Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text

In two experiments we systematically explored whether people consider the format of text materials when judging their text learning, and whether doing so might inappropriately bias their judgements. Participants studied either text with diagrams (multimedia) or text alone and made both per-paragraph judgements and global judgements of their text learning. In Experiment 1 they judged their learning to be better for text with diagrams than for text alone. In that study, however, test performance was greater for multimedia, so the judgements may reflect either a belief in the power of multimedia or on-line processing. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and also included a third group that read texts with pictures that did not improve text performance. Judgements made by this group were just as high as those made by participants who received the effective multimedia format. These results confirm the hypothesis that people's metacomprehension judgements can be influenced by their beliefs about text format. Over-reliance on this multimedia heuristic, however, might reduce judgement accuracy in situations where it is invalid.

[1]  Diagrams increase the recall of nondepicted text when understanding is also increased , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Janet Metcalfe,et al.  Effective Implementation of Metacognition , 2009 .

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

[4]  Why do people show minimal knowledge updating with task experience: Inferential deficit or experimental artifact? , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  Mark A. McDaniel,et al.  The Limited Benefits of Rereading Educational Texts. , 2009 .

[6]  Matthew G. Rhodes,et al.  Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Alan D. Castel,et al.  Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning , 2008, Cognition.

[8]  J. Metcalfe,et al.  Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[10]  Asher Koriat,et al.  Illusions of competence during study can be remedied by manipulations that enhance learners’ sensitivity to retrieval conditions at test , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[11]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Does momentary accessibility influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence of study—judgment lags on accessibility effects , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Expertise and the Illusion of Comprehension , 2006 .

[13]  Ben Jee.  Expertise and the Illusion of Comprehension , 2006 .

[14]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Putting the Comprehension in Metacomprehension , 2005 .

[15]  R. Moreno,et al.  Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback , 2005 .

[16]  K. Zabrucky,et al.  A Source Of Metacomprehension Inaccuracy , 2005 .

[17]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Rereading Effects Depend on Time of Test. , 2005 .

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

[19]  R. Mayer,et al.  Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, and Learning Preference. , 2003 .

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

[21]  Stephen M. Fiore,et al.  Scaffolding cognitive and metacognitive processes in low verbal ability learners: Use of diagrams in computer-based training environments , 2002 .

[22]  P. Chandler,et al.  Assimilating complex information , 2002 .

[23]  Katherine A. Rawson,et al.  Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing? , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

[26]  J. Dunlosky,et al.  Updating knowledge about encoding strategies: a componential analysis of learning about strategy effectiveness from task experience. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[27]  Heather Kanuka,et al.  Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rates , 1999 .

[28]  K. Zabrucky,et al.  Calibration of Comprehension: Research and Implications for Education and Instruction. , 1998, Contemporary educational psychology.

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

[30]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Metacognition in educational theory and practice. , 1998 .

[31]  Douglas J. Hacker,et al.  Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. , 1998 .

[32]  R. Bjork,et al.  The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  A. Koriat.  Monitoring one's own knowledge during study : A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning , 1997 .

[34]  K. Thiede.  The Relative Importance of Anticipated Test Format and Anticipated Test Difficulty on Performance , 1996 .

[35]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Discourse comprehension : essays in honor of Walter Kintsch , 1996 .

[36]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. , 1996 .

[37]  R. Mayer,et al.  A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text , 1995 .

[38]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Pictorial enhancement of text memory: Limitations imposed by picture type and comprehension skill , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[39]  Carl Craig Morris,et al.  Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. , 1990 .

[40]  Thomas M. Hess,et al.  Aging and cognition : knowledge organization and utilization , 1990 .

[41]  R. Dixon,et al.  Chapter Four Metamemory in Adulthood: Differentiating Knowledge, Belief, and Behavior , 1990 .

[42]  Thomas Sanocki,et al.  Enhancing Calibration of Comprehension , 1987 .

[43]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Inexpert calibration of comprehension , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[44]  R. Dixon,et al.  On the differentiation of memory beliefs from memory knowledge: the factor structure of the Metamemory in Adulthood Scale. , 1987, Experimental aging research.

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

[46]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .