|
|
|
| The cues of learners' metacomprehension monitoring during multimedia learning |
| HAN Tingting, YU Feng, CHEN Qiong, ZHAO Junfeng |
1 Hubei University of Economics, Wuhan 430205;
2 Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079;
3 Institute of Psychology and Behavior, Henan University, Kaifeng 475004 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract There were most controversy for the cues of metacomprehension monitoring. This study explored the cues of learners' metacomprehension monitoring by using three experiments. The results found that the multimedia superiority beliefs impact learner's metacomprehension monitoring during multimedia learning. Compared to the learners who accepted text-only presentations, the learners who accepted the multimedia presentations made higher metacomprehnsion judgment. Giving warning before could help the learner make metacomprehension judgment more effectively during multimedia learning. Compared to the learners who accepted text-only presentations, learners could get more metacomprehension monitoring characterization cues during multimedia learning. The result was meaningful for learners and teachers. If the learners used multimedia presentation, they should realize that the multimedia belief may mislead themself, and the teachers should label the key points in the teaching contents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 陈启山. (2007). 元理解监控的精确性及其延迟关键词效应.心理科学进展, 15(2), 295-300.
[2] 陈启山. (2009). 阅读中的元理解监测与元理解调控.心理学报, 41(8), 676-683.
[3] 陈启山, 李利. (2008). 理解评估与成绩预测: 两种不同的元理解监测形式.心理学报, 40(9), 961-968.
[4] 赵俊峰. (2011). 解密学业负担:学习过程中的认知负荷研究. 北京: 科学出版社.
[5] Anderson, M. C. M., & Thiede, K. W. (2008). Why do delayed summaries improve metacomprehension accuracy?Acta Psychologica, 128(1), 110-118.
[6] Crooks S. M., Cheon J., Inan F., … Flores R. (2007). Modality and cueing in multimedia learning: Examining cognitive and perceptual explanations for the modality effect.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 1063-1071.
[7] Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2005). Why does rereading improve metacomprehension accuracy? Evaluating the levels-of-disruption hypothesis for the rereading effect.Discourse Precesses, 40, 37-55.
[8] Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history of how to improve its accuracy.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228-232.
[9] Egan, R. G. (2015). Reconceptualizing metacomprehension calibration accuracy.International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 2012, 2(7-8), 661-666.
[10] Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 199-212.
[11] Epley N., Keysar B., Boven L. V., & Gilovich T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327-339.
[12] Griffin T., Wiley J., & Thiede K. W. (2019). The effects of comprehension-test expectancies on metacomprehension accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1-23.
[13] Griffin T. D., Jee B. D., & Wiley J. (2009). The effects of domain knowledge on metacomprehension accuracy.Memory and Cognition, 37(7), 1001-1013.
[14] Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy?Learning and Instruction, 34, 58-73.
[15] Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions?Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
[16] Mayer R. M., Bove W., Bryman A., Mars R., & Tapangco. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons.Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 64-73.
[17] Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-320.
[18] Mayer R. E.(2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press. 180.
[19] Moreno, R. (2007). Optimizing learning from animations by minimizing cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signaling and segmentation methods.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765-781.
[20] Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). The JOLS of text comprehension: Supplementing retrieval practice to enhance inference performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(1), 59-71.
[21] Ortegren F. R., Serra M. J., & England B. D. (2014). Examining competing hypotheses for the effects of diagrams on recall for text.Memory & Cognition, 43(1), 70-84.
[22] Prinz A., Golke S., & Wittwer J. (2018). The double curse of misconceptions: Misconceptions impair not only text comprehension but also metacomprehension in the domain of statistics.Instructional Science, 46(5), 723-765.
[23] Rawson, K. A., & Kinstch, W. (2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects of background information on text memory.Discourse Processes, 38, 323-344.
[24] Rawson K., Dunlosky J., & Thiede K. W. (2000). The rereading effect: Metacomprehension accuracy improves across reading trails.Memory & Cognition, 28(6), 1004-1010.
[25] Reid A. J., Morrison G. R., & Bol L. (2017). Knowing what you know: Improving metacomprehension and calibration accuracy in digital text.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 65(1), 29-45.
[26] Savoji A. P., Hassanabadi H., & Fasihipour Z. (2011). The modility effect in learner-paced multimedia learning.Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1488-1493.
[27] Serra, M. J. (2007). Is metacomprehension for multimedia presentations different than for text alone? Doctoral Thesis, Kent State University.
[28] Serra, M. J. (2010). Diagrams increase the recall of nondepicted text when understanding is also increased.Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 17(1), 112-116.
[29] Son, L. K., & Metcalfe, J. (2005). Judgments of learning: Evidence for a two-stage process.Memory & Cognition, 33(6), 1116-1129.
[30] Steffi H., Julia M., & Maria R. (2015). Emotination design in multimedia learning: Differentiation on relevant design features and their effects on emotions and learning.Computer in Human Behavior. 44(44), 81-95.
[31] Thiede K. W., Griffin T., & Wiley J. (2010). Poor metacomprehension accuracy as a result of inappropriate cue use.Discourse Process, 47(4), 331-362.
[32] Thiede K. W., Griffin T. D., & Wiley J., et al. (2009). Handbook of metacognition and self-regulated learning, New York: Routledge, 106.
[33] Thomas A. O., Antonenko P. D., & Davis R. (2016). Anderstanding metacomprehension accuracy within video annotation systems.Computers in Human Behavior, 58(C), 269-277.
[34] Vossing J., Stamov-Robnagel C., & Heinitz K. (2017). Text difficulty affects metacomprehension accuracy and knowledge test performance in text learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(3), 282-291.
[35] Wiley J., Griffin T. D., Jaeger, A. J, Jarosz, A, F., Cushen, P J., & Thiede, K W. (2016). Improving metacomprehension accuracy in an undergraduate course context.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22(4), 393-405.
[36] Wiley J., Griffin T., & Thiede K. W. (2005). Putting the comprehension in metacompresion.Journal of General Psychology, 132(4), 408-428.
[37] Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints.Educational Psychology Review, 20(2), 191-206.
[38] Zhao, Q. (2009). Judgmental anchoring and adjustment in metacomprehension. Doctoral Thesis, University of Florida.
[39] Zhao, Q., & Linderholm, T. (2011). Anchoring effects on prospective and retrospective metacomprehension judgments as a function of peer performance information.Metacognition Learning, 6(1), 25-43. |
|
|
|
