This investigation was designed to determine the influence of metaphorical priming on students' comprehension of issues and concepts pertaining to the U.S. Constitution when students studied the subject matter in a problem-based hypermedia instructional system. Sixty-five high school seniors studied the system for 5 days after receiving relevant, irrelevant, or no metaphorical priming each day. Results revealed deep level comprehension and personal understanding of the instructional system only for students receiving the relevant metaphorical primer. Surface level retention as measured by multiple choice questions failed to vary between groups. Discussion focuses on theory and the use of metaphorical primers to incur deep level processing in hypermedia-based instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaJ. W., & HasherL. (1983). Is memory schematic?Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203–231.
2.
AllbrittonD. W.McKoonG., & GerrigR. J. (1995). Metaphor-based schemas and text representations: Making connections through conceptual metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21(3), 612–625.
3.
BanetE., & AyusoE. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313–351.
4.
BlaskoD. G. (1999). Only the tip of the iceberg: Who understands what about metaphor?Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1675–1683.
5.
BlaskoD. G., & ConnineC. M. (1993). Effect of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 295–308.
6.
CarrollJ. M., & MackR. L. (1999). Metaphor, computing systems, and active learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51, 385–403.
7.
ChanLinL. (1996). Enhancing computer graphics through metaphorical elaboration. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 196–204.
8.
CoulsonS., & MatlockT. (2001). Metaphor aud the space structuring model. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(2 & 4), 295–316.
9.
EpsteinR. L., & GamlinP. J. (1994). Young children's comprehension of simple and complex metaphors presented in pictures and words. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 9(3), 179–191.
10.
GentnerD. (1993). From metaphor to analogy in science. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.; pp. 447–480). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
GentnerD., & ClementC. (1988). Evidence for relational selectivity in the interpretation of analogy and metaphor. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 307–358). New York: Academic Press.
12.
GentnerD.FalkenhainerB., & SkorstadJ. (1988). Viewing metaphor as anaology. In HelmaD. H. (Ed.), Analogical reasoning: Perspectives of artificial intelligence, cognitive science and philosophy.Netherlands: Kluwer.
13.
GentnerD., & MarkmanA. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.
14.
GernsbacherM.KeysarB.RobertsonR. R. W., & WernerN. K. (2001). The role of suppression and enhancement in understanding metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language45, 433–450.
15.
GinesteM.IndurkhyaB., & ScartV. (2000). Emergence of features in metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(3), 117–135.
GlucksbergS.NewsomeM. R., & GoldvargY. (2001). Inhibition of the literal: Filtering metaphor-irrelevant information during metaphor comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3&4), 277–293.
20.
GrayS.SchwarzN. H., & GrahamL. (2000). Metaphorical graphics and comprehension of science text. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21.
InhoffA. W.LimaP. J., & CarrollJ. M. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory and Cognition, 12(6), 558–567.
22.
JohnsonA. T. (1996). Comprehension of metaphors and similies: A reaction time study. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11(2), 145–159.
LakoffG. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
LakoffG., & JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
LakoffG., & JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought.New York: Basic Books.
27.
MandlerM. J. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
MartinezM. A.SauledaN., & HuberG. L. (2001). Metaphors as blueprints of thinking about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 965–977.
29.
McKayE. (1999). Exploring the effect of graphical metaphors on the performance of learning computer programming concepts in adult learners: A pilot study. Educational Psychology, 19(4), 471–487.
30.
MillerG. A. (1979). Images and models, similies and metaphors. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
MorenoR., & MayerR. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported metaphors for meaning making in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 17(3), 215–248.
32.
MorenoV., & Di VestaF. J. (1994). Analogies (adages) as aids for comprehending structural relations in text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 179–198.
33.
MurphyG. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204.
OrtonyA.SchallertD. L.ReynoldsR. E., & AntosS. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477.
36.
PaivioA. (1979). Psychological processes in the comprehension of metaphor. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 150–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
ReeseD. D. (2003). Trees of knowledge: Changing mental models through metaphorical episodes and concept maps. In GriffinR. E.WilliamsV. S., & LeeJ. (Eds.), Turning trees: Selected readings.Newport, RI: International Visual Literacy Association.
38.
SchwartzN. H.GrahamL.JonesG., & HollingworthR. (2001, August). The theory and development of a metaphorical instructional system to teach chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for Research in Learning and Instruction, Freiberg, Switzerland.
39.
SchwartzN. H., & MaguireM. (2006). Long term retention benefits of metaphorical graphics in text. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40.
ShenY. (1999). Principles of metaphor interpretation and the notion of ‘domain’: A proposal for a hybrid model. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 1631–1653.
41.
StroudM. J., & SchwartzN. H. (2003). Summoning prior knowledge through metaphorical graphics: An example in chemistry instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
42.
TobinK., & TippinsD. J. (1996). Metaphors as seeds for conceptual change and the improvement of science teaching. Science Education, 80(6), 7–11.
43.
TourangeauR., & RipsL. (1991). Interpreting and evaluating metaphors. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 452–472.
44.
TourangeauR., & SternbergR. J. (1982). Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11, 203–244.
45.
VaughanM. W. (1998). Testing the boundaries of two user-centered design principles: Metaphors and memory load. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 10(3), 265–282.
