Students reported using visual cues for draw judgments but not for test or explain judgments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Study 1b, approximately 38% of participants reported using visual cues for draw judgments, while almost none reported visual cues for explain or test judgments. → Jaeger 2024

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

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Study 1b online study with 47 undergraduates reporting cue use after making judgments on biology texts. Only 1 participant reported visual cues for explain and none for test judgments, while "18 participants (approximately 38%) did report using visual cues" for draw judgments.

"Out of all 47 participants, only one reported basing their explain judgment on visual information and none reported basing their test judgments on visual information. When we examined the frequency of reporting visual information as a basis for draw judgments, there were no differences overall, X2(1) = 0.12, p = 0.73, but 18 participants (approximately 38%) did report using visual cues."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Text-only students based draw judgments on internal mental images while image-condition students recalled external visuals — related
• Students in the image condition gave higher draw judgment magnitude than text-only students in Study 1a — related
• Instructional visuals reduced draw relative metacomprehension accuracy compared to text-only condition — related
• Students using representation-based cues showed higher draw relative accuracy than those using heuristic cues — related
• In Studies 1a and 2, instructional visuals produced no significant difference in test performance or in test and explain relative metacomprehension accuracy — related