Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Evaluating contributions of fluency and analytic processing in metacognitive judgements for pictures in foreign language vocabulary learning
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2020
Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Evaluating contributions of fluency and analytic processing in metacognitive judgements for pictures in foreign language vocabulary learning
Previous research shows that participants are overconfident in their ability to learn foreign language vocabulary from pictures compared with English translations. The current study explored whether this tendency is due to processing fluency or beliefs about learning. Using self-paced study of Swahili words paired with either picture cues or English translation cues, picture cues garnered higher confidence judgements but not faster study times, and this was true whether judgements of learning were made after a delay (Experiment 1) or immediately (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, when participants learned Swahili words with only one type of cue (pictures or English translations) and then estimated which one would be more effective for learning, the majority of participants believed pictures would be more effective regardless of whether they had experienced those cues during learning. Experiment 4 showed the same results when participants had experienced neither type of cue during a learning phase. These results suggest that metacognitive judgements in foreign language vocabulary learning are driven more by students’ beliefs about learning than by processing fluency as reflected in self-paced study times.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.
2.
BallB. H.KleinK. N.BrewerG. A. (2014). Processing fluency mediates the influence of perceptual information on monitoring learning of educationally relevant materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20, 336–348.
3.
BrysbaertM.NewB. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.
4.
BrysbaertM.WarrinerA. B.KupermanV. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.
5.
ButterfieldB.MetcalfeJ. (2001). Errors committed with high confidence are hypercorrected. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1491–1494.
6.
CarpenterS. K.HaynesC. L.CorralD.YeungK. L. (2018). Hypercorrection of high confidence errors in the classroom. Memory, 26, 1379–1384.
7.
CarpenterS. K.MickesL.RahmanS.FernandezC. (2016). The effect of instructor fluency on students’ perceptions of instructors, confidence in learning, and actual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 161–172.
8.
CarpenterS. K.NorthernP. E.TauberS. K.ToftnessA. R. (2019). Effects of lecture fluency and instructor experience on students’ judgments of learning, test scores, and evaluations of instructors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/xap0000234.
9.
CarpenterS. K.OlsonK. M. (2012). Are pictures good for learning new vocabulary in a foreign language? Only if you think they are not. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 38, 92–101.
10.
CarpenterS. K.WilfordM. M.KornellN.MullaneyK. M. (2013). Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1350–1356.
11.
ChenH.-C. (1990). Lexical processing in a non-native language: Effects of language proficiency and learning strategy. Memory & Cognition, 18, 279–288.
12.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subjects designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
13.
DunloskyJ.NelsonT. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374–380.
14.
DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (Eds.) (2016). The Oxford handbook of metamemory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
DursoF. T.JohnsonM. K. (1980). The effects of orienting tasks on recognition, recall, and modality confusion of pictures and words. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 416–429.
16.
FinnB.MetcalfeJ. (2007). The role of memory for past test in the underconfidence with practice effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 238–244.
17.
FinnB.TauberS. K. (2015). When confidence is not a signal of knowing: How students’ experiences and beliefs about processing fluency can lead to miscalibrated confidence. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 567–586.
18.
FosterN. L.WasC. A.DunloskyJ.IsaacsonR. M. (2017). Even after thirteen class exams, students are still overconfident: The role of memory for past exam performance in student predictions. Metacognition & Learning, 12, 1–19.
19.
GellerJ.StillM. L.DarkV. J.CarpenterS. K. (2018). Would disfluency by any other name still be disfluent? Examining the disfluency effect with cursive handwriting. Memory & Cognition, 46, 1109–1126.
20.
GoldingerS. D.PapeshM. H. (2012). Pupil dilation reflects the creation and retrieval of memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 90–95.
21.
HackerD. J.BolL.HorganD. D.RakowE. A. (2000). Test prediction and performance in a classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 160–170.
22.
HartwigM. K.DunloskyJ. (2017). Category learning judgments in the classroom: Can students judge how well they know course topics?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 80–90.
23.
HockleyW. E. (2008). The picture superiority effect in associative recognition. Memory & Cognition, 24, 202–216.
24.
KoriatA.Ma’ayanH. (2005). The effects of encoding fluency and retrieval fluency on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 52, 478–492.
25.
KoriatA.ShefferL.Ma’ayanH. (2002). Comparing objective and subjective learning curves: Judgments of learning exhibit increased underconfidence with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 147–162.
26.
KornellN.RhodesM. G.CastelA. D.TauberS. K. (2011). The ease-of-processing heuristic and the stability bias: Dissociating memory, memory beliefs, and memory judgments. Psychological Science, 2, 787–794.
