Cromley, J., Snyder-Hogan, L., & Luciw-Dubas, U. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59-74.
Cromley, J.; Snyder-Hogan, L.; & Luciw-Dubas, U.
2010
Cromley, J., Snyder-Hogan, L., & Luciw-Dubas, U. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 59-74.
1
Ainsworth’s (2006) DeFT framework posits that different representations may lead learners to use different strategies. We wanted to investigate whether students use different strategies, and more broadly, different cognitive activities in diagrams vs. in running text. In order to do so, we collected think-aloud protocol and other measures from 91 beginning biology majors reading an 8-page passage from their own textbook which included seven complex diagrams. We coded the protocols for a wide range of cognitive activities, including strategy use, inference, background knowledge, vocabulary, and word reading. Comparisons of verbalizations while reading running text vs. reading diagrams showed that high-level cognitive activities—inferences and high-level strategy use—were used a higher proportion of the time when comprehending diagrams compared to when reading text. However, in running text vs. diagrams participants used a wider range of different individual cognitive activities (e.g., more different types of inferences). Our results suggest that instructors might consider teaching students how to draw inferences in both text and diagrams. They also show an interesting paradox that warrants further research—students often skipped over or superficially skimmed diagrams, but when they did read the diagrams they engaged in more high-level cognitive activity.
It appears from the results of our think-aloud protocol analysis that when reading diagrams, students engage in significantly more inference and high-level strategies and show significantly less use of low-level strategies and vocabulary difficulty, compared to when reading running text. Results of the think-aloud protocols and other measures also suggest that both variability in inference types and greater use of inference is as prevalent in the process of comprehending diagrams as in comprehending scientific text.
91
1