Is comprehension of problem solutions resistant to misleading heuristic cues?

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 143, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 105-112

  Ackerman, Rakefet ^a   Leiser, David ^b   Shpigelman, Maya ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

Illustrations; Judgment of comprehension; Metacognitive monitoring; Problem solving

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; HUMAN; LEARNING; LOGIC; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STUDENT;

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; CUES; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LEARNING; LOGIC; PROBLEM SOLVING; RESEARCH DESIGN; STUDENTS; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84875777463     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.004     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Ackerman R., Goldsmith M. Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied 2011, 17(1):18-32.
2. Ackerman R., Lauterman T. Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior 2012, 28:1816-1828.
3. Ackerman R., Zalmanov H. The persistence of the fluency-confidence association in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2012, 19:1187-1192.
4. Agarwal P.K., Karpicke J.D., Kang S.H.K., Roediger Iii H.L., McDermott K.B. Examining the testing effect with open-and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22(7):861-876.
5. Ainsworth S. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 2006, 16(3):183-198.
6. Aleven V., Koedinger K. Limitations of student control: Do students know when they need help?. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2000 2000, 292-303. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, K. VanLehn (Eds.).
7. Anderson M.C.M., Thiede K.W. Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy?. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:110-118.
8. Atkinson R.K., Derry S.J., Renkl A., Wortham D. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research 2000, 70(2):181-214.
9. Carney R.N., Levin J.R. Pictorial illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review 2002, 14(1):5-26.
10. Chandler P., Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 1991, 8(4):293-332.
11. Chen Z., Daehler M.W. External and internal instantiation of abstract information facilitates transfer in insight problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2000, 25(4):423-449.
12. Clark J.M., Paivio A. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 1991, 3(3):149-210.
13. de Regt H.W. Discussion note: Making sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 2004, 71(1):98-109.
14. Evans J.S.B.T., Handley S.J., Neilens H., Over D. The influence of cognitive ability and instructional set on causal conditional inference. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010, 63(5):892-909.
15. Garner R., Gillingham M.G., White C.S. Effects of "seductive details" on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction 1989, 6(1):41-57.
16. Harp S.F., Mayer R.E. The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, 89(1):92-102.
17. Heijne-Penninga M., Kuks J.B.M., Hofman W.H.A., Cohen-Schotanus J. Directing students to profound open-book test preparation: The relationship between deep learning and open-book test time. Medical Teacher 2011, 33(1):e16-e21.
18. Kieras D. Beyond pictures and words: Alternative information-processing models for imagery effect in verbal memory. Psychological Bulletin 1978, 85(3):532-554.
19. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition 1998, Cambridge, New York.
20. Koriat A., Bjork R.A. Mending metacognitive illusions: A comparison of mnemonic-based and theory-based procedures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2006, 32(5):1133-1145.
21. Koriat A., Goldsmith M. Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of memory accuracy. Psychological Review 1996, 103:490-517.
22. Lichtenstein S., Fischhoff B., Phillips L.D. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to l980. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases 1982, 306-334.
23. Lin L.M., Zabrucky K.M. Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1998, 23:345-391.
24. Luo J., Knoblich G. Studying insight problem solving with neuroscientific methods. Methods 2007, 42(1):77-86.
25. Mayer R.E. Multimedia aids to problem-solving transfer. International Journal of Educational Research 1999, 31(7):611-623.
26. Mayer R.E., Heiser J., Lonn S. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93(1):187-198.
27. Merrill M.D. First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development 2002, 50(3):43-59.
28. Metcalfe J., Finn B. Evidence that judgments of learning are causally related to study choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15(1):174-179.
