Revisions to visuals had no effect on post-lesson test scores, though prior knowledge predicted performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Condition did not affect post-lesson test scores, F(1, 56) = .00, p = .96, and there was no condition by prior knowledge interaction, F(2, 56) = .14, p = .87. → Clinton 2017 q3 i3 Prior knowledge predicted post-lesson test scores, with low prior knowledge students scoring lower than high prior knowledge students, Cohen's d = 1.30. → Clinton 2017

Evidence¶

Clinton 2017¶

Clinton, V., Cooper, J.L., Michaelis, J., Alibali, M.W., & Nathan, M.J. (2017). How Revisions to Mathematical Visuals Affect Cognition: Evidence from Eye Tracking. In Eye-tracking technology applications in educational research (pp. 195-218). IGI Global. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574984 doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1005-5.ch010

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ANOVA on post-lesson test scores (maximum 27 points) using data from all 62 participants. The null condition effect was not a test of equivalence; the prior knowledge difference ("Cohen's d = 1.30") was reported as validating the self-report measure.

"condition did not affect post-lesson test scores, F(1, 56) = .00, p = .96. However, level of prior knowledge did predict post-lesson test scores, F(2, 56) = 10.19, p < .001; pairwise comparisons revealed that participants in the low prior knowledge group had lower post-lesson test performance than did participants in the high prior knowledge group, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.30"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Prior Knowledge Determines New Learning — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Instructional guidance that helps novices can become redundant or counterproductive as expertise grows. — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Presentation condition does not differentially affect microstructure comprehension over five weeks, though VNT and NT groups improved while the text-only group did not — related
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive load while reading lesson text for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Revisions made no reliable difference to total time spent with the lesson — related
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive processing of lesson text for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Revised visuals reduce cognitive processing of math-relevant visuals for low prior knowledge students but increase it for middle prior knowledge students — related
• Higher extraneous cognitive load predicted lower post-test scores after controlling for prior knowledge — related
• Propositional knowledge showed a prior knowledge main effect but no instructional method × prior knowledge interaction — related
• SRL skills and prior knowledge predict revision performance, while SRL predicts higher and prior knowledge lower cognitive load — related
• Pupils in all three conditions gained significantly from pre-test to post-test and retention test, with no prior-knowledge differences between conditions — related
• No significant differences between conditions on the retention test, and scores of the Visual and Timeline conditions decreased significantly from post-test to retention — related
• In one eye-tracking experiment, revising math-relevant visuals changes fixation length on them differently by prior knowledge group, with shorter fixations under the revised visuals for low prior knowledge students — related