Understanding metacomprehension accuracy within video annotation systems

While much research has been conducted on annotations and note-taking in the context of learning from static text and images, the influence of annotating instructional video upon metacognitive monitoring and learning remains unclear. This is an important issue because video annotation systems are gaining popularity in the practice of online and blended learning, but the conditions for effective implementation of such systems are still not well understood. This study explored the influence of video annotation conditions upon metacomprehension accuracy and learning performance with a group of 81 undergraduate students of various majors. Findings suggest that video annotation systems designed for simultaneous notetaking may have a deleterious effect upon metacognitive monitoring in general and metacomprehension in particular. Text-based strategies used to improve metacomprehension accuracy such as a delay in the production of a keyword to summarize the essence of an instructional topic do not appear to impact metacognitive performance in the context of video annotation. Interestingly, participants in the control condition (without annotation) performed as well in both learning performance and metacomprehension accuracy as their counterparts. These findings have implications for the design of video annotation systems and learner best practices in the use of video annotation, particularly in online and blended learning formats. The article examined the impact of video annotation upon metacomprehension accuracy.Results showed simultaneous video annotation hinders metacomprehension accuracy.Spilt attention effects explain negative effects of simultaneous video annotation.Delayed-keyword effects upon metacomprehension did not manifest in video conditions.

[1]  P. N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Inference with Mental Models , 2012 .

[2]  Bradford Hosack,et al.  VideoANT: Extending Online Video Annotation beyond Content Delivery , 2010 .

[3]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Metacognitive Monitoring During and After Reading , 2009 .

[4]  Steve Joordens,et al.  Media Player Tool Use, Satisfaction with Online Lectures and Examination Performance , 2008 .

[5]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance , 2011 .

[6]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Utilization of Metacognitive Judgments in the Allocation of Study During Multitrial Learning , 1994 .

[7]  John Dunlosky,et al.  The Self-Monitoring Approach for Effective Learning , 2005 .

[8]  Jonathan Smallwood,et al.  Mind-wandering While Reading: Attentional Decoupling, Mindless Reading and the Cascade Model of Inattention , 2011, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[9]  K. Zabrucky,et al.  Effects of text difficulty and adults' age on relative calibration of comprehension. , 2002, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  K. Holyoak.  Mental representations. , 1982, Science.

[11]  Keith W Thiede,et al.  Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy? , 2008, Acta psychologica.

[12]  J. Flavell.  Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry. , 1979 .

[13]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trials , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[14]  Jason Swarts,et al.  New Modes of Help: Best Practices for Instructional Video , 2012 .

[15]  Keith W. Thiede,et al.  Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy , 2003 .

[16]  Ruth H. Maki,et al.  Test predictions over text material. , 1998 .

[17]  Allison J. Jaeger,et al.  Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy , 2014 .

[18]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Agenda-based regulation of study-time allocation: when agendas override item-based monitoring. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Measuring Metacognitive Judgments , 2009 .

[20]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. , 1995 .

[21]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction , 1999 .

[22]  Philip J. Guo,et al.  How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos , 2014, L@S.

[23]  A. Henk.  A Meta- Analysis of the Effect of Notetaking on Learning from Lecture , 1985 .

[24]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load While Learning to Use a Computer Program , 1996 .

[25]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[26]  P. Winne,et al.  Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis , 1995 .

[27]  Keiichi Kobayashi,et al.  What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination , 2005 .

[28]  Jonathan T. Copley,et al.  Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus‐based students: production and evaluation of student use , 2007 .

[29]  M. Wittrock.  Generative Processes of Comprehension , 1989 .

[30]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[31]  C. A. Weaver,et al.  Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Ulrik Schroeder,et al.  Video-Based Learning: A Critical Analysis of The Research Published in 2003-2013 and Future Visions , 2014 .

[33]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Accurate monitoring leads to effective control and greater learning of patient education materials. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[35]  Michael J. Serra,et al.  Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text , 2010, Memory.

[36]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Influences of metamemory on performance predictions for text , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[37]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Discourse comprehension. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[38]  Ralf Klamma,et al.  Informal Learning at the Workplace via Adaptive Video , 2014, UMAP Workshops.

[39]  Charles D. Dziuban,et al.  Blended Learning: Research Perspectives , 2007 .

[40]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[41]  Asher Koriat,et al.  The relationships between monitoring, regulation and performance , 2012 .

[42]  M. D’Esposito.  Working memory. , 2008, Handbook of clinical neurology.

[43]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[44]  Arthur M. Glenberg,et al.  Calibration of Comprehension , 1985 .

[45]  R. Mayer,et al.  Note taking as a generative activity. , 1978 .

[46]  K. Thiede.  The importance of monitoring and self-regulation during multitrial learning , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[47]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Poor Metacomprehension Accuracy as a Result of Inappropriate Cue Use , 2010 .

[48]  David J. Therriault,et al.  Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. , 2003 .

[49]  Kenneth A. Kiewra.  Notetaking and review: The research and its implications , 1987 .

[50]  Anique B. H. de Bruin,et al.  Generating keywords improves metacomprehension and self-regulation in elementary and middle school children. , 2011, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[51]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Metacomprehension A Brief History and How to Improve Its Accuracy , 2007 .

[52]  R. Mayer,et al.  Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning , 2003 .

[53]  Fred Paas,et al.  Effects of Problem Solving after Worked Example Study on Primary School Children's Monitoring Accuracy , 2014 .

[54]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[55]  J. Sweller.  Cognitive Load Theory: Cognitive Load Theory: Recent Theoretical Advances , 2010 .