Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining competing hypotheses for the effects of diagrams on recall for text

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supplementing text-based learning materials with diagrams typically increases students’ free recall and cued recall of the presented information. In the present experiments, we examined competing hypotheses for why this occurs. More specifically, although diagrams are visual, they also serve to repeat information from the text they accompany. Both visual presentation and repetition are known to aid students’ recall of information. To examine to what extent diagrams aid recall because they are visual or repetitive (or both), we had college students in two experiments (n = 320) read a science text about how lightning storms develop before completing free-recall and cued-recall tests over the presented information. Between groups, we manipulated the format and repetition of target pieces of information in the study materials using a 2 (visual presentation of target information: diagrams present vs. diagrams absent) × 2 (repetition of target information: present vs. absent) between-participants factorial design. Repetition increased both the free recall and cued recall of target information, and this occurred regardless of whether that repetition was in the form of text or a diagram. In contrast, the visual presentation of information never aided free recall. Furthermore, visual presentation alone did not significantly aid cued recall when participants studied the materials once before the test (Experiment 1) but did when they studied the materials twice (Experiment 2). Taken together, the results of the present experiments demonstrate the important role of repetition (i.e., that diagrams repeat information from the text) over the visual nature of diagrams in producing the benefits of diagrams for recall.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although we did not collect demographics from the particular participants in either experiment, on the basis of course-assessment measures, we know that the subject pool from which we acquired our participants is typically composed of about 70 % women and 30 % men. In terms of race and ethnicity, it is also typically composed of about 70 % White/Caucasian people, 20 % Hispanic/Latino people, 10 % Black/African-American people, 5 % Asian/Asian-American people, 2 % American Indian or Alaskan Native people, less than 1 % Native Hawaiian or Pacific Island people, and 2 % people who respond “other.” Our subject pool often includes people who report more than one race or ethnicity, which is why these percentages total over 100 %. Furthermore, this subject pool is typically 65 % college freshmen, 20 % college sophomores, 10 % college juniors, and 5 % college seniors. In terms of age, around 50 % of the people in the subject pool typically report that they are 18 years of age or younger, 25 % report that they are 19 years of age, 15 % report that they are 20 years of age, 5 % report that they are 21 years of age, and 5 % report that they are 22 years of age or older. We expect that our samples in Experiments 1 and 2 were demographically similar to the larger subject pool from which they were derived.

  2. Given that there were no major differences in transfer performance across the groups in either experiment (and overall transfer performance was somewhat low), it seems possible that these instructions might have led participants to focus on studying the materials to answer retention questions rather than transfer questions. Although this reduces the conclusions we can draw from performance on the transfer questions, this does not affect the conclusions we can draw from performance on the retention questions.

References

  • Abel, R. R., & Kulhavy, R. W. (1986). Maps, mode of text presentation, and children’s prose learning. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & Th Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. E., & Seefeldt, R. W. (1989). Read something once, why read it again? Repetitive reading and recall. Journal of Literacy Research, 21, 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. B., & Bern, H. (1981). Causal coherence and memory for events in narratives. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B. K., & Gülgöz, S. (1991). Using Kintsch’s computational model to improve instructional text: Effects of repairing inference calls on recall and cognitive structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromage, B. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative effects of repetition on learning from technical text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 271–278. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunye, T. T., Taylor, H. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2008). Repetition and dual coding in procedural multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 877–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooling, D. J., & Lachman, R. (1971). Effects of comprehension on retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 216–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14, 4–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49, 1147–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. A., & Corkill, A. J. (1987). Influence of paraphrased repetitions on the spacing effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 198–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L. (1992). Human memory: Paradigms and paradoxes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haenggi, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1992). Individual differences in reprocessing of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 182–192. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.2.182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load, and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 713–729. doi:10.1002/acp.1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruction can interfere with learning. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 567–581. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.3.567.50405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Christensen, M., Kim, S. I., & Risch, N. (1991). Effects of repetition on recall and note-taking: Strategies for learning from lectures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 120–123. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, J. R., & Mayer, R. E. (1993). Understanding illustrations in text. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Brinkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannes, S. M., & Kintsch, W. (1987). Knowledge organization and text organization. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 91–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640–652. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1983). Can you repeat that? Qualitative effects of repetition and advance organizers on learning from science prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 40–49. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.75.1.40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Bove, W., Bryman, A., Mars, R., & Tapangco, L. (1996). When less is more: Meaningful learning from visual and verbal summaries of science textbook lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 390–397. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 256–265. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 380–386. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and LOR of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millis, K. K., Simon, S., & tenBroek, N. S. (1998). Resource allocation during the rereading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 26, 232–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. L., Shinjo, M., & Duffy, S. A. (1987). Degree of causal relatedness and memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1965). Abstractness, imagery, and meaningfulness in paired-associated learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4, 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why do rereading lag effects depend on test delay? Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 870–884. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects of background information on text memory. Discourse Processes, 38, 323–344. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 70–80. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (2001). Sign systems, technologies, and the acquisition of knowledge. Multimedia learning: Cognitive and instructional issues, 9-29.

