Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text?

Learning and Instruction

Volumn 51, Issue , 2017, Pages 10-25

  Schleinschok, Katrin ^a,b   Eitel, Alexander ^c   Scheiter, Katharina ^a,b  

^a KNOWLEDGE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive load; Drawing; Learning from text; Metacognition; Monitoring; Self regulated learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013491969     PISSN: 09594752     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Ainsworth, S., DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16 (2006), 183–198, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
2. Alexander, P.A., Calibration: What is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction 24 (2013), 1–3, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.003.
3. Anderson, M.C., Thiede, K.W., Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy?. Acta Psychologica 128 (2008), 110–118, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.10.006.
4. Baars, M., Visser, S., van Gog, T., de Bruin, A., Paas, F., Completion of partially worked-out examples as a generation strategy for improving monitoring accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 38 (2013), 395–406, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.09.001.
5. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (2015), 1–48, 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
6. Benjamin, A.S., Bjork, R.A., Schwartz, B.L., The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127 (1998), 55–68, 10.1037//0096-3445.127.1.55.
7. Bjork, R.A., Dunlosky, J., Kornell, N., Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology 64 (2013), 417–444, 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823.
8. de Bruin, A.B.H., van Gog, T., Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction 22 (2012), 245–252, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.01.003.
9. Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. 2nd ed., 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Dunlosky, J., Nelson, T.O., Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition 20 (1992), 374–380.
11. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Overconfidence produces underachievement: Inaccurate self evaluations undermine students' learning and retention. Learning and Instruction 22:4 (2012), 271–280, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.003.
12. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K.A., Middleton, E.L., What constrains the accuracy of metacomprehension judgments? Testing the transfer-appropriate-monitoring and accessibility hypotheses. Journal of Memory and Language 52 (2005), 551–565.
13. Eitel, A., How repeated studying and testing affects multimedia learning: Evidence for adaptation to task demands. Learning and Instruction 41 (2016), 70–84, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.003.
14. Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H., Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests. 1976, Educational Testing Service, Princeton.
15. Enders, C.K., A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling 8 (2001), 128–141, 10.1207/s15328007sem0801_7.
16. Frey, A., Taskinen, P., Schütte, K., Prenzel, M., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., Pekrun, R., PISA-2006-Skalenhandbuch: Dokumentation der Erhebungsisnstrumente. 2009, Waxmann, Münster.
17. Glenberg, A.M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., Morris, C., Enhancing calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116 (1987), 119–136, 10.1037//0096-3445.116.2.119.
18. Hoffman, L., Rovine, M.J., Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods 39 (2007), 101–117, 10.3758/bf03192848.
19. Jaeger, A.J., Wiley, J., Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy?. Learning and Instruction 34 (2014), 58–73, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002.
20. Kalyuga, S., Cognitive Load Theory: How many types of load does it really need?. Educational Psychology Review 23 (2011), 1–19, 10.1007/s10648-010-9150-7.
21. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Sweller, J., Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13 (1999), 351–371, 10.1002/acp.1773.
22. King, J.F., Zechmeister, E.B., Shaughnessy, J.J., Judgments of knowing: The influence of retrieval practice. The American Journal of Psychology 93 (1980), 329–343, 10.2307/1422236.
23. Kintsch, W., Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. 1998, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory 6 (1980), 107–118, 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107.
25. Koriat, A., Nussinson, R., Ackerman, R., Judgments of learning depend on how learners interpret study effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40 (2014), 1624–1637, 10.1037/xlm0000009.
26. Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., Kealy, W.A., How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text. Educational Technology Research and Development 41 (1993), 47–62, 10.1007/BF02297511.
27. Lenhard, W., Lenhard, A., Berechnung des Lesbarkeitsindex LIX nach Björnson. 2014, Psychometrica, Bibergau Retrieved from http://www.psychometrica.de/lix.html.
28. Leopold, C., Leutner, D., Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction 22 (2012), 16–26, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.
29. Leutner, D., Leopold, C., Sumfleth, E., Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior 25 (2009), 284–289, 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.
30. Lichtenstein, S., Fishhoff, B., Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 183 (1977), 159–183, 10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0.
31. van Loon, M.H., de Bruin, A.B.H., van Gog, T., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Dunlosky, J., Can students evaluate their understanding of cause-and-effect relations? The effects of diagram completion on monitoring accuracy. Acta Psychologica 151 (2014), 143–154, 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.06.007.
32. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Köller, O., Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung: Probleme und Lösungen. Psychologische Rundschau 58:2 (2007), 103–117, 10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103.
33. Mayer, R.E., Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Mayer, R.E., (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2005, Cambridge Univerity Press, 31–48, 10.1017/cbo9781139164603.004.
