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.
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.
Abel, R.R., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1989). Associating map features and related prose in memory.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 33–48.
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.
Anderson, R.C. (1982). Allocation of attention during reading. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.),Discourse processing (pp. 292–305). New York: North Holland.
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.
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.
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.
Dean, R.S., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Influence of spatial organization in prose learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 57–64.
Dick W., & Carey, L. (1990)The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Fleming, M.L. (1987). Displays and communication. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 233–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gagné, R.M. (1988).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Griffin, M.M., & Robinson, D.H. (2000). Role of mimeticism and spatiality in textual recall.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 125–149.
Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning.Review of Educational Research, 56, 212–242.
Ho, C.P. (1989). Pictures and questions as adjuncts in text.International Journal of Instructional Media, 16(2), 143–155.
Howell, D.C. (1982).Statistical methods for psychology. Boston: PWS Publishers.
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.
Kulhavy, R.W., Lee, J.B., & Caterino, L.C. (1985). Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28–37.
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.
Kulhavy, R.W., Schwartz, N.H., & Shaha, S.H. (1983). Spatial representation of maps.American Journal of Psychology, 96, 337–351.
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.
Larkin, J.H., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1992).Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
MacLeish, W.H. (1991, November). From sea to shining sea: 1492.Smithsonian, 22, 34–46.
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.
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.
Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Meier, B., & Graf, P. (2000). Transfer appropriate processing for prospective memory tests.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 11–27.
Meyer, B.J.F., & McConkie, G.W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 109–117.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Paivio, A. (1986).Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1983).Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C.M. (Ed.). (1986).Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
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.
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.
Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Schwartz, N.H., & Kulhavy, R.W. (1981). Map features and the recall of discourse.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 151–158.
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.
Thorndyke, P.W., and Stasz, C. (1980). Individual differences in procedures for knowledge acquisition from maps.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 137–175.
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.
Verdi, M.P., & Kulhavy, R.W. (2002). Learning with maps and texts: An overview.Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 27–46.
West, C.K., Farmer, J.A., & Wolff, P.M. (1991).Instructional design: Implications from cognitive science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Winn, W.D. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams.Educational Psychology Reviews 3(3), 211–247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504524