Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When tactics collide: Counter effects between an adjunct map and prequestions

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Eighty-five undergraduates read a 1,399-word story using computer programs that differed in the types of learning aids provided: either prequestions only (PO) viewed prior to the reading, a related map that was first reviewed feature by feature (MR), prequestions plus an unreviewed map (PM), or prequestions with a reviewed map (PMR). During reading, subjects accessed the map as desired by depressing the mouse button, at which time the computer recorded how often they viewed the display and for how long. Analyses of scores on a 20-item constructed-response test on the story showed significantly higher recall by PO and PM groups compared to subjects receiving only a map. The MR group accessed the map significantly more often than did the PM group, while subjects given a reviewed map (MR and PMR groups) rated it significantly more useful for learning the story than did those who received both prequestions and a map that was not reviewed. All three groups receiving prequestions rated the text itself more useful than did the map-only group. These findings provide partial evidence that graphic and verbally based instructional tactics can, in certain circumstances, “collide” with one another when used concurrently. Because both adjunct displays and adjunct questions rely on mental rehearsal during initial processing, they potentially compete for the limited resources of working memory leading to, in some cases, attenuation of their benefits during learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, R.R., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1986). Maps, mode of text presentation, and children’s prose learning.American Educational Research Journal, 23, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abel, R.R., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1989). Associating map features and related prose in memory.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amlund, J.T., Gafney, J., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1985). Map feature content and text recall of good and poor readers.Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(4), 317–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.C., & Biddle, W.B. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. Bower (Ed.),Psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 89–132). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1995). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (3rd ed., pp. 161–182). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Authorware 4.0.2 [Computer software]. (1997). San Francisco, CA: Macromedia.

  • Cudeck, R. & Hulin, C. (2001). Measurement: Cronbach’s alpha on two-item scales.Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(1&2), 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, R.S., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Influence of spatial organization in prose learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick W., & Carey, L. (1990)The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M.L. (1987). Displays and communication. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 233–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R.M. (1988).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M.M., & Robinson, D.H. (2000). Role of mimeticism and spatiality in textual recall.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 125–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning.Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, C.P. (1989). Pictures and questions as adjuncts in text.International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(2), 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, D.C. (1982).Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: PWS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealy, W.A., & Sivo, S.A. (1993, January).Effect of prior knowledge on familiarity ratings of geographic forms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.

  • Kealy, W.A., & Sullivan, H.J. (1991). Question density and processing attention in computer-based instruction.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 230–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., Lee, J.B., & Caterino, L.C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., Schwartz, N.H., & Peterson, S.E. (1986). Working memory: The instructional encoding process. In G.D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving (pp. 83–113). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., Schwartz, N.H., & Shaha, S.H. (1983). Spatial representation of maps.American Journal of Psychology, 96, 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R.W., Stock, W.A., & Kealy, W.A. (1993). How geographic maps increase recall of instructional text.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(4), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1992).Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeish, W.H. (1991, November). From sea to shining sea: 1492.Smithsonian, 22, 34–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M.A., & Peters, E.E. (1987). Increasing prose recall of learning disabled and reading disabled students via spatial organizers.Journal of Educational Research, 80(5), 272–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.)Instructionaldesign theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 141–159). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction.New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., & Graf, P. (2000). Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B.J.F., & McConkie, G.W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P.J., & Scevak, J.J. (1988, December).Spatial aids and comprehension: The effects of ability, preference, and instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Tucson, AZ.

  • Noble, C.E. (1952). An analysis of meaning.Psychological Review, 59, 421–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1986).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittschof, K.A., Stock, A.A., Kulhavy, R.W., Verdi, M.P., & Doran, J.M. (1994). Thematic maps improve memory for facts and inferences: A test of the stimulus order hypothesis.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1996). Experimental research methods. In D.H. Jonnassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1148–1170). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., Kealy, W.A., Goetz, E.T., & Paivio, A. (1997). Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 518–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, N.H., Ellsworth, L.S., Graham, L., & Knight, B. (1998). Accessing prior knowledge to remember text: A comparison of advance organizers and maps.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, N.H., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snowman, J. (1986). Learning tactics and strategies. In G.D. Phye & T. Andre (Eds.),Cognitive classroom Learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving (pp. 243–275). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndyke, P.W., and Stasz, C. (1980). Individual differences in procedures for knowledge acquisition from maps.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 137–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verdi, M.P., Johnson, J.T., & Stock, W.A. (1997). Organized spatial displays and texts: Effects of presentation order and display type on learning outcomes.The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdi, M.P., & Kulhavy, R.W. (2002). Learning with maps and texts: An overview.Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, C.K., Farmer, J.A., & Wolff, P.M. (1991).Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W.D. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams.Educational Psychology Reviews 3(3), 211–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Secondary Education, University of South Florida, 33620-5650, Tampa, Florida

    William A. Kealy

Authors
  1. William A. Kealy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darshan J. Bakriwala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philip B. Sheridan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Kealy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kealy, W.A., Bakriwala, D.J. & Sheridan, P.B. When tactics collide: Counter effects between an adjunct map and prequestions. ETR&D 51, 17–39 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504524

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504524

Keywords

Search

Navigation