___

• Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
• Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Science, 4 (11), 417–423. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2
• Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
• Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought: The languages we speak affect our perceptions of the world. Scientific American, 2, 63-65.
• Carroll, J. B. (Ed.). (1956), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning Research, 58(1), 63-79.
• Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Greenwood.
• Chomsky, N. & Peck, J. (Ed.) (1987). The Chomsky reader. New York: Pantheon Books.
• Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2010). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
• Dunn, R. & Griggs, S. A. (1995). Multiculturalism and learning style: Teaching and counseling adolescents. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Garner, R., Gillingham, M.G., & White, C.S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41-57.
• Harp, S., & Mayer, R. (1997). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414-434.
• Hoffman, C., Lau, I., & Johnson, D. R. (1986). The linguistic relativity of person cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1097–1105.
• Hofstede, G. J. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across cultures (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.
• Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychological perspective. Psychological Review, 98, 377–389.
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
• Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26, 49-63.
• Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Mayer, R. E. & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of dual- processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
• Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
• Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
• Miller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven ± two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
• 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, 117-125.
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford. England: Oxford University Press.
• Pederson, E. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and linguistic relativity. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1012-1044). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Renninger, K.A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Robinson, D. H. (2002). Spatial text adjuncts and learning: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 1-3.
• Sanchez, C. A. & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344-355.
• Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
• Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
• Tohidian, I. (2009). Examining linguistic relativity hypothesis as oneof the main views on the relationship between language and thought. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 65- 74.
• Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• von Humboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues. [On the diversity of human linguistic structure.] Berlin.
• Wiggins, B. E. (2011). The absence of language and culture in e-learning design principles. In Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (pp. 474-479). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
• Wittrock, M.C. (1992). Generative learning processes of the brain. Educational Psychologist, 27(4), 531-541.
• Correspondence: Bradley E. Wiggins, Assistant Professor of Communication, College of Languages
• and Communication, University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, Arkansas, United States