The Effect of the Wording of Multiple Documents on Learning
Abstract
Abstract. Learning from multiple documents is challenging, amongst other things, because authors often do not use the same words for the same concept. Derived from theoretical considerations and earlier research, it was assumed that different wording across multiple documents leads to higher cognitive load but can be beneficial for the learning of highly motivated students. In the present study, N = 100 university students (laypersons with regard to the topic) took part. They read two texts on the topic of depression either with the same wording or with different wording and worked on a case study. Prior knowledge, epistemic beliefs, cognitive load, motivational state during learning, and post learning knowledge were assessed. While controlling for prior knowledge, a significant interaction effect was found from wording and motivational state on post knowledge about concepts. Different wording was beneficial only for students with relatively high motivation. However, wording had no effect on cognitive load.
Zusammenfassung. Lernen aus multiplen Dokumenten ist herausfordernd, unter anderem weil verschiedene Autoren oft nicht dasselbe Wort für dasselbe Konzept verwenden. Basierend auf theoretischen Überlegungen und früherer Forschung wurde angenommen, dass eine unterschiedliche Wortwahl zu höherer kognitiver Belastung führt, jedoch für hochmotivierte Lernende lernförderlich wirkt. N = 100 Studierende, die bezüglich des Themas Laien waren, nahmen an der Studie teil. Sie lasen zwei Texte zum Thema Depression entweder mit gleicher oder ungleicher Wortwahl und bearbeiteten eine Fallgeschichte. Vor- und Nachwissen sowie epistemische Überzeugungen, kognitive Belastung und Motivation wurden erfasst. Unter Kontrolle von Vorwissen wurde ein signifikanter Interaktionseffekt von Wortwahl und Motivation auf das Nachwissen gefunden. Unterschiedliche Wortwahl war nur für relativ hoch motivierte Studierende lernförderlich. Unterschiedliche Wortwahl hatte jedoch keinen Einfluss auf kognitive Belastung.
References
(1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2 – 3), 131 – 152. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9
(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
(1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(2018).
Individual differences in multiple document comprehension . In J. L. G. BraaschI. BråtenM. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99 – 116). New York: Routledge.(2011).
Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning . In M. A. GernsbacherR. W. PewL. M. HoughJ. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56 – 64). New York, NY, US: Worth Publishers.(1994).
Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings . In J. MetcalfeA. P. Shimamura (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185 – 205). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.(2016). Commentary: Is disfluency desirable? Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 133 – 137. doi: 10.1007/s11409-016-9156-8
(2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 48 – 70. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
(1999).
Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts . In S. R. GoldmanA. C. GraesserP. Van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative, comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209 – 233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.(2012).
Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition . In J. R. KirbyM. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276 – 314). New York: Cambridge University Press.(1991).
Grounding in communication . In L. B. ResnickJ. M. LevineS. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127 – 149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.(1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129 – 152.
(2011). Fortune favors the bold and the italicized: Effects of disfluency on educational outcomes. Cognition, 118(1), 111 – 115. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.012
(2006). What do we know about cognitive and motivational effects of small group tutorials in problem-based learning? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(4), 321 – 336.
(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109 – 132.
(2016). Effects of disfluency and test expectancy on learning with text. Metacognition and Learning, 11(1), 107 – 121. doi: 10.1007/s11409-015-9145-3
(1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing. Memory & Cognition, 12(4), 355 – 360. doi: 10.3758/bf03198295
(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175 – 191.
(2015). Epistemic beliefs and their relation to multiple-text comprehension: A Norwegian program of research. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(6), 731 – 752. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2014.971863
(1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 265 – 304. doi: 10.1080/01638539709544994
(1998). An evaluation of the relative effectiveness of NCTM standards-based interventions for low-achieving urban elementary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 560 – 569.
(2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 356 – 381. doi: 10.1002/rrq.027
(2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142 – 160. doi: 10.1080/00461520802178458
(2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 29 – 41.
(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139 – 183. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
(2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378 – 405.
(1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88 – 140.
(1992).
Positive interdependence: Key to effective cooperation . In R. Hertz-LazarowitzN. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 174 – 199). New York: Cambridge University Press.(2013). Different words for the same concept: Learning collaboratively from multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 227 – 254. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769993
(1998). Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors, 40(1), 1 – 17.
(2014).
The redundancy principle in multimedia learning . In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 247 – 262). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.(2004). Reflective Judgement: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5 – 18.
(2009a). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31 – 42. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2
(2009b). Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 306 – 314.
(2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(2), 213 – 233. doi: 10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y
(2009). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students› comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 130 – 134. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001
(2002).
