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.
2 references
-
- Vol 7 RE: Chapter 9, App A, App B, App D
multimedia learningdual-channel processingextraneous processingessential processinggenerative processinginstructional design principleslearning transferdigital learning environmentsBook Evidence summaryAt a glance
The third edition updates Mayer’s programme of evidence-based multimedia instruction and expands it to fifteen design principles. It begins with three linked sciences: learning, which explains how cognition works; instruction, which tests what presentation methods support learning; and assessment, which determines what learners retain and can transfer.
Key ideas
The cognitive theory retains its dual-channel, limited-capacity, and active-processing assumptions. Principles are organised around reducing extraneous processing, managing essential processing, and fostering generative processing. Alongside established guidance on coherence, signalling, contiguity, segmenting, pretraining, modality, and personalisation, the edition considers embodiment, immersion, generative activities, and newer digital environments. Evidence is drawn mainly from controlled comparisons using retention and problem-solving transfer measures.
Why it matters
Mayer also treats boundary conditions, reminding readers that techniques interact with prior knowledge, pacing, content, and learning goals. The book’s practical stance is that multimedia should guide cognitive work, not maximise sensory richness: every added element needs an instructional function.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 5, 9
argumentation-based learningcomputer-supported collaborationargumentative discourseknowledge constructioncollaboration scriptsinstructional scaffoldingtransactive discussiondigital learning environmentsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Noroozi and colleagues synthesize fifteen years of research on argumentation-based computer-supported collaborative learning.
Key ideas
Their review organizes conceptual and empirical work on how digital environments can support learners in constructing, exchanging, challenging, and integrating arguments while solving problems together. The authors examine learning processes, instructional design features, and outcomes, including knowledge construction, subject learning, problem solving, and quality of argumentative discourse. They distinguish supports such as representational tools, collaboration scripts, prompts, and scaffolds, and consider how these shape participation and transactive discussion. The synthesis finds substantial promise but also variation in theory, measures, tasks, and implementation, making direct comparisons difficult.
Why it matters
It concludes with design and research priorities for connecting technological affordances to specific argumentative processes and for testing whether gains transfer beyond a supported activity.
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