Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of multimodal information on learning performance and judgment of learning (JOL). Experiment 1 examined the effects of representation type (word-only versus word-plus-picture) and presentation channel (visual-only versus visual-plus-auditory) on recall and immediate-JOL in fixed-rate learning conditions. Experiment 2 examined the effects of representation type (word-only versus word-plus-picture) and presentation media (computer versus paper) on recall and delayed-JOL in self-paced learning conditions. The results showed that recall performance was better in word-only conditions than in word-plus-picture conditions in Experiment 1, and better in computer conditions than in paper conditions in Experiment 2. Multimodal information had no influence on magnitude of people's judgment. Participants were overconfident in all conditions, but more overconfident in computer conditions than in paper conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AinsworthS.BibbyP. A.WoodD. (1998). Analyzing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In van SomerenM.BoshuizenE.de JongT.ReimanP. (Eds.), Multiple representations for problem solving and learning (pp. 103–208). London: Elsevier.
2.
AlpertM.RaiffaH. (1982). A progress report on the training of probability assessors. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
3.
AskwallS. (1985). Computer supported reading versus reading text on paper: A comparison of two reading situations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 425–439.
4.
BaddeleyA. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–423.
5.
BeggI.DuftS.LalondeR.MelnickR.SanvitoJ. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 610–632.
6.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1991). Cognitive load theory and format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
7.
ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 233–246.
8.
ClaikJ. M.PaivoA. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.
9.
DunloskyJ.MatveyG. (2001). Empirical analysis of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction of judgments of learning (JOLs): Effects of relatedness and serial position on JOLs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), 1180–1191.
10.
DunloskyJ.NelsonT. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) and the delayed-JOL effect. Memory & Cognition, 20, 374–380.
11.
DunloskyJ.NelsonT. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur?Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 545–565.
12.
EdnersonM.TumeyD. (1984). An experiment with speech on an electronic text service. Videodisc and Optical Disc, 4(4), 306–317.
13.
EdwardsonM.GromsD.PringleP. (1976). Visualization and TV news information gain. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 20, 373–380.
14.
FrankJ. D. (1935). Some psychological determinants of the level of aspiration. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 285–293.
15.
GerličI.JaušovecN. (2001). Differences in EEG power and coherence measures related to the type of presentation: Text versus multimedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(2), 177–195.
16.
GunterB. (1987). Poor reception: Misunderstanding and forgetting broadcast news. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
HegartyM.SteinhoffK. (1997). Individual differences in use of diagrams as external memory in mechanical reasoning, Learning and Individual Differences, 9, 19–42.
18.
HsiaH. J. (1969). Intelligence in auditory, visual, and audiovisual information processing. AV Communication Review, 17, 272–282.
19.
Institute of Language Teaching and Research (1986). A frequency dictionary of Modern Chinese. Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.
20.
KelemenW. L.WeaverC. A.III (1997). Enhanced metamemory at delays: Why do judgments of learning improve over time?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(6), 1394–1409.
21.
KoriatA. (1997). Monitoring one's own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 26, 349–370.
22.
LarkinJ. H.SimonH. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–100.
23.
LeonesioR. J.NelsonT. O. (1990). Do different metamemory judgments tap the same underlying aspects of memory?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 423–434.
24.
LichtensteinS.FischhoffB.PhillipsL. S. (1977). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
MasonB. J.PatryM.BernsteinD. J. (2001). An examination of the equivalence between non-adaptive computer-based and traditional testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 29–39.
26.
MayerR. E.AndersonR. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 484–490.
27.
MayerR. E.AndersonR. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.
28.
MousaviS. Y.LowR.SwellerJ. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(87), 319–334.
29.
NelsonT. O. (1984). A comparison of current measure of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109–133.
30.
NelsonT. O.DunloskyJ. (1991). When people's judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.”Psychological Science, 2, 267–270.
31.
PaivioA. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.
33.
PowersD. E. (2001). Test anxiety and test performance: Comparing paper-based and computer-adaptive versions of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE(c)) General Test. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 249–273.
34.
ReimannP. (1999). The role of external representations in distributed problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 9, 411–418.
35.
RiceG. E. (1994). Examining constructs in reading comprehension using two presentation modes: Paper vs. computer. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(2), 153–178.
36.
RogersY. (1999). What is different about interactive graphical representations?Learning and Instruction, 9, 419–425.
37.
SalomonG.PerkinsD. N.GlobersonT. (1991). Patterns in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Research, 20, 2–9.
38.
ShuH.ChengY. S.ZhangH. C. (1989). Name agreement, familiarity, image agreement and visual complexity for 235 pictures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 4, 389–396.
39.
SnodgrassJ. G.VanderwartM. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for naming agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
40.
StenningK.OberlanderJ. (1995). A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cognitive Science, 19, 97–140.
41.
SwellerJ.ChandlerP. (1994). Why is some material difficult to learn?Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
42.
TaylorS.BrownJ. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
43.
YatesJ. F. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
44.
ZhangJ. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21, 179–217.
