Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

Abstract 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. 

Virtual reality is a powerful tool for teaching 3D digital technologies in building engineering, as it facilitates the spatial perception of three-dimensional space. Spatial orientation skill is necessary for understanding 3D space. With VR, users navigate through virtually designed buildings and must be constantly aware of their position relative to other elements of the environment (orientation during navigation). In the present study, 25 building engineering students performed navigation tasks in a desktop-VR environment workshop. Performance of students using the desktop-VR was compared to a previous workshop in which navigation tasks were carried out using head-mounted displays. The Perspective Taking/Spatial Orientation Test measured spatial orientation skill. A questionnaire on user experience in the virtual environment was also administered. The gain in spatial orientation skill was 12.62%, similar to that obtained with head-mounted displays (14.23%). The desktop VR environment is an alternative to the HMD-VR environment for planning strategies to improve spatial orientation. Results from the user-experience questionnaire showed that the desktop VR environment strategy was well perceived by students in terms of interaction, 3D visualization, navigation, and sense of presence. Unlike in the HDM VR environment, student in the desktop VR environment did not report feelings of fatigue or dizziness.