Evaluation of change blindness in multimedia learning environment with cognitive process

References

• Aginsky, V., & Tarr, M. J. (2000). How are different properties of a scene encoded in visual memory? Visual Cognition, 7, 147–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agostinho, S., Tindall-Ford, S., & Roodenrys, K. (2013). Adaptive diagrams: Handing control over to the learner to manage split-attention online. Computers & Education, 64, 52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akın, B., & Kocoglu, D. (2017). Randomized controlled trials. Hacettepe University Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 73–92.
   Google Scholar
• Altun, A. (2003). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişsel stilleri ile bilgisayara yönelik tutumları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 2(1), 56–62.
   Google Scholar
• Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2005). The split-attention principle in multimedia. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 175–206). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Hove.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, F., Bernasconi, F., & Busch, N. A. (2015). Semantic relations between visual objects can be unconsciously processed but not reported under change blindness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27, 2253–2268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, D. M., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). Neural correlates of change detection and change blindness. Nature Neuroscience, 4(6), 645–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman, K. V. (2015). Individual differences in change blindness (PhD thesis). Heidelberg: The Faculty of Behavioural and Cultural Studies, Heidelberg University.
   Google Scholar
• Brickenkamp, R. (1962). Test d2, Aufmerksamkeits-belastungs test. Goettigen, Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). D2 test of attention. Goettigen, Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, S., & ve Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel arastırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Caglar, E., & Koruc, Z. (2006). D2 dikkat testinin sporcularda güvenirliği ve geçerliği. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 17(2), 58–80.
   Google Scholar
• Cater, K., Chalmers, A., & Ledda, P. (2002). Selective quality rendering by exploiting human inattentional blindness: Looking but not seeing. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium On Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 17–24. doi: 10.1145/585740.585744
   Google Scholar
• Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Droll, J. A., Gigone, K., & Hayhoe, M. M. (2007). Learning where to direct gaze during change detection. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 6–6. pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1167/7.14.6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology. Theory and Practice, 328, 55–65.
   Google Scholar
• Fisek-Okman, G. (1979). Saklı şekiller grup testi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher-Watson, S., Collis, J. M., Findlay, J. M., & Leekam, S. R. (2009). The development of change blindness: Children’s attentional priorities whilst viewing naturalistic scenes. Developmental Science, 12(3), 438–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florax, M., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 216–224. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayhoe, M. M., Bensinger, D. G., & Ballard, D. H. (1998). Task constraints in visual working memory. Vision Research, 38(1), 125–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. M. (1997). Transsaccadic memory and integration during real-world object perception. Psychological Science, 8(1), 51–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 243–271.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henderson, J. M., Williams, C. C., Castelhano, M. S., & Falk, R. J. (2003). Eye movements and picture processing during recognition. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(5), 725–734.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hollingworth, A. (2006). Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(1), 58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2000). Semantic informativeness mediates the detection of changes in natural scenes. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 213–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & Van de Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iyilikci, O., Amado, S., & Dogan, A. (2012, June). Evolutionary threatening stimuli cause attentional bias and orienting priority in change detection process. Turkish Journal of Psychology, 27(69), 62–64.
   Google Scholar
• Jamet, E. (2014). An eye-tracking study of cueing effects in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 47–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, A. H., & Al-Naema, F. F. (1991). Room for scientific thought?. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 187–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review, 7, 145–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın.
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer, P., Giannopoulos, I., Raubal, M., & Duchowski, A. (2017). Eye tracking for spatial research: Cognition, computation, challenges. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 17(1–2), 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(4), 501–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, L., Atkinson, R. K., Savenye, W. C., & Nelson, B. C. (2016). Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: Empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 799–813. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2014.924531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, H. C., Lai, M. L., & Chuang, H. H. (2011). Using eye-tracking technology to investigate the redundant effect of multimedia web pages on viewers’ cognitive processes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2410–2417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, T., Lin, Y., Tsai, M., & Paas, F. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environments. Computers & Education, 58(1), 172–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luna, B., Velanova, K., & Geier, C. F. (2008). Development of eye-movement control. Brain and Cognition, 68(3), 293–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., & Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60(1), 95–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matin, E. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 899–917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377–389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, R., & Park, B. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Historical development and relation to other theories. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 9–28). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu Bayraktar, D. (2017 , October 11–13). Investigation of change blindness in multimedia design: An eye tracking analysis. Fifth international instructional technologies & teacher education symposium, Izmir, Turkey, pp. 123–132.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Bayram, S. (2013). Using eye tracking to investigate the relationship between attention and change blindness. World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(2), 257–266.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Bayram, S. (2013). Using eye tracking to investigate the relationship between attention and change blindness. World Journal on Educational Technology, 5(2), 257–266.
   Google Scholar
• Mutlu Bayraktar, D., & Bayram, S. (2015). Evaluation of situations causing split of attention in multimedia learning environments via eye-tracking method. In S. Hai-Jew (Ed.), Design strategies and innovations in multimedia presentations (pp. 320–344). Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Noë, A., Pessoa, L., & Thompson, E. (2000). Beyond the grand illusion: What change blindness really teaches us about vision. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 93–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Regan J. K., Deubel, H., Clark, J. J., & Rensink, R. A. (2000). Picture changes during blinks: Looking without seeing and seeing without looking. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 191–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozarslan, M., & Bilgin, I. (2016). The effects of the students’ cognitive styles of field dependent/independent. Mustafa Kemal Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 13(33), 94–110.
   Google Scholar
• Ozcelik, E., Arslan-Ari, I., & Cagiltay, K. (2010). Why does signaling enhance multimedia learning? Evidence from eye movements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 110–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plass, J. L., Heidig, S., Hayward, E. O., Homer, B. D., & Um, E. (2014). Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 128–140. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rensink, R. A. (2009). Attention: Change blindness and inattentional blindness. In W. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of consciousness, Vol. 1 (pp. 47–59). New York, NY: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8(5), 368–373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saiki, J., & Holcombe, A. O. (2012). Blindness to a simultaneous change of all elements in a scene, unless there is a change in summary statistics. Journal of Vision, 12(3), 2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sareen, P., Ehinger, K. A., & Wolfe, J. M. (2015). Through the looking-glass: Objects in the mirror are less real. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(4), 980–986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnotz, W. (2014). Integrated model of text and picture comprehension. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed, pp. 72–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2013). Is spoken text always better? Investigating the modality and redundancy effect with longer text presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1590–1601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories an educational perspective (Sixth edition). Boston: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J., & Ambinder, M. S. (2005). Change blindness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 44–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, D. J., & Rensink, R. (2005). Change blindness: Past, present and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(1), 16–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Širanović, Z. (2007). Guidelines for designing multimedia learning materials. Varaždin: University of Zagreb.
   Google Scholar
• Somyürek, S., & Yalın, H. İ. (2007). Bilgisayar destekli eğitim yazılımlarında kullanılan ön örgütleyicilerin alan bağımlı ve alan bağımsız öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4), 587–607.
   Google Scholar
• Sorden, S. D. (2005). A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 8, 263–279.
   Google Scholar
• Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatler, B. W., Kirtley, C., Macdonald, R. G., Mitchell, K. M. A., & Savage, S. W. (2014). The active eye: Perspectives on eye movement research. In M. Horsley, M. Eliot, B. Knight, & R. Reilly (Eds.), Current trends in eye tracking research (pp. 3–16). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Tchoubar, T. (2014). Effective use of multimedia explanations in open e-learning environment fosters student success. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4(1), 63–66.
   Google Scholar
• Toker, M. Z. (1990). D2 dikkat testinin uyarlama çalışması. V. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi. İzmir: Psikoloji-Seminer Dergisi Özel Sayısı, 8, 627–635.
   Google Scholar
• Toker, M.Z. (1988). Standardization of the visual attention test d2 on a Turkish sample. (Master thesis). Bogazici University, Istanbul.
   Google Scholar
• Triantafillou, E., Pomportsis, A., Demetriadis, S., & Georgiadou, E. (2004). The value of adaptivity based on cognitive style: An empirical study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 95–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Türkan, B. N. (2012). Dikkat eksikliği ve hiperaktivite bozukluğu olan çocuklarda değişim körlüğü [Change blindness in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder] (Master thesis). Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, F., Duan, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2013). Attention guidance in multimedia learning: The role of cueing. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(8), 1430–1440.
   Google Scholar
• Weinstein, C., Goetz, E. T., & ve Alexander, P. A. (1988). Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment,instruction, and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Werner, S., & Thies, B. (2000). Is “change blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7(1–3), 163–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Group embedded figures test manual. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
   Google Scholar