1. Ahmad Zamzuri, M. A. (2013). Effects of segmented-animation in projected presentation condition. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 16(3), 234–245.

2. Ainsworth, S. (2008). How do animations influence learning?. In D. H. Robinson & G. Schraw (Eds.), Current perspectives on cognition, learning, and instruction: Recent innovations in educational technology that facilitate student learning (pp. 37–67). North Carolina, NC: Information Age Publishing.

3. Aldalalah, O. M., Fong, S. F., & Ababneh, Z. W. (2010). Effects of multimedia-base instructional designs for Arabic language learning among pupils of different achievement levels. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(5), 960–967.

4. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York, NY: Academic Press.

3. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1971). The control of short memory. Scientific American, 224, 82–90. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0871-82

4. Awan, R. N., & Stevens, B. (2006). Static/animated diagrams and their effect on student’s perceptions of conceptual understandings in computer aided learning (CAL) environments. In T. McEwan, J. Gulliksen, & D. Benyen (Eds.), People and computer XIX – The bigger picture (pp. 381–389). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.

5. Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013

6. Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). Can the cognitive load approach make instructional animations more effective?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 811–820. doi:10.1002/acp.1351

7. Betrancourt, M. (2005). The animation and interactivity principles in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 287–296). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

8. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Book 1 cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.

9. Boucheix, J. M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369–388. doi:10.1007/BF03173563

10. Boucheix, J. M., & Schneider, E. (2009). Static and animated presentations in learning dynamic mechanical systems. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 112–127. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.004

11. Chandler, P. (2009). Dynamic visualizations and hypermedia: Beyond the “Wow” factor. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 389–392. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.018

12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. doi:10.1207/ s1532690xci0804_2

13. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233–246. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01017.x

14. Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2011). Efficiency in learning: Evidencebased guidelines to manage cognitive load. New York, NY: Wiley.

15. Fong, S. F., & Lily, L. P. L. (2010). Effects of segmented animation among students of different anxiety levels: A cognitive load perspective. Malaysian Journal Of Education Technology, 10(2), 91–100.

16. Garhart, C., & Hannafin, M. (1986). The accuracy of cognitive monitoring during computer based instruction. Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 13(3), 88–93. Retrieved from http://0-files.eric.ed.gov. opac.msmc.edu/fulltext/ED267768.pdf

17. Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schorr, T. (2003). Modeling processes of volitional action control in multiple-task performance: How to explain effects of goal competition and task difficulty on processing strategies and performance within ACT-R. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(1), 355–400.

18. Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908. doi:10.1177/154193120605000909

19. Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Result of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.

20. Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 713–729. doi:10.1002/acp.1345

21. Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualization and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343–351. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007

22. Hegarty, M., Kriz, S., & Cate, C. (2003). The roles of mental animation and external animation in understanding mechanical systems. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 325–360. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2104_1

23. Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9078-1

24. Jeroen, J., Enboer, V., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

25. Jun-Xia, G. (2007). Action research: The application of cognitive load theory to reading teaching. Sino-US English Teaching, 4(4), 19–23. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237584679_ Action_Research_The_Application_of_Cognitive_Load_Theory_to_Reading_Teaching

26. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. doi:10.1207/ S15326985EP3801_4

27. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

28. Kolloffel, B., Eysink, T., De Jong, T., & Wilhelm, P. (2009). The effects of representation format on learning combinatories from an interactive computer. Instructional Science, 37(1), 503–515. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9056-7

29. Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 177–189. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1

30. Lightner, N. J. (2001). Model testing of users’ comprehension in graphical animation: The effect of speed and focus area. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 53–73. doi:10.1207/S15327590IJHC1301_4

31. Lin, C. L., & Dwyer, F. M. (2004). Effect of varied animated enhancement strategies in facilitating achievement of different educational objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(2), 185–199.

32. Lin, H., & Dwyer, F. M. (2010). The effect of static and animated visualization: A perspective of instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 155–174. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9133-x

33. Lowe, R. K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of the Psychology of Education, 14(2), 225–244. doi:10.1007/BF03172967

34. Lowe, R. K. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 257–274. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2004.06.003

35. Lowe, R. K., & Boucheix, J. M. (2010). Manipulable models for investigating processing of dynamic diagrams. In A. K. Goel, M. Jamnik, &

36. N. H. Narayanan (Eds.), The 6th International Conference on the Theory and Application of Diagrams (pp. 319–321). Portland, USA: Springer.

37. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 55–71. doi:10.1002/tl.47

39. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pertaining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 169–182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

40. Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.390

41. Mayer, R. E., Dow, G. T., & Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based microworlds?. Journal of Education & Psychology, 95(4), 806–812. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.806

42. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99. doi:10.1023/ A:1013184611077

43. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

44. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765–781. doi:10.1002/acp.1348

45. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (2002). Multimedia design for communication of dynamic information. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 57(4), 279–315. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2002.1019

46. Norman, D. A. (1982). Learning and memory. New York, NY: WH Freeman & Co.

47. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

48. Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 115–121. doi:10.1007/ s10648-010-9133-8

49. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Madison Avenue, New York: Oxford University Press.

50. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 15) (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

51. Slater, R. B., & Dwyer, F. (1996). The effect of varied interactive questioning strategies in complementing visualized instruction. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23(3), 273–280. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ569022

52. Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2010). A theoretical analysis of how segmentation of dynamic visualizations optimizes students’ learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(4), 411–423. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9135-6

53. Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46–52. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.011

54. Sperling, R. A., Seyedmonir, M., Aleksic, M., & Meadows, G. (2003). Animations as learning tools in authentic science materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(2), 213–222.

55. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7

56. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

57. Sweller, J. (2004). Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1–2), 9–31. doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021808.72598.4d

58. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. doi:10.1023/A:1022193728205

59. Tindall-Ford, S. (1998). Applying cognitive psychology principles to education and training: Optimizing multimedia instruction. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/98pap/cha98030.htm

60. Torres, J., & Dwyer, F. (1991). The effect of time in instructional effectiveness of varied enhancement strategies. International Journal of Instructional Media, 8(4), 2–8.

61. Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate?. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017

62. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-Learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 5–13. doi:10.1007/BF02504793

63. van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. doi:10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

64. van Oostendorp, H., Beijersbergen, M. J., & Solaimani, S. (2008). Conditions for learning from animations. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Science, 2(1), 438–445. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1599926&dl= ACM&coll=DL&CFID=614080807&CFTOKEN=95575446

65. Weir, G. R. S., & Heeps, S. (2003). Getting the message across: Ten principles for web animation. Proceedings of the 7th IASTED international conference on internet and multimedia and applications, 121–126. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down load?doi=10.1.1.185.135&rep=rep1&type=pdf

66. Wiebe, E. N. (1991). A review of dynamic and static visual display techniques. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/~wiebe/articles/ani1991.pdf