Watching videos of a drawing hand improves students' understanding of the normal probability distribution.
Drawing
Dynamic representation
Embodied cognition
Multimedia learning
Statistics instruction
Journal
Memory & cognition
ISSN: 1532-5946
Titre abrégé: Mem Cognit
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0357443
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Feb 2024
20 Feb 2024
Historique:
accepted:
18
01
2024
medline:
20
2
2024
pubmed:
20
2
2024
entrez:
20
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Understanding normal probability distributions is a crucial objective in mathematics and statistics education. Drawing upon cognitive psychology research, this study explores the use of drawings and visualizations as effective scaffolds to enhance students' comprehension. Although much research has documented the helpfulness of drawing as a research tool to reveal students' knowledge states, its direct utility in advancing higher-order cognitive processes remains understudied. In Study 1, qualitative methods were utilized to identify common misunderstandings among students regarding canonical depictions of the normal probability distribution. Building on these insights, Study 2 experimentally compared three instructional videos (static slides, dynamic drawing, and dynamic drawings done by a visible hand). The hand drawing video led to better learning than the other versions. Study 3 examined whether the benefits from observing a hand drawing could be reproduced by a dynamic cursor moving around otherwise static slides (without the presence of a hand). Results showed no significant learning difference between observing a hand drawing and a moving cursor, both outperforming a control. This research links the cognitive process of drawing with its educational role and provides insights into its potential to enhance memory, cognition, and inform instructional methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38376622
doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01526-7
pii: 10.3758/s13421-024-01526-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Adams, D. M., McLaren, B. M., Durkin, K., Mayer, R. E., Rittle-Johnson, B., Isotani, S., & van Velsen, M. (2014). Using erroneous examples to improve mathematics learning with a web-based tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.053
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.053
Ainsworth, S. (2006). Deft: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when learning complex scientific concepts. In Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191-208). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978
Ainsworth, S. E., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Learning by drawing visual representations: Potential, purposes, and practical implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(1), 61–67.
doi: 10.1177/0963721420979582
Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2009). A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20265
doi: 10.1002/tea.20265
Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2007). A cognitive load approach to the learning effectiveness of instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6).
Ayres, P., Marcus, N., Chan, C., & Qian, N. (2009). Learning hand manipulative tasks: When instructional animations are superior to equivalent static representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.013
Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy.
Batanero, C., Tauber, L. M., & Sánchez, V. (2004). Students’ reasoning about the normal distribution. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 257–276). Springer.
doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2278-6_11
Bartram, D. J. (1980). Comprehending spatial information: The relative efficiency of different methods of presenting information about bus routes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 103.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.103
pubmed: 7364703
Blake A., Chrabaszcz, J., Son, J.Y., & Stigler J.W. (2023). supernova: Judd, McClelland, & Ryan Formatting for ANOVA Output. R package version 2.5.8, < https://github.com/UCLATALL/supernova >.
Bauer, M. I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning. Psychological Science, 4(6), 372–378.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00584.x
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.
doi: 10.1023/A:1013176309260
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2014). Dynamic visualisations and motor skills. In Handbook of human centric visualization (pp. 551-580). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_22
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: Three potential moderators of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 85, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.022
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.022
Chance, B., del Mas, R., & Garfield, J. (2004). Reasoning about sampling distributions. In D. Ben-Zvi & J. Garfield (Eds.), The challenge of developing statistical literacy, reasoning and thinking (pp. 295–323). Springer.
doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2278-6_13
Chandler, P. (2004). The crucial role of cognitive processes in the design of dynamic visualizations. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.009
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.009
Clark, J., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01320076
doi: 10.1007/bf01320076
Cohen, S., & Chechile, R. A. (1997). Probability distributions, assessment, and instructional software: Lessons learned from an evaluation of curricular software. In I. Gal & J. B. Garfield (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 253–262). IOS Press.
Cromley, J. G., Du, Y., & Dane, A. P. (2020). Drawing-to-learn: Does meta-analysis show differences between technology-based drawing and paper-and-pencil drawing? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 216–229.
doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6
Da Rold, F. (2018). Defining embodied cognition: The problem of situatedness. New Ideas in Psychology, 51, 9–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2018.04.001
de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9173-8
doi: 10.1007/s10648-011-9173-8
de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2013). Gestures in instructional animations: A helping hand to understanding non-human movements? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(5), 683–689. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2937
doi: 10.1002/acp.2937
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065
doi: 10.1037/edu0000065
Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8
doi: 10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8
Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Instructor presence in video lectures: The role of dynamic drawings, eye contact, and instructor visibility. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7), 1162–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000325
doi: 10.1037/edu0000325
Fu, Y., & Franz, E. A. (2014). Viewer perspective in the mirroring of actions. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 3665–3674.
doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-4042-6
pubmed: 25096383
Fuad, M. M., & Jones, E. J. (2012). Using extra credit to facilitate extra learning in students. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 4(6), 35.
doi: 10.5815/ijmecs.2012.06.05
García, A. M., Hesse, E., Birba, A., Adolfi, F., Mikulan, E., Caro, M. M., ... & Ibáñez, A. (2020). Time to face language: Embodied mechanisms underpin the inception of face-related meanings in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 30(11), 6051-6068.
Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. Visualization in science education (pp. 9–27). Springer, Netherlands.
doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_2
Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2007). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.
