Who Benefits from Diagrams and Illustrations in Math Problems? Ability and Attitudes Matter

Summary: How do diagrams and illustrations affect mathematical problem solving? Past research suggests that diagrams should promote correct performance. However, illustrations may provide a supportive context for problem solving, or they may distract students with seductive details. Moreover, effects may not be uniform across student subgroups. This study assessed the effects of diagrams and illustrations on undergraduates' trigonometry problem solving. We used a 2 (Diagram Presence) × 2 (Illustration Presence) within-subjects design, and our analysis considered students' mathematics ability and attitudes towards mathematics. Participants solved problems more accurately when they included diagrams. This effect was stronger for students who had more positive mathematics attitudes, especially when there was an illustration present. Illustrations were beneficial for students with high mathematics ability but detrimental for students with lower ability. Considering individual differences in ability and attitude is essential for understanding the effects of different types of visual representations on problem solving.Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  C. Moore.  MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE. , 1935, Science.

[2]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning , 1988, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  C. S. White,et al.  Effects of 'Seductive Details' on Macroprocessing and Microprocessing in Adults and Children , 1989 .

[5]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction , 1991 .

[6]  R. Mayer,et al.  The instructive animation: helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning , 1992 .

[7]  R. Mayer,et al.  Brief Note: A Comparison of How Textbooks Teach Mathematical Problem Solving in Japan and the United States , 1995 .

[8]  J. Eccles,et al.  In the Mind of the Actor: The Structure of Adolescents' Achievement Task Values and Expectancy-Related Beliefs , 1995 .

[9]  R. Mayer,et al.  The Role of Interest in Learning From Scientific Text and Illustrations: On the Distinction Between Emotional Interest and Cognitive Interest , 1997 .

[10]  Xin Ma,et al.  Assessing the Relationship between Attitude toward Mathematics and Achievement in Mathematics: A Meta-Analysis. , 1997 .

[11]  Paul Chandler,et al.  Levels of Expertise and Instructional Design , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Gregory Schraw.  Promoting general metacognitive awareness , 1998 .

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

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

[15]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Types of visual–spatial representations and mathematical problem solving. , 1999 .

[16]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[17]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Situational Interest: A Review of the Literature and Directions for Future Research , 2001 .

[18]  Russell N. Carney,et al.  Pictorial Illustrations Still Improve Students' Learning from Text , 2002 .

[19]  S. Hidi,et al.  Interest, Learning, and the Psychological Processes That Mediate Their Relationship. , 2002 .

[20]  S. Dika,et al.  Mathematics and Science Achievement: Effects of Motivation, Interest, and Academic Engagement , 2002 .

[21]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning: The Promise of Multimedia Learning , 2001 .

[22]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[23]  J. Confrey,et al.  Projecting rate of change in the context of motion onto the context of money , 2003 .

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

[25]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[26]  Mitchell J. Nathan,et al.  The Real Story Behind Story Problems: Effects of Representations on Quantitative Reasoning , 2004 .

[27]  J. Sweller.  Instructional Design Consequences of an Analogy between Evolution by Natural Selection and Human Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[28]  R. Moreno.  Decreasing Cognitive Load for Novice Students: Effects of Explanatory versus Corrective Feedback in Discovery-Based Multimedia , 2004 .

[29]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[30]  J. Sweller.  Implications of Cognitive Load Theory for Multimedia Learning , 2005, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.

[31]  Roxana Moreno,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: Multimedia Learning with Animated Pedagogical Agents , 2005 .

[32]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[33]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[34]  R. Moreno.  Learning in High-Tech and Multimedia Environments , 2006 .

[35]  David W. Carraher,et al.  Arithmetic and Algebra in Early Mathematics Education , 2006 .

[36]  Kirsten R. Butcher.  Learning from Text with Diagrams: Promoting Mental Model Development and Inference Generation. , 2006 .

[37]  Slava Kalyuga.  Expertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction , 2007 .

[38]  T. Karsenti,et al.  Relations among competence beliefs, utility value, achievement goals, and effort in mathematics. , 2007, The British journal of educational psychology.

