning with the demands of self-regulated learning in computer-based higher education. Students must define tasks, plan, select strategies, monitor progress, and reflect, all of which consume limited mental resources.
Key ideas
The authors argue that well-designed multimedia can reduce unnecessary processing and leave more capacity for these regulatory activities. They illustrate how the multimedia principle can coordinate words and relevant graphics, personalization can make explanations more conversational, and generative activities can prompt learners to select, organize, and integrate content. These principles are presented as design supports, not replacements for students’ agency or explicit self-regulation instruction. The chapter is conceptual and practice-oriented rather than a comparative intervention study, so it does not establish that every multimedia feature improves regulation.
Why it matters
Its practical contribution is a useful design test: remove avoidable cognitive burden, align representations with the learning goal, and include activities that require meaningful processing so students can devote attention to both understanding content and managing their learning.
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway