List of literature 2012/13
2012/13 õppeaastal loetud kirjandus
Amador-Campos, J.A., Kirchner-Nebot, T. 1999. Correlations among scores on measures of field dependence-independence cognitive style, cognitive ability, and sustained attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills 88, 236-239.
Armstrong, V. 2011. Technology and the gendering of music education. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Angeli, C., Valanides, N., Kirschner, P. Field dependence–independence and instructional-design effects on learners’ performance with a computer-modeling tool. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 6: 1355–1366.
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current biology, 20 (4), R136–R140.
Brändström, S., Wiklund, C., Lundström, E. 2012. Developing distance music education in Arctic Scandinavia: electric guitar teaching and master classes. Music Education Research 14, no. 4: 448-456. doi:10.1080/14613808.2012.703173.
Brünken, J., Seufert, T., Paas, F. 2010. Measuring cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory, ed. Plass, R. Moreno, J. Brünken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. 1991. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8: 293-332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
Chi, T.H. 2009. Active-Constructive-Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 1, 1: 73-105 doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x.
Cowan, N., Morey, C. C., Chen, Z. and Bunting, M. F. (2007). What Do Estimates of Working Memory Capacity Tell Us? In N. Osaka, R. Logie, M. D’Esposito (Eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniel, R. 2006. Exploring music instrument teaching and learning environments: video analysis as a means of elucidating process and learning outcomes. Music Education Research 8, 2:191-215.
Dervan, S., McCosker, C., MacDaniel, B., O’Nuallain, C. 2006. Educational multimedia. Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education (Edited by A. Méndez-Vilas, A. Solano Martín, J.A. Mesa González and J. Mesa González). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex.
Dobbs, S., Furnham, A., McClelland, A. 2011. The effect of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 25: 307-313. doi:10.1002/acp.1692.
Ericsson, K. A. (2009). Development of Professional Expertise: Toward Measurement of Expert Performance and Design of Optimal Learning Environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., Cokelyo, E. T. (2007). Making of an Expert. Harvard Business Review July-Aug, 115-121.
Eyuboglu, F., Orhan, F. 2011. Paging and scrolling: Cognitive styles in learning from hypermedia. British Journal of Educational Technology 42, no. 1: 50-65.
Fassbender, E., Richards, D., Bilgin, A., Thompson, W.F., Heiden, W. 2012. VirSchool: the effect of background music and immersive display systems on memory for facts learned in an educational virtual environment. Computers & Education 58: 490-500. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.002.
Fogg, B.J. 2009. A Behavior Model for Persuasive Design. Persuasive Technology Lab. Stanford University. http://www.behaviormodel.org/
Furnham, A., Strbac, L. 2002. Music is as distracting as noise: the differential distraction of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Ergonomics 45, no. 3: 203-217. doi:10.1080/00140130210121932.
Hamilton, L. 2011. Case studies in educational research. http://www.bera.ac.uk/resources/case-studies-educational-research.
Hayes, J., Allinson, C.W. 1998. Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations 51, no. 7: 847-871. doi:10.1023/A:1016978926688.
Iznaola, R. (2001). On Practicing: A Manual for Students of Guitar Performance. Pacific: Mel Bay.
Garcia Rodicio, H., Sanchez, E. 2012. Aids to Computer-based Multimedia Learning: A Comparision of Human Tutoring and Computer Support Interactive. Learning Environments 20, 5: 423-439.
Gardner, J.S. 2008. Simultaneous media usage: effects on attention. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.)
Gray, R. 2004. Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 10, no. 1: 42–54. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.42.
Guisande, M.A., Páramo, M.F., Tinajero, M. Fernanda, C., Almeida, L.S. 2007. Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning. Psicothema 19, 4: 572-577.
Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., Renkewitz, F. 2010. The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music 39, 424.
Lee, J.J., Hammer, J. 2011. Gamification in education: what, how, why bother? Academic Exchange Quarterly 15, no. 2.
Lin, L., Lee J., Robertson, T. 2011. Reading while watching video: the effect of video content on reading comprehension and media multitasking ability. Educational Computing Research 45, no. 2: 183-201. doi:10.2190/EC.45.2.d.
Liu, T., Lin, Y., Tsai, M., and Paas, F. 2012. “Split-attention and redundancy effects on mobile learning in physical environments.” Computers and Education 58 (1): 172–180. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.007.
Marcus, Gary F. 2012. Musicality: Instinct or acquired skill? Topics in Cognitive Science 4: 498-512
Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E. 2000. A coherence effect in multimedia learning: the case for minimizing irrelevant sounds in the design of multimedia instructional messages. Journal of Educational Psychology 92, no. 1: 117-125. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.1.117.
Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R. 1998. A split-attention effect in Multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90: 312-320. Accession no. edselc.2-52.0-0032396526.
Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R. 2010. Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. In Cognitive load theory, ed. Plass, R. Moreno, J. Brünken. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mikk, J., Luik, P. 2005. Do girls and boys need different electronic books? Innovations in Education & Teaching International 42, no. 2: 167-180. doi:10.1080/14703290500062565.
Miller, W. 2012. iTeaching and Learning: Collegiate Instruction Incorporating Mobile Tablets. Library Technology Reports 48, no. 8: 54-59. Accession no. 84297445.
Muntean, C. I. 2011. Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2011. Accessed May 16, 2013, URL: http://www.icvl.eu/2011/disc/icvl/documente/pdf/met/ICVL_ModelsAndMethodologies_paper42.pdf
Pachman, M., Sweller, J., & Kalyuga, S. (2013). Levels of Knowledge and Deliberate Practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0032149.
Papageorgi, I., Haddon, E., Creecha, A., Mortonc, F., de Bezenac, C., Himonides, E., Potter, J., Duffy, C., Whytond, T., Welcha, G. 2010. Institutional culture and learning I: perceptions of the learning environment and musicians’ attitudes to learning. Music Education Research 12, no. 2: 151-178. doi:10.1080/14613801003746550.
Partti, H., Karlsen, S. 2010. Reconceptualising musical learning: new media, identity and community in music education. Music Education Research 12, no. 4: 369-382. doi:10.1080/14613808.2010.519381.
Peng, H., Chou, C., Chang, C.-Y. 2008. From virtual environments to physical environments: Exploring interactivity in ubiquitous systems. Educational Technology & Society 11, no. 2: 54-66. Accession no. WOS:000256100600006.
Perry, G.T., Schnaid, F. 2012. A Case Study on the Design of Learning Interfaces. Computers & Education 59: 722-731.
Rees, F., Downs, D. 1995. Interactive television and distance learning. Music Educators Journal 82, no. 2: 21-25. doi:10.2307/3398864.
Repp, B.H. 2005. Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 6: 969-992.
Sweller, J. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4: 295-312. Accession no. edselc.2-52.0-43949152992.
Wright, D.J., Holmes, P.S., Di Russo, F., Loporto, M., Smith, D. 2012. Differences in cortical activity related to motor planning between experienced guitarists and non-musicians during guitar playing. Human Movement Science 31, 3: 567–577. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2011.07.001
Yin, R. 2009. Case study research : design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Yu, P.-T., Lai, Y.-S., Tsai, H.-S., Chang, Y.-H. 2010. Using a multimodal learning system to support music instruction. Educational Technology & Society 13, 3: 151-162. Accession no. WOS:000282274000014
Reading: Institutional culture and learning I: perceptions of the learning environment and musicians’ attitudes to learning
Music Education Research, 12:2, 151-178
Authors: Papageorgi, I., Haddon, E., Creech, A., Morton, F., de Bezenac, C., Himonides, E., Potter, J., Duffy, C., Whyton, T., Welch, G. (2010)
Main point:
Online survey (n=170, students from three British higher music education institutions)+case study with focus groups.
Authors conclude that “positive learning environments are perceived as being inspirational, facilitating academic, professional and personal development, fostering a supportive community of learning and allowing the development and pursuit of personal interests.
Reading: Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12 (6), 969-992
Bruno H. Repp
Repp has conducted many experiments concerning SMS. So a portion of the review is recalling his own work. SMS is unique to the humans, develops slowly in early childhood and remains almost the same for long years. Although SMS is needed in various human actions, most notably dancing and instrument playing, most of the research uses finger tapping. SMS consists of two error correction phases: phase correction and period correction.
Reading: Cognitive Style and the Theory and Practice of Individual and Collective Learning in Organizations
Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 7, 1998
Authors: John Hayes and Christopher W. Allinson
Some useful citations for future:
“Cognitive style is a person ’s preferred way of gathering, processing, and
evaluating information. It influences how people scan their environment for
information, how they organize and interpret this information, and how they
integrate their interpretations into the mental model and subjective theories
that guide their actions.”
“Learning style is usually regarded as a subcategory of cognitive style”
Reading: Field dependence-independence (FDI) cognitive style: An analysis of attentional functioning
Psicothema 2007. Vol. 19, no 4, pp. 572-577
Authors: M. Adelina Guisande, M. Fernanda Páramo, Carolina Tinajero and Leandro S. Almeida
Main point:
Experiment (n=149, boys and girls almost evenly, mean age 9.53 y). With the effect of intelligence controlled, FI children showed better performance than FD children on the verbal working memory, complex attention and sustained attention/vigilance tasks.
Reading: Correlations among scores on measures of field dependence-independence cognitive style, cognitive ability, and sustained attention
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1999, 88, 236-239
Authors: Juan Antonio Amador-Campos, Teresa Kirchner-Nebot
Main point:
Experiment (n=179 boys, 110 girls, mean age 9.0 y). Authors found significant correlation (0.3, p<0.1) between FD/I and sustained attention (measured by Zazzo task) but no correlation was found in the case of Bourdon task. The latter is also a tool for measuring sustained attention.
My comment: There were other tests that correlated with FD/I but I was mainly interested in attention. Author argue that FD/I is commonly associated with attentional process.
Reading: Field dependence–independence and instructional-design effects on learners’ performance with a computer-modeling tool
Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 6, November 2009, Pages 1355–1366
Authors: Charoula Angeli, Nicos Valanides, Paul Kirschner
Main point:
Experiment (n=101 teachers). Two groups: information presented in split-format and in integrated-format. Authors found interaction between type of instructional materials and FD/I in terms of students’ problem-solving performance, while the interaction effects between type of instructional materials and students’ FD/I in terms of students’ cognitive load and time spent on task were not. It means that the cognitive load and split-attention effect are equal to everybody, regardless to the FD/I
My thoughts: It seems to be OK to measure cognitive load with self reports since there is no better tool so far. Field independent learners always do better. How about the attention? It may be that although FI and FD use the same time for completing a task, the quality of the time is not the same. FD’s attention may be disturbed.
Reading: Attending to the Execution of a Complex Sensorimotor Skill: Expertise Differences, Choking, and Slumps
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2004, Vol. 10, No. 1, 42–54
Author: Rob Gray
Main point:
Experiments with baseball batters (10 expert players, 10 novice players). Exp 1. Three conditions: dual-task when attention was drawn to an extraneous stimuli (sound signal) while player was hitting the ball, dual-task condition when attention was drawn to the hitting process, and single-task condition, when the sound signal could be ignored. Results: in the first condition, novices showed decrease in performance, but not the experts. In the second condition, it was vice-versa. In the single-task condition the experts outperformed the novices, of course.
The author says: “Clearly, unlike more experienced players, novices do not seem to have sufficient available attentional resources to simultaneously hit and attend to extraneous sensory information.”
Reading: Preliminary evidence for reduced cortial activity in experienced guitarists during performance preparation for simple scale playing
Music Performance Research, Vol 5, 2012
Authors: Wright, Holmes, Blain, Smith
Main point:
In an experiment electroencephalography (EEG) was used to study cortical activity during preparation for movement in experienced and novice guitarists. In the brains of experienced players less cortial activity occurs. Authors say: “motor preparation of experts is more efficient than that of novices.”
My thoughts: Isn’t it the same experiment that they report here?