27.
KrollJ. F.StewartE. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 149–174.
28.
LenznerA.SchnotzW.MuellerA. (2013). The role of decorative pictures in learning. Instructional Science, 41, 811–831.
29.
LottoL.de GrootA. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31–69.
30.
MillerT. M.GeraciL. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37, 502–506.
31.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about memory. Journal of Memory & Language, 93, 245–258.
32.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K. (2016). The effect of identical word pairs on people’s metamemory judgments: What are the contributions of processing fluency and beliefs about memory?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 781–799.
33.
MuellerM. L.DunloskyJ.TauberS. K.RhodesM. G. (2014). The font-size effect on judgments of learning: Does it exemplify fluency effects or reflect people’s beliefs about memory?Journal of Memory & Language, 70, 1–12.
34.
MuellerM. L.TauberS. K.DunloskyJ. (2013). Contributions of beliefs and processing fluency to the effect of relatedness on judgments of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 378–384.
35.
NelsonD. L. (1979). Remembering pictures and words: Appearance, significance, and name. In CermakL. S.CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 45–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
NelsonD. L.ReedV. S.McEvoyC. L. (1977). Learning to order pictures and words: A model of sensory and semantic encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 3, 485–497.
37.
NelsonT. O.DunloskyJ. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOL) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.”Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.
38.
PaivioA.CsapoK. (1973). Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding?Cognitive Psychology, 5, 176–206.
39.
PaivioA.RogersT. B.SmytheP. C. (1968). Why are pictures easier to recall than words?Psychonomic Science, 11, 137–138.
40.
ReberR.GreifenederR. (2017). Processing fluency in education: How metacognitive feelings shape learning, belief formation, and affect. Educational Psychologist, 52, 84–103.
41.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2008). Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: Evidence for metacognitive illusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 615–625.
42.
RhodesM. G.CastelA. D. (2009). Metacognitive illusions for auditory information: Effects on monitoring and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 550–554.
43.
RhodesM. G.TauberS. K. (2011). The influence of delaying judgments of learning on metacognitive accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 131–148.
44.
SanchezC. A.JaegerA. J. (2015). If it’s hard to read, it changes how long you do it: Reading time as an explanation for perceptual fluency effects on judgment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 206–211.
45.
SerraM. J.ArielR. (2014). People use the memory for past test heuristic as an explicit cue for judgments of learning. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1260–1272.
46.
SerraM. J.DunloskyJ. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711.
47.
ShapiroS. S.WilkM. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 591–611.
48.
SlatteryT. J.RaynorK. (2010). The influence of text legibility on eye movements during reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1129–1148.
49.
SmithM. C.MageeL. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture-word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 373–392.
50.
ToftnessA. R.CarpenterS. K.GellerJ.LauberS.JohnsonM.ArmstrongP. I. (2018). Instructor fluency leads to higher confidence in learning, but not better learning. Metacognition & Learning, 13, 1–14.
51.
UndorfM.ErdfelderE. (2015). The relatedness effect on judgments of learning: A closer look at the contribution of processing fluency. Memory & Cognition, 43, 647–658.
52.
UndorfM.ZimdahlM. F. (2019). Metamemory and memory for a wide range of font sizes: What is the contribution of perceptual fluency?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 45, 97–109.
53.
UndorfM.ZimdahlM. F.BernsteinD. M. (2017). Perceptual fluency contributes to effects of stimulus size on judgments of learning. Journal of Memory & Language, 92, 293–304.
54.
UnkelbachC.GreifenederR. (2013). The experience of thinking: How the fluency of mental processes influences cognition and behavior. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
55.
WeaverC. A.KelemenW. L. (1997). Judgments of learning at delays: Shifts in response patterns or increased metamemory accuracy?Psychological Science, 8, 318–321.
56.
WileyJ.SarmentoD.GriffinT. D.HinzeS. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding. Discourse Processes, 54, 463–478.
57.
WitherbyA. E.TauberS. K. (2017). The concreteness effect on judgments of learning: Evaluating contributions of fluency and beliefs. Memory & Cognition, 45, 639–650.
58.
YangC.HuangT. S. T.ShanksD. R. (2018). Perceptual fluency affects judgments of learning: The font size effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 99–110.
59.
YueC. L.CastelA. D.BjorkR. A. (2013). When disfluency is—and is not—a desirable difficulty: The influence of typeface clarity on metacognitive judgments and memory. Memory & Cognition, 41, 229–241.