  • Serra, M. J. (2010). Diagrams increase the recall of non-depicted text when comprehension is also increased. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 112–116. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serra, M. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2010). Metacomprehension judgments reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18, 698–711. doi:10.1080/09658211.2010.506441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M., Andrusiak, P., Reisdorf, P., & Black, N. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes. Memory & Cognition, 20, 539–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabbers, H. K., Martens, R. L., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2001). The modality effect in multimedia instructions. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1024–1029).

  • Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Özsoy, B. (2008). Distributed rereading can hurt the spacing effect in text memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westelinck, K. D., Valcke, M., De Craene, B., & Kirschner, P. (2005). Multimedia learning in social sciences: Limitations of external graphical representations. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 555–573. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, MS 2051, Psychology Building, Lubbock, TX, 79409-2051, USA

    Francesca R. Ortegren, Michael J. Serra & Benjamin D. England

Authors
  1. Francesca R. Ortegren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Serra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin D. England
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Serra.

Appendix

Appendix

Analyses using study time as a covariate

Given that study time differed by group in the present experiments, we repeated the analyses for Experiments 1 and 2 using study time as a covariate in additional 2 (presence of diagrams: yes vs. no) × 2 (presence of repetition: yes vs. no) factorial ANOVAs (see also Mautone & Mayer, 2007, for a similar analysis). Overall, including study time as a covariate did not affect the conclusions of the original analyses: Repetition of information was largely responsible for the effects of diagrams on free recall, but both repetition and the visual aspect of diagrams were responsible for the effects of diagrams on cued recall. For completeness, however, we felt that it was appropriate to report these additional analyses for interested readers. Note that in Experiment 2, we used total study time across the two study phases as the covariate.

ANCOVA results for experiment 1

Free recall

Study time was significantly related to the free recall of target information, F(1, 155) = 7.2, MSE = 816.1, p = .008, η p 2 = .05, but the effect of repetition on the free recall of target information was only marginally significant after controlling for study time, F(1, 155) = 3.3, MSE = 816.1, p = .07, η p 2 = .02. The presence of diagrams did not affect the free recall of target information. When we analyzed the free recall of control information the same way, study time was significantly related to free recall, F(1, 155) = 5.4, MSE = 604.6, p = .02, η p 2 = .03, but neither the presence of diagrams nor the presence of repetition affected this measure.

Cued recall

Study time was significantly related to the cued recall of target information, F(1, 155) = 14.3, MSE = 749.3, p < .001, η p 2 = .09, but the effects of repetition, F(1, 155) = 4.0, MSE = 749.3, p = .047, η p 2 = .03, and diagrams, F(1, 155) = 4.9, MSE = 749.3, p = .03, η p 2 = .03, on the cued recall of target information were both significant after controlling for study time. When we analyzed the cued recall of control information the same way, study time was significantly related to cued recall, F(1, 155) = 8.2, MSE = 578.5, p = .005, η p 2 = .05, but neither the presence of diagrams nor the presence of repetition affected this measure.

Transfer performance

Study time was significantly related to transfer performance, F(1, 155) = 7.6, MSE = 0.9, p = .006, η p 2 = .05. The effect of diagrams on transfer performance was only marginally significant after controlling for study time, F(1, 155) = 2.9, MSE = 0.9, p = .09, η p 2 = .02, and the effect of repetition was not significant.

ANCOVA results for experiment 2

Free recall

Study time was significantly related to the free recall of target information, F(1, 155) = 41.1, MSE = 851.3, p < .001, η p 2 = .2, but the presence of diagrams did not affect the free recall of target information. After controlling for study time, the effect of repetition on the free recall of target information was significant, F(1, 155) = 10.7, MSE = 851.3, p = .001, η p 2 = .07, as was the interaction between the presence of diagrams and the presence of repetition, F(1, 155) = 4.6, MSE = 851.3, p = .03, η p 2 = .03. When we analyzed the free recall of control information the same way, study time was significantly related to free recall, F(1, 155) = 37.7, MSE = 569.8, p < .001, η p 2 = .2, but the presence of repetition did not affect this measure. The presence of diagrams increased the free recall of control information in this situation, F(1, 155) = 9.0, MSE = 569.8, p = .003, η p 2 = .06 (see also Serra, 2010).

Cued recall

Study time was significantly related to the cued recall of target information, F(1, 155) = 14.4, MSE = 568.3, p < .001, η p 2 = .08, but the effects of both repetition, F(1, 155) = 6.5, MSE = 568.3, p = .01, η p 2 = .04, and diagrams, F(1, 155) = 15.4, MSE = 568.3, p < .001, η p 2 = .09, on the cued recall of target information remained significant after controlling for study time. When we analyzed the cued recall of control information the same way, study time was significantly related to this measure, F(1, 155) = 10.7, MSE = 633.6, p = .001, η p 2 = .06, but neither the presence of diagrams nor the presence of repetition affected it.

Transfer performance

Study time was not significantly related to transfer performance, and neither diagrams nor repetition affected transfer performance after controlling for study time.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortegren, F.R., Serra, M.J. & England, B.D. Examining competing hypotheses for the effects of diagrams on recall for text. Mem Cogn 43, 70–84 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0429-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0429-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation