Abstract
Çakıroğlu U., Güler M., Atabay M., & Güler, M. (2019). Connections Between Learning Styles and Perceived Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning: An Experimental Study. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0047239519844509
This article was modified after its original publication on Online First and prior to publication in an issue of the journal. The following changes were made. The authors explained that the errors in the original version were due to an error with the software which manages bibliographies, citations and references. When some of the sentences in earlier drafts of the article were replaced during the revision process, the references for the deleted sentences remained in place.
1. “Considering students’ working memory capacities, students having different learning styles are expected to exhibit different information processing systems (Spanjers, Van Gog, Wouters, & Van Merrienboer, 2012).”
in the original publication was replaced with:
“According to Plass, Kalyuga, and Leutner (2010), students' individual differences relate to the level of cognitive load that a particular learner experiences.”
2. “Learning styles are defined as complex manners in which students most effectively perceive, process, store, and recall information (James & Gardner, 1995).”
in the original publication was replaced with:
“Learning styles are defined as complex manners in which students most effectively perceive, process, store, and recall information (James & Blank, 1993).”
3. “In VAK learning style model, VAK stands for visual (V), auditory (A), and kinesthetic (K) modality (Fleming & Mills, 1992).”
in the original publication was replaced with:
“In VAK learning style model, VAK stands for visual (V), auditory (A), and kinesthetic (K) modality (Anbarasi et al., 2015).”
4. “According to de Jong (2010), learning styles have not received sufficient attention in CL studies. Empirical research in the field of learning style and multimedia fails to address the fact that the outcomes are related with cognitive overload (Ghinea & Chen, 2003).”
in the original publication was replaced with:
“Empirical research in the field of learning style is considered to have not received sufficient attention on the learning outcomes related to cognitive overload.”
5. The following sentences were deleted in their entirety:
“Thus, an idea may come to mind that in some contexts the approaches about the learning styles and the dual-channel assumption about the working memory might not work consistently. It may be due to the fact that the dual-channel assumption of the working memory and the approaches that put emphasis on the learning styles somewhat cause a dilemma.”
1. James, W. B., & Blank, W. E. (1993). Review and critique of available learning‐style instruments for adults. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 59, 47–57.
2. Anbarasi, M., Rajkumar, G., Krishnakumar, S., Rajendran, P., Venkatesan, R., Dinesh, T., … & Venkidusamy, S. (2015). Learning style-based teaching harvests a superior comprehension of respiratory physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(3), 214–217.
1. Swan, 2001 reference both in text and references. 2. Spanjers, Van Gog, Wouters, & Van Merriënboer, 2012 reference both in text and references. 3. James & Gardner (1995) both in text and references. 4. Fleming & Mills (1992) both in text and references.
Subsequent versions of the article will be corrected.