Learning about Posterior Probability: Do Diagrams and Elaborative Interrogation Help?

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 84, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 579-599

  Clinton, Virginia ^a   Alibali, Martha W ^b   Nathan, Mitchell J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

diagram; elaborative interrogation; multimedia principle; redundancy principle

Indexed keywords

EID: 84944909708     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: 19400683     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2015.1048847     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Aleven, V. A., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-179. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7
2. Andre, T., & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296-307. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(88)90028-8
3. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181-214. doi: 10.3102/00346543070002181
4. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.774
5. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211-233. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3
6. Bates, D. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. Retrieved from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/book
7. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved from http://cran.R-project.org/package=lme4.
8. Beitzel, B. D., & Staley, R. K. (2015). The efficacy of using diagrams when solving probability word problems in college. Journal of Experimental Education, 83(1), 130-145. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2013.876232
9. Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37(4), 345-363. doi: 10.1007/s11251-008-9051-z
10. Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70. doi: 10.1037/a0013247
11. Beyth-Marom, R., Fidler, F., & Cumming, G. (2008). Statistical cognition: Towards evidence-based practice in statistics and statistics education. Statistics Education Research Journal, 7(2), 20-39. Retrieved from https: //www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/-iase/publications.php?show=serj
12. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. London, UK: McGraw-Hill International.
13. Bramwell, R., West, H., & Salmon, P. (2006). Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: Experimental study. BMJ, 333(7562), 284. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38884.663102.AE
14. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293-332. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0804 2
15. Chiu, J. L., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). Supporting self-explanation in the classroom. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/KbYLtG
16. Crooks, N. M., & Alibali, M. W. (2014). Defining and measuring conceptual knowledge in mathematics. Developmental Review, 34(4), 344-377. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.10.001
17. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002
18. Dornisch, M., Sperling, R. A., & Zeruth, J. A. (2011). The effects of levels of elaboration on learners' strategic processing of text. Instructional Science, 39(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9111-z
19. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., &Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266
20. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2013). Visual representation of statistical information improves diagnostic inferences in doctors and their patients. Social Science & Medicine, 83, 27-33.
21. García-Rodicio, H. (2014). Support for learning from multimedia explanations: A comparison of prompting, signaling, and questioning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(1), 29-43. doi: 10.2190/EC.50.1.b
22. Garfield, J., &Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Developing students' statistical reasoning: Connecting research and teaching practice. New York, NY: Springer.
23. Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Yajima, M. (2012). Why we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 189-211.
24. Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Central Intelligence Agency: Center for the Study of Intelligence. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/ books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/art15.html
25. Holliday, W. G. (1976). Teaching verbal chains using flow diagrams and texts. AV Communication Review, 24, 63-78. doi: 10.1007/BF02768332
26. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
27. Jiang, L., & Elen, J. (2011). Instructional effectiveness of higher-order questions: The devil is in the detail of students' use of questions. Learning Environments Research, 13(3), 279-298. doi: 10.1007/s10984-011- 9095-x
28. Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 178. doi: 10.1037/a0026923
29. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430-454. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
30. Keeler, C., & Steinhorst, K. (2001). A new approach to learning probability in the first statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 9(3), 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/JSE/v9n3/keeler.html
31. Kim, J. Y., & Anderson, T. (2011). Reading across the curriculum: A framework for improving the reading abilities and habits of college students. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 37, 29-40. Retrieved from http://www.j-cll.com/ files/37Kim Anderson.pdf
32. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Konheim-Kalkstein, Y.L. (2008).Facilitation ofBayesian decisionmaking (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN.
34. Leppink, J., Broers, N. J., Imbos, T., van der Vleuten, C. P., & Berger, M. P. (2012). Self-explanation in the domain of statistics: An expertise reversal effect. Higher Education, 63(6), 771-785. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9476-1
35. Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 113. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.113
36. Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Effects of picture labeling on science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 199-214. doi: 10.1002/rrq.41
37. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, (Vol. 2, pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85-139. doi: 10.1016/S0079- 7421(02)80005-6
39. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715
41. Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380
42. Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 31-41. doi: 10.1007/BF02300480
43. McCrudden, M. T., Hushman, C. J., & Marley, S. C. (2014). Exploring the boundary conditions of the redundancy principle. Journal of Experimental Education, 82 (4). 537-554. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2013.813368
44. McDaniel, M. A., & Butler, A. C. (2011). A contextual framework for understanding when difficulties are desirable. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 175-198). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
45. McDaniel, M. A., &Donnelly, C.M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.508
46. McMaster, K. L., van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Carlson, S. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(1), 100-111. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017
47. McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 222-233. doi: 10.3758/BF03195567
48. Morsanyi, K., & Handley, S. (2012). Does thinking make you biased? The case of the engineers and lawyer problem. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 2049-2054.
49. Ortegren, F. R., Serra, M. J., & England, B. D. (2015). Examining competing hypotheses for the effects of diagrams on recall for text. Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 70-84. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0429-7
50. Osborne, J. (2002). Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(6), 1-8. Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=6
51. Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 437-443. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0663.96.3.437
52. Pease, R. S. (2012). Using elaborative interrogation enhanced worked examples to improve chemistry problem solving (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
53. Peverly, S. T., & Wood, R. (2001). The effects of adjunct questions and feedback on improving the reading comprehension skills of learning-disabled adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 25-43. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1025
54. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 291. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291
55. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 268. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.268
56. Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out example principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229-247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., &Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works: A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1-2), 59-82. doi: 10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
58. Richland, L. E., Bjork, R. A., Finley, J. R., & Linn, M. C. (2005). Linking cognitive science to education: Generation and interleaving effects. In B. G. Bara, L. Barsalou, & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1850-1855). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: Effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. Child Development, 77(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00852.x
60. Rouet, J. F., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2002). Mining for meaning: Cognitive effects of inserted questions in learning from scientific text. In J. Otero, J. Leon, A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 417-436). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Royer, J. M. (2001). Developing reading and listening comprehension tests based on the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 30-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40007629
62. Schüler, A., Scheiter, K., Rummer, R., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Explaining the modality effect in multimedia learning: Is it due to a lack of temporal contiguity with written text and pictures? Learning and Instruction, 22(2), 92-102. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.001
63. Schwonke, R., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). How multiple external representations are used and how they can be made more useful. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1227-1243. doi: 10.1002/acp.1526
64. Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (2001). Teaching Bayesian reasoning in less than two hours. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 380-400.
65. Smith, B. L., Holliday, W. G., & Austin, H. W. (2010). Students' comprehension of science textbooks using a questionbased reading strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 363-379. doi: 10.1002/tea.20378
66. Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2012), Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and applied multilevel analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
67. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.127.2.161
68. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
69. Tarmizi, R. A., & Sweller, J. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 424-436. doi: 10.1037/022-0663.80.4.424
70. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 301. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301
71. Willoughby, T., Waller, T. G., Wood, E., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1993). The effect of prior knowledge on an immediate and delayed associative learning task following elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 36-36. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1993.1005
72. Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., &Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.115
73. Zieffler, A., Garfield, J., Alt, S., Dupuis, D., Holleque, K., & Chang, B. (2008). What does research suggest about the teaching and learning of introductory statistics at the college level? A review of the literature. Journal of Statistics Education, 16(2), 1-23.