What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. HoferP. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121 – 144). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.(2014). Understanding the distributed practice effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(2), 71 – 81. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000168
(2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students› comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445 – 470. doi: 10.1080/10862960701675317
(2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307 – 333. doi: 10.1007/s11145-018-9863-4
(2013). Text belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151 – 175. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
(2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 51 – 74. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x
(2018). For me or for them: how in-group identification and beliefs influence the comprehension of controversial texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(S1), S48 – S65. doi: 10.1111/1467-9817.12132
(1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1 – 43. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
(1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247 – 288. doi: 10.1080/01638539609544975
(2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we›ll take it from here. Psychological Methods. doi: 10.1037/met0000144
(2017). Historical thinking skills and mastery of multiple document tasks. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 135 – 148. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.021
(2006). Does the modality principle hold for different media? A test of the method-affects-learning hypothesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 149 – 158.
(1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467 – 476.
(1990). Comprehension evaluation and regulation in learning from science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 447 – 460. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660270505
(1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429 – 434.
(1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543 – 578.
(2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 267 – 278. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061
(1999).
Toward a theory of documents representation . In H. van OostendorpS. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99 – 122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.(2016). Metacognitive judgments and disfluency – Does disfluency lead to more accurate judgments, better control, and better performance? Learning and Instruction, 44, 31 – 40. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.012
(2003).
Motivation and classroom learning . In W. ReynoldsG. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 103 – 122). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.(2016). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
(2000).
Motivation and action in self-regulated learning . In M. BoekaertsP. R. PintrichM. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 503 – 529). San Diego: Academic Press.(1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animé: Travail de l›homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de l›Institut national agronomique: administration, enseignement et recherche, 12, 1 – 40.
(2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432 – 1463. doi: 10.1037/a0037559
(1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257 – 279.
(1994). Intrinsische Lernmotivation und Lernen: Ein Überblick zu Ergebnissen der Forschung [Intrinsic motivation to learn and learning. A review of recent research findings]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 8, 1 – 13.
(2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141 – 156.
(2009).
Motivational aspects of cognitive load theory . In M. WosnitzaS. A. KarabenickA. EfklidesP. Nenniger (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research. From global to local perspectives (pp. 69 – 96). Göttingen: Hogrefe.(1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498 – 504. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
(2010). Die Bedeutung von Motivation für Wissenserwerbsprozesse beim computerunterstützten kooperativen Lernen [The importance of motivation for knowledge acquisition processes during computer-supported collaborative learning]. Berlin: Logos.
(2016). Perceived utility of reading – predictor of reading competence? Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 151 – 158. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.024
(2015). Prozesse der Informationsintegration beim Lesen multipler Dokumente. [Processes of information integration during reading of multiple documents]. Paper presented at the 15. Fachtagung Pädagogische Psychologie, 14. – 16.09.15, Kassel, Germany.
(2016). Conflict detection in multiple documents as a function of kind of conflict, relevance, and wording. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, 18. – 20.07.2016, Kassel, Germany.
(2013). Aspects of dynamics in motivation: What the cooperative situation and individual motivation contribute to motivation during computer-supported cooperative learning. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 41(4), 330 – 347.
(2009).
Lernen mit multiplen Repräsentationen – Gestaltungs- und Verarbeitungsstrategien [Learning with multiple representations – Design and processing strategies] . In R. PlötznerT. LeudersA. Wichert (Eds.), Lernchance Computer. Strategien für das Lernen mit digitalen Medienverbünden (pp. 45 – 66). Münster: Waxmann.(2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 487 – 510. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845
(1992).
When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives . In R. Hertz-LazarowitzN. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 145 – 173). Cambridge: University Press.(1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43 – 49.
(2014).
The content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information . In D. N. RappJ. L. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379 – 402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 773 – 785. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016
(2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 335 – 356. doi: 10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z
(2016). Inflation von falsch-positiven Befunden in der psychologischen Forschung [Inflationary Incidence of False-Positive Results in Psychological Research]. Psychologische Rundschau, 67(3), 163 – 174. doi: 10.1026/0033-3042/a000296
(2008).
Intertextuality and the study of new literacies: research critique and recommendations . In J. CoiroM. KnobelC. LankshearD. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1079 – 1092). New York: Erlbaum.(2000). Does motivation affect performance via persistence? Learning and Instruction, 10, 293 – 309.
(2003).
Aktuelle Motivation und Motivation im Lernverlauf [Current motivation and motivation in the course of learning] . In J. Stiensmeier-PelsterF. Rheinberg (Eds.), Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept (pp. 281 – 295). Göttingen: Hogrefe.(2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 239 – 253.
(1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 73 – 87. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73
(2005). Relations between adolescents› text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 467 – 502. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2
