An official website of the United States government
Abstract This study explored how different formats of instructional visuals affect the accuracy of students' metacognitive judgments. Undergraduates (n = 133) studied a series of five biology texts and made judgments of learning. Students were assigned randomly to study the texts only (text only), study the texts with provided visuals (provided visuals group), study the texts and generate their own visuals (learner‐generated visuals group), or study the texts and observe animations of instructor‐generated visuals (instructor‐generated visuals group). After studying the texts and making judgments of learning, all students completed multiple‐choice comprehension tests on each text. The learner‐generated and instructor‐generated visuals groups exhibited significantly higher relative judgment accuracy than the text only and provided visuals groups, though this effect was relatively small. The learner‐generated visuals group also required more study time and was more likely to report the use of visual cues when making their judgments of learning.
more »
« less
Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type
Abstract Prior research suggests most students do not glean valid cues from provided visuals, resulting in reduced metacomprehension accuracy. Across 4 experiments, we explored how the presence of instructional visuals affects students’ metacomprehension accuracy and cue-use for different types of metacognitive judgments. Undergraduates read texts on biology (Study 1a and b) or chemistry (Study 2 and 3) topics, made various judgments (test, explain, and draw) for each text, and completed comprehension tests. Students were randomly assigned to receive only texts (text-only condition) or texts with instructional visualizations (text-and-image condition). In Studies 1b, 2 and 3, students also reported the cues they used to make each judgment. Across the set of studies, instructional visualizations harmed relative metacomprehension accuracy. In Studies 1a and 2, this was especially the case when students were asked to judge how well they felt they could draw the processes described in the text. But in Study 3, this was especially the case when students were asked to judge how well they would do on a set of comprehension tests. In Studies 2 and 3, students who reported basing their judgments on representation-based cues demonstrated more accurate relative accuracy than students who reported using heuristic based cues. Further, across these studies, students reported using visual cues to make their draw judgments, but not their test or explain judgments. Taken together, these results indicate that instructional visualizations can hinder metacognitive judgment accuracy, particularly by influencing the types of cues students use to make judgments of their ability to draw key concepts.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10483277
- Publisher / Repository:
- Springer Science + Business Media
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Metacognition and Learning
- Volume:
- 19
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1556-1623
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 249-291
- Size(s):
- p. 249-291
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The Effect of Metacognitive Judgments on Metacognitive Awareness in an Augmented Reality EnvironmentBeing conscious of your thought processes is known as metacognition. It supports students in being more aware of their actions, motivations, and the potential applications of the skills [1]. This study investigates how different metacognitive judgment questions affect students’ metacognitive awareness in an augmented reality (AR) environment. The outcomes of this study will help us to understand what metacognitive monitoring method is more effective in the AR learning environment. According to the literature, students with high knowledge about cognition have higher test performance, while students with low regulation have a challenge during planning, organizing, and elaborating strategies. The dependent variables of the study are student learning performance and metacognitive awareness inventory (MAI) score, and one independent variable is the metacognitive judgment question Retrospective Confidence Judgment (RCJ) and Judgment of Learning (JOL). We hypothesized that the students with high performance would have improved MAI scores in both groups. The experiment was done with two groups (RCJ and JOL). Both groups responded to the pre-post metacognitive awareness inventory questionnaire. During the experiment, the MAI questionnaire was asked two times. In round one, the MAI questionnaire was asked at the beginning of lecture one; however, in round two, the questionnaire was asked at the end of lecture two. Results indicated significant differences in RCJ low performers. In RCJ, the participants whose performance was significantly reduced in lecture 2 had a higher improvement on MAI both regulation and knowledge about cognition. Overall, the result of our study could advance our understanding of how to design an advanced instructional strategy in an AR environment.more » « less
-
This study explored why students rarely create drawings when learning from science texts despite potential learning benefits. Undergraduates (n = 114) studied a 10-part text on the human respiratory system and took notes by choosing their own strategies (free choice group) or by choosing to create a drawing or write a verbal summary (forced choice group). Other students were instructed to create drawings (draw group) or write summaries (summarize group). All students then completed a series of post-tests. The forced choice group chose to draw significantly more frequently than the free choice group; however, both groups still overwhelmingly chose summarizing. Participants across all groups reported lower prior experience, lower expectancies for success, lower perceived value, and higher perceived cost of drawing compared to summarizing. Students’ prior experiences and beliefs about drawing were also associated with how frequently they chose to draw, providing implications for future instructional interventions.more » « less
-
Abstract Undergraduates (n = 132) learned about the human respiratory system and then taught what they learned by explaining aloud on video. Following a 2 × 2 design, students either generated their own words or visuals on paper while explaining aloud, or they viewed instructor‐provided words or visuals while explaining aloud. One week after teaching, students completed explanation, drawing, and transfer tests. Teaching with provided or generated visualizations resulted in significantly higher transfer test performance than teaching with provided or generated words. Furthermore, teaching with provided visuals led to significantly higher drawing test performance than teaching with generated visuals. Finally, the number of elaborations in students' explanations during teaching did not significantly differ across groups but was significantly associated with subsequent explanation and transfer test performance. Overall, the findings partially support the hypothesis that visuals facilitate learning by explaining, yet the benefits appeared stronger for instructor‐provided visuals than learner‐generated drawings.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)In this paper, we argue that the exploration of engineering judgment in undergraduate education should be grounded at the intersection of decision making, situated cognition, and engineering identity production. In our view, engineering judgment is an embodied cognitive process that is situated in written and oral communication, involved with immediate praxis, and takes place within the contexts of standards and traditions of the engineering communities of practice. Moreover, engineering judgment is constituted as authoritative communication tasks that draw on the subject’s and audience’s common experiences and knowledge base for its clarity and persuasive power (e.g., Weedon (2019), "The role of rhetoric in engineering judgment," IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 62(2):165-177). The objective of this work short essay is to review the engineering education literature with the aim of synthesizing the concept of engineering judgment from theories of decision-making, identity, communities of practice, and discourse communities. Although the rationale for developing engineering judgment in undergraduate students is the complexity they will face in professional practice, engineering educators often considerably reduce the complexity of the problems students face (with learning engineering judgement or with engineering judgment in their undergraduate education?). Student work intended to train engineering judgment often prescribes goals and objectives, and demands a one-time decision, product, or solution that faculty or instructors evaluate. The evaluation process might not contain formal methods for foregrounding feedback from experience or reflecting on how the problem or decision emerges; thus, the loop from decision to upstream cognitive processes might not be closed. Consequently, in this paper, our exploration of engineering judgment is guided by the following questions: How have investigators researchers? defined engineering judgment? What are the potential limitations of existing definitions? How can existing definitions be expanded upon? What cognitive processes do students engage to make engineering judgments? How do communication tasks shape students’ engineering judgments? In what ways does engineer identity production shape students’ engineering judgments? How might a definition of engineering judgement suggest areas for improving undergraduate education?more » « less
