Contrasting problems show a graph can help on one problem and harm on another: verbal data reveal both more active graph use and more shallow, confident confirmation when graphs were present¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In problem P3 the graph raised correctness from 0.25 to 0.70; in P4 it lowered it from 0.38 to 0.10, and helpful graphs were selected, integrated and used to build mental models more actively. → Ögren 2017 q2 i? With a graph present, participants used less prior knowledge and integrated information less with input and statement, and evaluated their own knowledge more positively — consistent with a picture bias. → Ögren 2017 (2)

Evidence¶

Ögren 2017¶

Ögren, M., Nyström, M., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). There's more to the multimedia effect than meets the eye: is seeing pictures believing? Instructional Science, 45, 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9397-6

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Qualitative and coded-verbal comparison of the two most extreme problems. In P3 the graph directly supported the dominant solution strategy (50% of multimedia participants used the key concept vs 6% of controls). In P4, 60% of multimedia participants said something like 'this must be correct' vs 19% of controls.

"In P3, the graph increased the proportion of correct answers from 0.25 (SD ¼ 0:44) to 0.70 ( SD ¼ 0:47), whereas the graph in P4 decreased the proportion of correct answers from 0.38 ( SD ¼ 0:50) to 0.10 ( SD ¼ 0:31)"

Ögren 2017 (2)¶

Ögren, M., Nyström, M., & Jarodzka, H. (2017). There's more to the multimedia effect than meets the eye: is seeing pictures believing? Instructional Science, 45, 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9397-6

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Normalized verbal-code differences across P3 and P4 show that with a graph, participants selected more graph information (1.25) and built more graph-based mental models (0.65), but used less prior knowledge and integrated less across sources — the authors call the latter a probable negative effect of the graph.

"they used less prior knowledge ( -1.09) and they integrated information with the input and the statement less frequently ( -0.50)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No overall multimedia effect on problem-solving performance in vector calculus: graphs did not significantly improve correctness — related
• Solving problems with graphs increased mental effort, shown by a higher proportion of silence in think-aloud data — related
• Picture bias: graphs made students more likely to confirm problem statements, irrespective of whether the statements were true — related
• Frequent eye transitions between graph and problem statement were marginally associated with correct answers — related
• Graphs drew visual attention away from text: proportion of dwell time on input and problem statement was significantly shorter when a graph was present — related
• Eye fixation data corroborated verbal protocols on the primary representation used (disagreement on only one trial) and revealed additional representations consulted but never mentioned verbally — related
• Some studies found that presenting more than two representations negatively impacted learning and problem-solving, especially for students with low prior knowledge. — related