[39]  Matthew T. McCrudden,et al.  Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text , 2007 .

[40]  R. Mayer,et al.  Interactive Multimodal Learning Environments , 2007 .

[41]  J. Harackiewicz,et al.  Different Strokes for Different Folks: How Individual Interest Moderates the Effects of Situational Factors on Task Interest. , 2007 .

[42]  Jamea C. HoCreskey,et al.  THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING , 2008 .

[43]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  Trade-Offs Between Grounded and Abstract Representations: Evidence From Algebra Problem Solving , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[44]  Kenneth R. Koedinger,et al.  When do diagrams enhance learning? A framework for designing relevant representations , 2008, ICLS.

[45]  R. Mayer.  Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[46]  Ernest C. D. M. van Lieshout,et al.  The effect of illustrations in arithmetic problem-solving: Effects of increased cognitive load , 2009 .

[47]  Nicole M. McNeil,et al.  Should you show me the money? Concrete objects both hurt and help performance on mathematics problems , 2009 .

[48]  Nur Sırmacı.  The relationship between the attitudes towards mathematics and learning styles , 2010 .

[49]  Sanford Weisberg,et al.  An R Companion to Applied Regression , 2010 .

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

[51]  Robert M. Gonyea,et al.  Accuracy of Self-reported SAT and ACT Test Scores: Implications for Research , 2010 .

[52]  R. Moreno,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory: Cognitive Load Theory: Historical Development and Relation to Other Theories , 2010 .

[53]  F. Paas,et al.  Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. , 2011 .

[54]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations? , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[55]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[56]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory , 2020, Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies.

[57]  Julie L. Booth,et al.  Are diagrams always helpful tools? developmental and individual differences in the effect of presentation format on student problem solving. , 2012, The British journal of educational psychology.

[58]  Günter Daniel Rey.  A Review of Research and a Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Detail Effect. , 2012 .

[59]  Richard E. Mayer,et al.  Students' beliefs about mobile devices Vs. desktop computers in South Korea and the United States , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[60]  T. Gog,et al.  Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[61]  R. Bjork,et al.  Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. , 2013, Annual review of psychology.

[62]  Candace Walkington,et al.  Using adaptive learning technologies to personalize instruction to student interests: The impact of relevant contexts on performance and learning outcomes. , 2013 .

[63]  D. Leutner.  Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning , 2014 .

[64]  V. Aleven,et al.  Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments , 2014 .

[65]  L. Verschaffel,et al.  The Impact of Illustrations and Warnings on Solving Mathematical Word Problems Realistically , 2014 .

[66]  Yongmin Chang,et al.  Effects of seductive details evidenced by gaze duration , 2014, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory.

[67]  Daniel M. Belenky,et al.  The Effects of Idealized and Grounded Materials on Learning, Transfer, and Interest: An Organizing Framework for Categorizing External Knowledge Representations , 2014 .

[68]  R. Mayer,et al.  Benefits of emotional design in multimedia instruction , 2014 .

[69]  R. Mayer.  Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning , 2014 .

[70]  Elizabeth O. Hayward,et al.  Emotional design in multimedia learning: Effects of shape and color on affect and learning , 2014 .

[71]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Do Learner Characteristics Moderate the Seductive-Details-Effect? A Cognitive-Load-Study Using Eye-Tracking , 2015, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[72]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[73]  Roland Brünken,et al.  Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning , 2015, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[74]  Leigh A. Mingle,et al.  Considering Cognitive Factors in Interest Research: Context Personalization and Illustrations in Math Curricula. , 2016 .

[75]  Martha W. Alibali,et al.  Does Comparing Informal and Formal Procedures Promote Mathematics Learning? The Benefits of Bridging Depend on Attitudes Toward Mathematics , 2016, J. Probl. Solving.

[76]  Olusola O. Adesope,et al.  Exploring the effects of seductive details with the 4-phase model of interest , 2016 .

[77]  Greg McVerry.  Applying the Science of Learning: Evidence-Based Principles for the Design of MultimediaInstruction , 2019 .