Learning with summaries: Effects of representation mode and type of learning activity on comprehension and transfer

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 27, Issue , 2013, Pages 40-49

  Leopold, Claudia ^a   Sumfleth, Elke ^a   Leutner, Detlev ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUISBURG ESSEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Drawing; Multimedia learning; Pictorial summary; Summarization; Verbal summary

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877337272     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Alesandrini K.L. Pictorial-verbal and analytic-holistic learning strategies in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 1981, 73:358-368.
2. Amstad, T. (1978). Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? [How easily readable are our newspapers?] (Doctoral dissertation). Zürich: Studenten-Schreib-Service.
3. Anderson T.H., Armbruster B.B. Studying. Handbook of reading research 2000, Vol. III:657-679. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
4. Anderson M.C.M., Thiede K.W. Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy?. Acta Psychologica 2008, 128:110-118.
5. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51:1173-1182.
6. Best R., Rowe M., Ozuru Y., McNamara D.S. Deep-level comprehension of science texts. Topics in Language Disorders 2005, 25:65-83.
7. Borst G., Kosslyn S.M. Scanning visual mental images: some structural implications. From mental imagery to spatial cognition and language 2012, 19-42. Revisited, Psychology Press, London. V. Gyselinck, F. Pazzaglia (Eds.).
8. Bråten I., Strømsø H.I. Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes 2010, 47:1-31.
9. Brown A.L., Day J.D., Jones R.S. The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development 1983, 54:968-979.
10. Byrne B.M. Structural equation modelling with Mplus 2012, Taylor & Francis group, New York.
11. Denis M. Assessing the symbolic distance effect in mental images constructed from verbal descriptions: a study of individual differences in the mental comparison of distances. Acta Psychologica 2008, 127:197-210. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.05.006.
12. Ekstrom R.B., French J.W., Harman H.H., Dermen D. Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests 1976, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.
13. Finke R.A., Pinker S. Spontaneous imagery scanning in mental extrapolation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1982, 8:142-147.
14. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 1948, 32:221-233.
15. Flower L., Hayes J. The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. Cognitive processes in writing 1980, 31-50. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. L. Gregg, E. Steinberg (Eds.).
16. Foos P.W., Mora J.J., Tkacz S. Student study techniques and the generation effect. Journal of Educational Psychology 1994, 86:567-576.
17. Garner R. Text summarization deficiencies among older students: awareness or production ability?. American Educational Research Journal 1985, 22:549-560.
18. Garner R., Alexander P.A. Metacognition: answered and unanswered questions. Educational Psychologist 1989, 24:143-158.
19. Gil L., Bråten I., Vidal-Abarca E., Strømsø H.I. Summary versus argument tasks when working with multiple documents: which is better for whom?. Contemporary Educational Psychology 2010, 35:157-173.
20. Gil L., Bråten I., Vidal-Abarca E., Strømsø H.I. Understanding and integrating multiple science texts: summary tasks are sometimes better than argument tasks. Reading Psychology 2010, 31:30-68.
21. Hall V.C., Bailey J., Tillman C. Can student-generated illustrations be worth ten thousand words?. Journal of Educational Psychology 1997, 89:667-681.
22. Head M.H., Readence J.E., Buss R.R. An examination of summary writing as a measure of reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction 1989, 28:1-11.
23. Hegarty M. Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8:280-285.
24. Heller K.A., Perleth C. Kognitiver Fähigkeitstest für 4.-12. Klassen, Revision 2000, Hogrefe, Göttingen, Germany.
25. Hidi S., Anderson V. Producing written summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research 1986, 56:473-493.
26. Hilbert T.S., Renkl A. Concept mapping as a follow-up strategy to learning from texts: what characterizes good and poor mappers?. Instructional Science 2008, 36:53-73.
27. Höffler T.N. Spatial ability: Its influence on Learning with visualizations - a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review 2010, 22:245-269.
28. Howe M.J.A., Singer L. Presentation variables and student activities in meaningful learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology 1975, 45:52-61.
29. Johnson-Laird P.N. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness 1983, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
30. Kalyuga S., Ayres P., Chandler P., Sweller J. The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 2003, 38:23-31.
31. Kiewra K.A. A review of note-taking: the encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review 1989, 1:147-172.
32. Kintsch W. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
