Effects of three diagram instruction methods on transfer of diagram comprehension skills: The critical role of inference while learning

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 26, Issue , 2013, Pages 45-58

  Cromley, Jennifer G ^a   Bergey, Bradley W ^a   Fitzhugh, Shannon ^a   Newcombe, Nora ^a   Wills, Theodore W ^a   Shipley, Thomas F ^a   Tanaka, Jacqueline C ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Inference; Instruction; Knowledge; Multiple representations; Transfer of student learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875095399     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ainsworth S., Burcham S. The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction 2007, 17(3):286-303. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.004.
2. Ainsworth S., Loizou A.Th The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science 2003, 27(4):669-681. 10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00033-8.
3. Ainsworth S., Prain V., Tytler R. Drawing to learn in science. Science 2011, 333(6046):1096-1097. 10.1126/science.1204153.
4. Atkinson R.K., Renkl A., Merrill M.M. Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 95:774-783. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774.
5. Bergey, B., Cromley, J. G., Dai, T., Fitzhugh, S., & Wills, T. (2011). Teaching inferential reasoning with diagrams in high school biology classes: Who gains from selfexplanation training?. Paper presented at a roundtable entitled " The use of instructional tools to improve learning outcomes" at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 8-12.
6. Berthold K., Eysink T.H.S., Renkl A. Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science 2009, 37:345-363. 10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z.
7. Berthold K., Röder H., Knörzer D., Kessler W., Renkl A. The double-edged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27:69-75. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.025.
8. Butcher K. Learning from text with diagrams: promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology 2006, 98(1):182-197. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182.
9. Canham M., Hegarty M. Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20(2):155-166. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.014.
10. Chi M.T.H. Self-explaining expository texts: the dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in instructional psychology 2000, 161-238. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. R. Glaser (Ed.).
11. Chi M., Bassok M., Lewis M., Reimann P., Glaser R. Self-explanations: how students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science 1989, 13(2):145-182. 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1.
12. Chi M.H., deLeeuw N., Chiu M., LaVancher C. Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 1994, 18(3):439-477.
13. Cromley J.G., Perez A.C., Fitzhugh S., Tanaka J., Newcombe N., Wills T.W. Teaching effective use of diagrammatic reasoning in biology 2010, Paper presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO, April 30-May 4.
14. Cromley J., Snyder-Hogan L.E., Luciw-Dubas U.A. Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2010, 35:59-74. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002.
15. De Koning B.B., Tabbers H.K., Rikers R.M.J.P., Paas F. Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2011, 25(2):183-194. 10.1002/acp.1661.
16. Florax M., Ploetzner R. What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labelling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20(3):216-224. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021.
17. Gobert J., Clement J. Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 1999, 36(1):39-53. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-I.
18. Graesser A.C., Olde B.A. How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 95(3):524-536. 10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.524.
19. Hausmann R.G., Chi M.T.H. Can a computer interface support self-explaining?. Cognitive Technology 2002, 7(1):4-14.
20. Hausmann R.G.M., Nokes T.J., VanLehn K., van de Sande B. Collaborative dialog while studying worked-out examples. Artificial intelligence in education 2009, IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands. V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, B. Du Boulay, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
21. Hegarty M. Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1992, 18(5):1084-1102. 10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1084.
22. Hegarty M. Multimedia learning about physical systems. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 447-465. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY US. R.E. Mayer, R.E. Mayer (Eds.).
23. Hegarty M., Canham M.S., Fabrikant S.I. Thinking about the weather: how display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36(1):37-53. 10.1037/a0017683.
24. Hmelo-Silver C., Pfeffer M. Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science 2004, 28(1):127-138. 10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00065-X.
25. Karpicke J.D., Blunt J.R. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science 2011, 331:772-775. 10.1126/science.1199327.
26. Kastens K.A., Liben L.S. Eliciting self-explanations improves children's performance on a field-based map skills task. Cognition and Instruction 2007, 25(1):45-74. 10.1080/07370000709336702.
27. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review 1988, 95(2):163-182. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
28. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
29. Kirsch I.S. The framework used in developing and interpreting the international adult literacy survey (IALS). European Journal of Psychology of Education 2001, 16(3):335-361. 10.1007/BF03173187.
30. Kriz S., Hegarty M. Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 2007, 65(11):911-930. 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.005.
31. Kühl T., Scheiter K., Gerjets P., Gemballa S. Can differences in learning strategies explain the benefits of learning from static and dynamic visualizations?. Computers & Education 2011, 56:176-187. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.008.
32. Kuhn D., Katz J. Are self-explanations always beneficial?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2009, 103:386-394. 10.1016/j.jecp.2009.03.003.
33. Larkin J., Simon H. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11(1):65-100. 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5.
34. Leopold C., Leutner D. Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22:16-26. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.
35. Leutner D., Leopold C., Sumfleth E. Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25(2):284-289. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.
36. Lewalter D. Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13(2):177-189. 10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00019-1.
37. Lowe R.K. Constructing a mental representation from an abstract technical diagram. Learning and Instruction 1993, 3(3):157-179.
38. Matthews P., Rittle-Johnson B. In pursuit of knowledge: comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 2009, 104:1-21. 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.08.004.
39. McCrudden M.T., McCormick M.K., McTigue E.M. Do the spatial features of an adjunct display that readers complete while reading affect their understanding of a complex system?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 2011, 9(1):163-185. 10.1007/s10763-010-9236-1.
40. McTigue E.M. Does multimedia learning theory extend to middle-school students?. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2009, 34(2):143-153. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.003.
41. McTigue E.M., Croix A. Illustration inquiry: visual literacy in science. Science Scope 2010, 33:17-22.
42. van Meter P. Drawing construction as a strategy for learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93(1):129-140. 10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.129.
43. van Meter P., Aleksic M., Schwartz A., Garner J. Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2006, 31:142-166. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.
44. van Meter P., Garner J. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review 2005, 17(4):285-325. 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.
45. Narayanan H., Hegarty M. On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1998, 48(2):267-301. 10.1006/ijhc.1997.0169.
46. National Research Council, National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment National science education standards 1996, The National Academies Press, Washington DC.
47. Nokes T.J., Hausmann R.G.M., VanLehn K., Gershman S. Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: the case of self-explanation prompts. Instructional Science 2011, 39(5):645-666. 10.1007/s11251-010-9151-4.
48. Ozuru Y., Briner S., Best R., McNamara D.S. Contributions of self-explanation to comprehension of high- and low-cohesion texts. Discourse Processes 2010, 47(8):641-667. 10.1080/01638531003628809.
49. Postlethwait J.H., Hopson J.L. Modern biology 2006, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Orlando, FL.
50. Pozzer-Ardenghi L., Roth W. Making sense of photographs. Science Education 2005, 89(2):219-241.
51. Pozzer L., Roth W. Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2003, 40(10):1089-1114. 10.1002/tea.10122.
52. Pressley M., Harris K. Cognitive strategies instruction: from basic research to classroom instruction. Handbook of educational psychology 2006, 265-286. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. P. Alexander, P. Winne (Eds.).
53. RAND Reading Research Study Group Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension 2002, RAND, Washington, DC.
54. Renkl A. Learning from worked-out examples: a study on individual differences. Cognitive Science 1997, 21(1):1-29. 10.1016/S0364-0213(99)80017-2.
55. Renkl A., Atkinson R.K. Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: a cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38:15-22. 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3.
56. Rotbain Y., Marbach-Ad G., Stavy R. The effect of bead and illustration models on high school student achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006, 43(5):500-529. 10.1002/tea.20144.
57. Roth K.J., Druker S.L., Garnier H.E., Lemmens M., Chen C., Kawanaka T., et al. Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study statistical analysis report 2006, Retrieved 16.06.06, from. http://www.nces.ed.gov.
58. Roy M., Chi M.T.H. Self-explanation in a multi-media context. Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 271-286. Cambridge University Press, New York. R. Mayer (Ed.).
59. Schmidt-Weigand F., Kohnert A., Glowalla U. A closer look at split visual attention in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 2010, 20(2):100-110. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.011.
60. Schnotz W. An integrated model of text and picture comprehension. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 49-69. Cambridge University Press, NY. R. Mayer (Ed.).
61. Schwamborn A., Mayer R.E., Thillmann H., Leopold C., Leutner D. Drawing as a generative activity and drawing as a prognostic activity. Journal of Educational Psychology 2010, 102(4):872-879. 10.1037/a0019640.
62. Schwamborn A., Thillmann H., Opfermann M., Leutner D. Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior 2011, 27(1):89-93. 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028.
63. Seufert T., Schütze M., Brünken R. Memory characteristics and modality in multimedia learning: an aptitude-treatment-interaction study. Learning and Instruction 2009, 19(1):28-42. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.01.002.
64. Shah P., Freedman E.G. Bar and line graph comprehension: an interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science 2011, 3:560-578. 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01066.x.
65. Siegler R.S., Lin X. Self-explanations promote children's learning. Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction 2009, 85-113. Guilford Publications, New York. H.S. Waters, W. Schneider (Eds.).
66. Van Merriënboer J.J.G., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Medical Education 2010, 44:85-93.
67. Velicer W.F. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 1976, 4l:321-327. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.