34. Mazzoni, G., Nelson, T.O., Judgments of learning are affected by the kind of encoding in ways that cannot be attributed to the level of recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21 (1995), 1263–1274, 10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1263.
35. Mengelkamp, C., Bannert, M., Accuracy of confidence judgments: Stability and generality in the learning process and predictive validity for learning outcome. Memory & Cognition 38 (2010), 441–451, 10.3758/MC.38.4.441.
36. Mengelkamp, C., Bannert, M., Confidence judgments in learning. Seel, N.M., (eds.) Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning, 2012, Springer, New York, 756–759, 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6.
37. van Meter, P., Aleksic, M., Schwartz, A., Garner, J., Learner-generated drawing as a strategy for learning from content area text. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31 (2006), 142–166, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.001.
38. van Meter, P., Firetto, C.M., Cognitive model of drawing construction: Learning through the construction of drawings. Learning through visual displays, 2013, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 247–280.
39. van Meter, P., Garner, J., The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review 17 (2005), 285–325, 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.
40. Miele, D.B., Finn, B., Molden, D.C., Does easily learned mean easily remembered?: It depends on your beliefs about intelligence. Psychological Science 22 (2011), 320–324, 10.1177/0956797610397954.
41. Murayama, K., Sakaki, M., Yan, V.X., Smith, G.M., Type I error inflation in the traditional by-participant analysis to metamemory accuracy: A generalized mixed-effects model perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40 (2014), 1287–1306, 10.1037/a0036914.
42. Nelson, T.O., A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin 95 (1984), 109–133, 10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.109.
43. Nelson, T.O., Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist 51 (1996), 102–116, 10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102.
44. Nelson, T.O., Dunlosky, J., When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The delayed-JOL effect. Psychological Science 2 (1991), 267–270, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00147.x.
45. Nelson, T.O., Narens, L., Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 26 (1990), 125–173, 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5.
46. Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J., Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist 38 (2003), 1–4, 10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1.
47. Paas, F., Sweller, J., Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. Mayer, R.E., (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2nd ed., 2014, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 27–42.
48. Paik, E.S., Schraw, G., Learning with animation and illusions of understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (2013), 278–289, 10.1037/a0030281.
49. Paivio, A., Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology 45 (1991), 255–287, 10.1037/h0084295.
50. Pashler, H., Wagenmakers, E.J., Editors' introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7 (2012), 528–530, 10.1177/1745691612465253.
51. Pieger, E., Mengelkamp, C., Bannert, M., Metacognitive judgments and disfluency – does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance?. Learning and Instruction 44 (2016), 31–40, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012.
52. Quillin, K., Thomas, S., Drawing-to-Learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education 14 (2015), 1–16, 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128.
53. Rawson, K.A., Dunlosky, J., Are performance predictions for text based on ease of processing?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28 (2002), 69–80, 10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.69.
54. Redford, J.S., Thiede, K.W., Wiley, J., Griffin, T.D., Concept mapping improves metacomprehension accuracy among 7th graders. Learning and Instruction 22 (2012), 262–270, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.007.
55. Schmeck, A., Mayer, R.E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., Leutner, D., Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology 39 (2014), 275–286, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003.
56. Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., Ennemoser, M., LGVT 6-12 Lesegeschwindigkeits- und verständnistest für die Klassen 6-12 Manual. 2007, Hogrefe, Göttingen.
57. Schraw, G., A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning 4 (2009), 33–45, 10.1007/s11409-008-9031-3.
58. Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., Leutner, D., Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011), 89–93, 10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028.
59. Serra, M.J., Dunlosky, J., Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory 18 (2010), 698–711, 10.1080/09658211.2010.506441.
60. Shanks, L.L., Serra, M.J., Domain familiarity as a cue for judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21 (2014), 445–453, 10.3758/s13423-013-0513-1.
61. Snijders, T.A.B., Bosker, R.J., Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 2nd ed., 2012, Sage Publishers, London.
62. Son, L.K., Metcalfe, J., Metacognitive and control strategies in study-time allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 (2000), 204–221, 10.1037//0278-7393.26.1.204.
63. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Cognitive load theory. Cognitive load theory. 2011, Springer, New York, 10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4.
64. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.G.W.C., Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10 (1998), 251–296, 10.1023/A:10221937282050.
65. Thiede, K.W., Anderson, M.C.M., Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 28 (2003), 129–160, 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00011-5.
66. Thiede, K.W., Anderson, M.C.M., Therriault, D., Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (2003), 66–73, 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66.
67. Thiede, K.W., Dunlosky, J., Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25:4 (1999), 1024–1037, 10.1037//0278-7393.25.4.1024.
68. Zhao, Q., Linderholm, T., Adult Metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review 20 (2008), 191–206, 10.1007/s10648-008-9073-8.