33. Kintsch W., van Dijk T.A. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review 1978, 85:363-394.
34. Larkin J.H., Simon H.A. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten, thousand words. Cognitive Science 1987, 11:65-99.
35. León J.A. The effects of headlines and summaries on news comprehension and recall. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1997, 9:85-106.
36. Leopold C., Leutner D. Science text comprehension: drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction 2012, 22:16-26.
37. Leutner D., Leopold C., den Elzen-Rump V. Self-regulated learning with a text-highlighting strategy: a training experiment. Journal of Psychology 2007, 21:174-182.
38. Leutner D., Leopold C., Sumfleth E. Cognitive load and science text comprehension: effects of drawing and imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior 2009, 25:284-289.
39. Levin J.R., Mayer R.E. Understanding illustrations in text. Learning from textbooks 1993, 95-113. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. B.K. Britton, A. Woodward, M. Binkley (Eds.).
40. MacKinnon D.P. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis 2008, Lawrence Erlbaum Association, New York.
41. McNamara D.S., Kintsch E., Songer N.B., Kintsch W. Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction 1996, 14:1-43.
42. McNamara D.S., Ozuru Y., Best R., O'Reilly T. The 4-pronged comprehension strategy framework. Reading comprehension strategies 2007, 465-496. Erlbaum, New York. D.S. McNamara (Ed.).
43. Mateos M., Martin E., Villalón R., Luna M. Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2008, 21:675-697.
44. Mayer R.E. Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: the SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review 1996, 8:357-371.
45. Mayer R.E. Multimedia learning 2009, Cambridge University Press, New York. 2nd ed.
46. Mayer R.E., Bove W., Bryman A., Mars R., Tapangco L. When less is more: meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology 1996, 88:64-73.
47. Mayer R.E., Gallini J.K. When is an illustration worth ten thousand words?. Journal of Educational Psychology 1990, 82:715-726.
48. Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
49. Pintrich P.R. The role of goal-orientation in self-regulated learning. The handbook of self-regulation 2000, 451-502. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.).
50. Pressley M., Harris K.R. Cognitive strategy instruction: from basic research to classroom instruction. Handbook of educational psychology 2006, 265-286. Academic, San Diego. 2nd ed. P. Alexander, P. Winne (Eds.).
51. Renkl A., Atkinson R.K. Interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review 2007, 19:235-238.
52. Samuelstuen M.S., Bråten I. Examining the validity of self-reports on scales measuring students' strategic processing. British Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 77:351-378.
53. Schmalhofer F., Glavanov D. Three components of understanding a programmer's manual: verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language 1986, 25:279-294.
54. Schnotz W., Bannert M. Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 2003, 13:141-156.
55. Schwamborn A., Thillmann H., Leopold C., Sumfleth E., Leutner D. Der Einsatz von vorgegebenen und selbst generierten Bildern als Textverstehenshilfe beim Lernen aus einem naturwissenschaftlichen Sachtext. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie[German Journal of Educational Psychology] 2010, 24:221-233.
56. Slotte V., Lonka K. Review and process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology 1999, 24:1-20.
57. Spörer N., Brunstein J.C., Kieschke U. Improving students' reading comprehension skills: effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction 2009, 19:272-286.
58. Stull A.S., Mayer R.E. Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology 2007, 99:808-820.
59. Taylor B.M., Beach R.W. The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly 1984, 19:134-146.
60. Van Meter P. Drawing construction as a strategy for learning form text. Journal of Educational Psychology 2001, 93:129-140.
61. Van Meter P., Garner J. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review 2005, 17:285-325.
62. Wade-Stein D., Kintsch E. Summary street: interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction 2004, 22:333-362.
63. Weinstein C.E., Mayer R.E. The teaching of learning strategies. Handbook of research on teaching 1986, 315-327. Mac, New York. M.C. Wittrock (Ed.).
64. Westby C., Culatta B., Lawrence B., Hall-Kenyon K. Summarizing expository texts. Topics in Language Disorders 2010, 30:275-287.
65. Wiley J., Voss J.F. Constructing arguments from multiple sources: tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology 1999, 91:301-311.
66. Wittrock M.C. Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist 1990, 24:345-376.
67. Wittrock M.C., Alesandrini K. Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal 1990, 27:489-502.
68. Zimmerman B.J. Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives 2001, 1-37. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 2nd ed. B.J. Zimmerman, D.H. Schunk (Eds.).