![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Solving test items might require abilities in test-takers other than the construct the test was designed to assess. Item and student characteristics such as item format or reading comprehension can impact the test result. This experiment is based on cognitive theories of text and picture comprehension. It examines whether integration aids, which relate pictorial representations to the corresponding textual representations in item stimuli, affect performance in a science test. The results show that items containing referential connections between both representations and highlighting associated information are easier to solve than non-integrated items (i.e., items without aids). However, this is only true for information-complementary representations, not for information-equivalent representations. Furthermore, an effect of reading comprehension on students’ test performance observed when complementary information was presented in a non-integrated format was absent in the integrated format condition.
References
Section:
|
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar | |
|
Ainsworth, S. E. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brünken, R., Steinbacher, S., Schnotz, W., Leutner, D. (2001). Mentale Modelle und Effekte der Präsentations- und Abrufkodalität beim Lernen mit Multimedia [Mental models and effects of presentation and retrieval during learning with multimedia]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 15, 16-27. doi:10.1024//1010-0652.15.1.16 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Embretson, S., Gorin, J. (2001). Improving construct validity with cognitive psychology principles. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 343-368. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2001.tb01131.x Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Florax, M., Plötzner, R. (2010). What contributes to the split-attention effect? The role of text segmentation, picture labeling, and spatial proximity. Learning and Instruction, 20, 216-224. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.021 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Gorin, J. S. (2006). Item design with cognition in mind. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 25(4), 21-35. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2006.00076.x Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hannus, M., Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95-123. doi:10.1006/ceps.1998.0987 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Krajcik, J. S., Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328, 456-459. doi:10.1126/science.1182593 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Leighton, J. P., Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.). (2004). The nature of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Foy, P., Stanco, G. M. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in science. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. Google Scholar | |
|
Mason, L., Tornatora, M. C., Pluchino, P. (2013). Do fourth graders integrate text and picture in processing and learning from an illustrated science text? Evidence from eye-movement patterns. Computers & Education, 60, 95–109. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.011 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Mayer, R. E. (1989). Systematic thinking fostered by illustrations in scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 240-246. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.240 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Mislevy, R. J. (2006). Cognitive psychology and educational assessment. In Brennan, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 257-306). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Google Scholar | |
|
Moreno, R., Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.358 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development . (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar | |
|
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development . (2009). Take the test. Sample questions from OECD’s PISA assessments. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar | |
|
Reinking, D., Hayes, D. A., McEneaney, J. E. (1988). Good and poor readers’ use of explicitly cued graphic aids. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 229-247. doi:10.1080/10862968809547641 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Saß, S., Wittwer, J., Senkbeil, M., Köller, O. (2012). Pictures in test items: Effects on response time and response correctness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 70-81. doi:10.1002/acp.1798 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Schneider, W., Schlagmüller, M., Ennemoser, M. (2007). Lesegeschwindigkeits- und -verständnistest für die Klassen 6-12 (LGVT 6-12) [Reading speed and reading comprehension test for Grades 6-12]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Google Scholar | |
|
Schnotz, W., Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: Visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190. doi:10.1007/s11251-007-9029-2 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13, 227-237. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge. Google Scholar | Crossref |