Glenberg, A. M., Goldberg, A. B., & Zhu, X. (2011). Improving early reading comprehension using embodied CAI. Instructional Science, 39(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7
doi: 10.1007/s11251-009-9096-7
Glenberg, A. M., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, G. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 905–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701625550
doi: 10.1080/17470210701625550
Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2002). Learning that lasts a lifetime: Teaching for long-term retention and transfer. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002(89), 3–7.
doi: 10.1002/tl.42
Hegarty, M. (2004). Dynamic visualizations and learning: Getting to the difficult questions. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.007
Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 722–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Learninstruc.2007.09.013
doi: 10.1016/j.Learninstruc.2007.09.013
Holliday, W. G. (1977). Differential cognitive and affective responses to flow diagrams in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(2), 129–138.
doi: 10.1002/tea.3660140205
Hosler, J., Boomer, K. B., & Kalumuck, K. (2011). Are comic books an effective way to engage nonmajors in learning and appreciating science? CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-07-0090
doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-07-0090
pubmed: 21885827
pmcid: 3164570
Hsu, J. (1996). Multiple comparisons: Theory and methods. CRC Press.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-7180-7
Lowe, R. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European journal of psychology of education, 14(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172967
doi: 10.1007/BF03172967
Lowe, R. (2004). Interrogation of a dynamic visualization during learning. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.003
Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H. D., & Kelley, K. (2017). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Routledge.
Mayer, R., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616
doi: 10.1037/a0028616
pubmed: 22642688
Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013184611077
doi: 10.1023/A:1013184611077
Mayer, R. (2014). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 16, 345–370.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139547369.017
Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.
McElhaney, K. W., Chang, H. Y., Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education, 51(1), 49–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
doi: 10.1080/03057267.2014.984506
McLaren, B. M., Adams, D. M., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Delayed learning effects with erroneous examples: A study of learning decimals with a web-based tutor. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 25(4), 520–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0064-x
doi: 10.1007/s40593-015-0064-x
Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(2), 502.
pubmed: 21261428
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. C. (2001). The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction, 19(2), 177–213.
doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1902_02
Moreno, R., Reislein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2010). Using virtual peers to guide visual attention during learning: A test of the persona hypothesis. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22(2), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000008
doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000008
Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es2.
Rau, M. A. (2017). How do Students Learn to See Concepts in Visualizations? Social Learning Mechanisms with Physical and Virtual Representations. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4(2), 240–263. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.42.16
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning and continuing motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.318
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.3.318
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
pubmed: 27542527
Rother, M. (2009). Toyota kata. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432.
doi: 10.1037/a0037559
pubmed: 25150680
Rueckert, L., Church, R. B., Avila, A., & Trejo, T. (2017). Gesture enhances learning of a complex statistical concept. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0036-1
doi: 10.1186/s41235-016-0036-1
Scanlan, D. A. (1989). Structured flowcharts outperform pseudocode: An experimental comparison. IEEE Software, 6(5), 28–36.
doi: 10.1109/52.35587
Schleinschok, K., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2017). Do drawing tasks improve monitoring and control during learning from text? Learning and Instruction, 51, 10–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.02.002
Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275–286.
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003
Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner-generated drawing. Learning and Instruction, 60, 138–153.
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.006
Schuil, K. D., Smits, M., & Zwaan, R. A. (2013). Sentential context modulates the involvement of the motor cortex in action language processing: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 100.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00100
pubmed: 23580364
pmcid: 3619111
Sepp, S., Howard, S. J., Tindall-Ford, S., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Load Theory and Human Movement: Towards an Integrated Model of Working Memory. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09461-9
doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09461-9
Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7
doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80067-7
Son, J. Y., Ramos, P., DeWolf, M., Loftus, W., & Stigler, J. W. (2018). Exploring the practicing-connections hypothesis: Using gesture to support coordination of ideas in understanding a complex statistical concept. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0085-0
doi: 10.1186/s41235-017-0085-0
pubmed: 29399620
Stigler, J. W., Son, J. Y., Givvin, K. B., Blake, A., Fries, L., Shaw, S. T., & Tucker, M. C. (2020). The Better Book approach for education research and development. Teachers College Record, 123(2), 1–32.
doi: 10.1177/016146812012200913
Suthers, D. D. (2014). Empirical studies of the value of con- ceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In A. Okada, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping tech- niques (pp. 1–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 - 1-4471-6470-8_1
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., Kalyuga, S., Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Measuring cognitive load. Cognitive load theory, 71-85.
Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1999). 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), 1024.
Thomas, L. E., & Lleras, A. (2009). Swinging into thought: Directed movement guides insight in problem solving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 719–723. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.719
doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.4.719
Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2, 1–18.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.
doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
Uttal, D. H., & O’Doherty, K. (2008). Comprehending and learning from ‘visualizations’: A developmental perspective. In J. Gilbert (Ed.), Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education (pp. 53–72). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5267-5_3
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2009). The mirror neuron system and observational learning: Implications for the effectiveness of dynamic visualizations. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 21–30.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9094-3
van Meter, P., & Firetto, C. M. (2013). Cognitive model of drawing construction. Learning through Visual Displays, 247-280.
van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3
Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.
doi: 10.1023/A:1016064429161
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.
doi: 10.3758/BF03196322
Wong, A., Marcus, N., Ayres, P., Smith, L., Cooper, G. A., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2009). Instructional animations can be superior to statics when learning human motor skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.012
Wu, S. P., & Rau, M. A. (2019). How students learn content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through drawing activities. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 87–120.
doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09467-3
Zhang, I., Givvin, K. B., Sipple, J. M., Son, J. Y., & Stigler, J. W. (2021). Instructed hand movements affect students’ learning of an abstract concept from video. Cognitive Science, 45(2), e12940. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12940
doi: 10.1111/cogs.12940
pubmed: 33580616
Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.
doi: 10.1002/tea.20443