Search for: All records

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.

 

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.

 

External representations powerfully support and augment complex human behavior. When navigating, people often consult external representations to help them find the way to go, but do maps or verbal instructions improve spatial knowledge or support effective wayfinding? Here, we examine spatial knowledge with and without external representations in two studies where participants learn a complex virtual environment. In the first study, we asked participants to generate their own maps or verbal instructions, partway through learning. We found no evidence of improved spatial knowledge in a pointing task requiring participants to infer the direction between two targets, either on the same route or on different routes, and no differences between groups in accurately recreating a map of the target landmarks. However, as a methodological note, pointing was correlated with the accuracy of the maps that participants drew. In the second study, participants had access to an accurate map or set of verbal instructions that they could study while learning the layout of target landmarks. Again, we found no evidence of differentially improved spatial knowledge in the pointing task, although we did find that the map group could recreate a map of the target landmarks more accurately. However, overall improvement was high. There was evidence that the nature of improvement across all conditions was specific to initial navigation ability levels. Our findings add to a mixed literature on the role of external representations for navigation and suggest that more substantial intervention—more scaffolding, explicit training, enhanced visualization, perhaps with personalized sequencing—may be necessary to improve navigation ability.

 

Comprehending 3D diagrams is critical for success in scientific practice and research demonstrates that understanding of 3D geology diagrams can be improved by making predictive sketches. In mathematics, explaining erroneous examples can support learning. This study combined these approaches to better understand how to effectively support 3D geologic diagram understanding. Participants generated sketches, explained erroneous example sketches, or copied and explained correct sketches. It was hypothesized that generating sketches or explaining erroneous cases would improve understanding, but an open question was whether these conditions would differ from each other. Explaining erroneous examples and sketching improved understanding whereas explaining correct sketches did not. Further, explaining erroneous examples was a more efficient strategy than sketching. These results indicate that erroneous examples can be effective for supporting 3D diagram comprehension and may be a practical substitute for some traditional sketching activities in the context of real classrooms where class time is limited.

 

The presence of irrelevant information in expository text can harm comprehension. This study examined the role of a post-reading sketching task for reducing the negative impact of seductive details on learning and recall. Results indicated that while sketching did not improve conceptual recall, it did reduce seductive recall. Students who wrote post-reading summaries recalled the most core concepts. These results inform how to support learning from naturalistic science text in spite of distracting details. 

Drawing on What Matters: Sketching Reduces Memory for Seductive Details. ALLISON J. JAEGER, ANASTASIA DAWDANOW and THOMAS F. SHIPLEY, Temple University — Seductive details are interesting pieces of information in expository text that are non-essential to the target concepts and can result in reduced comprehension (Garner, Gillingham, & White, 1989). Previous work has unsuccessfully attempted to reduce the impact of seductive details through various manipulations. Research suggests sketching is beneficial for science learning and can improve learning from science text (Ainsworth et al., 2011). The current experiment tested whether a post-reading sketching task could reduce the negative impact of seductive details and facilitate learning from a geology text. Results indicated that the presence of seductive details reduced recall of target concepts compared to a plain text. While sketching did not lead to higher recall of target concepts compared to summarizing, those who sketched recalled fewer seductive details. This suggests that sketching may help to focus attention on more relevant information in expository text. Interactions with spatial skills will also be discussed. Email: Allison J. Jaeger, allison.jaeger@temple.edu