29. Metcalfe J., Wiebe D. Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory and Cognition 1987, 15(3):238-246.
30. Mevarech Z.R., Kramarski B. IMPROVE: A multidimensional method for teaching mathematics in heterogeneous classrooms. American Educational Research Journal 1997, 34(2):365-394.
31. Mevarech Z.R., Terkieltaub S., Vinberger T., Nevet V. The effects of meta-cognitive instruction on third and sixth graders solving word problems. ZDM Mathematics Education 2010, 42(2):195-203.
32. Morrell R.W., Park D.C. The effects of age, illustrations, and task variables on the performance of procedural assembly tasks. Psychology and Aging 1993, 8(3):389-399.
33. Nelson T.O., Narens L. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory 1990, Vol. 26:125-173. G. Bower (Ed.).
34. Novick L.R., Sherman S.J. The effects of superficial and structural information on online problem solving for good versus poor anagram solvers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61(7):1098-1120.
35. Piaget J. The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development 1985, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
36. Prangsma M.E., Boxtel C.A.M., Kanselaar G., Kirschner P.A. Concrete and abstract visualizations in history learning tasks. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2009, 79(2):371-387.
37. Rawson K.A., Dunlosky J. Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2002, 28(1):69-80.
38. Sadoski M., Goetz E.T., Fritz J.B. Impact of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and memory for text: Implications for dual coding theory and text design. Journal of Educational Psychology 1993, 85(2):291-304.
39. Sanchez C.A., Wiley J. An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34(2):344-355.
40. Sasson I., Dori Y.J. Transfer skills and their case-based assessment. The second international handbook of science education 2012, 219-250. Springer, Netherlands.
41. Serra M.J., Dunlosky J. Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory 2010, 18(7):698-711.
42. Smith J.P., diSessa A.A., Roschelle J. Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 1993, 3:115-163.
43. Insight 2005, Oxford University Press. C. Soanes, S. Hawker (Eds.).
44. Son L.K., Sethi R. Adaptive learning and the allocation of time. Adaptive Behavior 2010, 18(2):132-140.
45. Stone D.E., Glock M.D. How do young adults read directions with and without pictures?. Journal of Educational Psychology 1981, 73(3):419-426.
46. Strange D., Garry M., Bernstein D.M., Lindsay D.S. Photographs cause false memories for the news. Acta Psychologica 2011, 136(1):90-94.
47. Suantak L., Bolger F., Ferrell W.R. The hard-easy effect in subjective probability calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996, 67(2):201-221.
48. Thiede K.W., Anderson M.C.M., Therriault D. Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology 2003, 95(1):66-73.
49. Thiede K.W., Griffin T.D., Wiley J., Anderson M.C.M. Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use. Discourse Processes 2010, 47(4):331-362.
50. Thiede K.W., Wiley J., Griffin T.D. Test expectancy affects metacomprehension accuracy. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2011, 81:264-273.
51. Thompson V.A., Prowse Turner J., Pennycook G. Intuition, reason, and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology 2011, 63(3):107-140.
52. Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. A. P., Pennycook, G., Ball, L. J., Brack, H., Ophir, Y., et al. (in press). The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition.
53. Topolinski S., Reber R. Immediate truth - Temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution. Cognition 2010, 114(1):117-122.
54. Trout J.D. Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding. Philosophy of Science 2002, 69(2):212-233.
55. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185:1124-1131.
56. Wahlheim C.N., Finn B., Jacoby L.L. Metacognitive judgments of repetition and variability effects in natural concept learning: Evidence for variability neglect. Memory & Cognition 2012, 1-14.
57. Winne P.H. Students' calibration of knowledge and learning processes: Implications for designing powerful software learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research 2004, 41(6):466-488.
58. Winne P.H., Nesbit J.C. Supporting self-regulated learning with cognitive tools. Handbook of metacognition in education 2009, 259-277. Routledge, New York. D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A.C. Graesser (Eds.).
59. Wong L.H., Looi C.K. Swarm intelligence: New techniques for adaptive systems to provide learning support. Interactive Learning Environments 2012, 20(1):19-40.
60. Zaromb F.M., Karpicke J.D., Roediger H.L. Comprehension as a basis for metacognitive judgments: Effects of effort after meaning on recall and metacognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2010, 36(2):552-557.