In Studies 1a and 2, instructional visuals produced no significant difference in test performance or in test and explain relative metacomprehension accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Mean test performance did not significantly differ between text-with-image and text-only conditions in Study 1a or Study 2. → Jaeger 2024 q3 i? Test relative accuracy did not significantly differ between conditions in either study; explain relative accuracy showed only a marginal difference favouring text-only in Study 1a (p = 0.06) and none in Study 2. Non-significant differences do not show that visuals had no effect. → Jaeger 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Jaeger 2024¶

Jaeger, A. J., & Fiorella, L. (2024). Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09370-x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Study 1a online experiment with 163 undergraduates reading biology texts. Test performance did not significantly differ between conditions (non-significant tests, not a test of equivalence): "t(161) = 0.07, p = 0.95, d = 0.01". Study 2 similarly found no difference, t(46) = 0.21, p = 0.84, d = 0.06.

"mean test performance did not significantly differ between the text-with-image and text-only conditions, t(161) = 0.07, p = 0.95, d = 0.01."

Jaeger 2024 (2)¶

Jaeger, A. J., & Fiorella, L. (2024). Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09370-x

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Study 1a: test relative accuracy did not differ between conditions; explain relative accuracy showed only a marginal difference with text-only tending higher. Study 2 found no differences for either test or explain relative accuracy (all p > 0.6).

"there was no difference in test relative accuracy between the two groups, t(139) = 1.59, p = 0.12, d = 0.27. There was a marginal difference in explain relative accuracy, t(156) = 1.87, p = 0.06, d = 0.30."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Instructional visuals reduced draw relative metacomprehension accuracy compared to text-only condition — related
• Students in the image condition gave higher draw judgment magnitude than text-only students in Study 1a — related
• Neither rereading nor self-explanation changed comprehension test performance itself; effects were specific to monitoring accuracy — related
• Students using representation-based cues showed higher draw relative accuracy than those using heuristic cues — related
• Students reported using visual cues for draw judgments but not for test or explain judgments — related
• Judgment accuracy of comprehension did not depend on misconceptions or instructional method
• Visualizing support—provided diagrams or learner-generated drawings—facilitates higher-quality explanations and better comprehension than explaining text alone — reports the opposite
• In-between explaining did not improve metacomprehension accuracy relative to other conditions in either experiment — related