Impact of Metacognitive Instructions on
Representational Use and Conceptual Understanding
David Corradi;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
david.corradi@ppw.kuleuven.be
Jan Elen;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
jan.elen@ppw.kuleuven.be
Geraldine Clarebout;
University of Leuven (KU Leuven)
Dekenstraat 2 bus 3773, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
geraldine.clarebout@ppw.kuleuven.be
Abstract. As previous research has found that low prior knowledge users have a hard time using
chemical MER (multiple external representations) for learning (e.g., Corradi, Elen & Clarebout, in
press), this study analysed the impact of instructional aids on the use of MER (i.e., texts, symbols and
submicroscopic representations), and on conceptual understanding of chemistry. Using 157
participants, the impact of metacognitive aids, supplanting aids and note-taking on representational
use, and conceptual understanding was investigated. Path-analysis suggests metacognitive aids and
note-taking to help the lowest prior knowledge group the most by guiding their attention towards other
representational types than texts. Guiding learners’ attention towards submicroscopic representations
remains a challenge.
Keywords: Multiple Representations; Low prior knowledge; Conceptual Understanding; Instructional
Aids;
Presentation format: Research students and early career presentations
Introduction
Contrary to single external representations (e.g., a diagram), multiple external representations (MER)
(e.g., a formula and a diagram) are assumed to support the formation of conceptual understanding
when learners conjoin the information from these representations (Kozma, 2003).
Using MER for learning requires learners to understand which parts of the domain are
represented (Ainsworth, 2006). Moreover, they have to be able to relate the multiple external
representations to one another, and interpret the similarities and differences of corresponding features
of two or more representations (Van der Meij, 2007). Based on their research, Berthold and Renkl
(2009) argue that integration of MER is the key mechanism when the main goal of instruction is
conceptual understanding.
Representations in our study are limited to three formats that are common in chemistry:
symbols, submicroscopic representations and texts. Symbols in chemistry are primarily associated
with describing reactions, structures and mechanisms (Rappoport & Ashkenazi, 2008).
Submicroscopic representations provide visuo-spatial information for the level at which matter is
depicted as being composed of atoms or molecules (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008). Text forms the
central clarifying representation, which entails most information (text-centric).
Compared to more advanced students, novice learners (in this study defined as students with
low prior knowledge within a given domain) seem to have more difficulties in using MER for learning
and making connections between representations (Seufert, 2003; Corradi, et al., 2012). Most research
concludes that lack of prior knowledge limits learners from employing MER to achieve conceptual
understanding and they conclude that learners have more chance of learning at a deeper level with
additional instructional aid (Van der Meij, 2007). So if MER are needed for learning new information
for low knowledge learners, but students must be supported in their use of these MER, the question
becomes then how this support should look like.
Instructional aids that help learning with MER. Three types of support were compared: 1)
supplanting instructional aids, which are aids that take over most cognitive operations, in this case,
they consist of guiding attention and explaining in what way the representations relate (Seufert, 2003).
2) metacognitive self-explanatory prompts, which induce learners to reflect and self-explain principles
that lie behind these MER (Berthold & Renkl, 2009). 3) Note-taking, which can work as a memory
strategy because it chunks together information in working memory, and helps to encode information
into the long-term memory (Fisher & Harris, 1973).
Hypotheses. This research aims at studying the impact of instructional aids on the use of
representations, which in turn impacts conceptual understanding. Hypothesis 1: The conditions with
supplanting aids have a positive influence on the use of MER. This MER behavior causes a higher
increase in conceptual understanding compared to the condition with self-explanatory prompts (i.e.,
metacognitive aids). Hypothesis 2: There will be a positive influence observed of note-taking on the
use of MER, which in turn will have a positive influence on conceptual understanding. Hypothesis 3:
There will be a positive interaction effect of note-taking and prompts with answer on conceptual
understanding.
Method
Participants and Design. In a pre-post randomized design, 157 undergraduate students in educational
sciences were randomly divided into six groups. 20% were male and the mean age was 22.17 (SD=
4.93). Each group received six texts (2352 words in total) about different topics in chemistry (e.g.,
atoms, rate of reaction). With each text, there was a symbolic representation and a submicroscopic
representation. Group 1 (n=26) was the control group (representations-only). Group 2 (n=26) had the
opportunity to take notes. Group 3 (n=27) received a prompt. The prompt was a conceptual question
cueing learners to interrelate representations. Group 4 (n=26) received the prompt and the opportunity
to take notes. Group 5 (n=25) received the prompt and a detailed answer on the prompt (the
supplanting aid). Group 6 (n=27) received the prompt, the answer, and the option to take notes.
Instruments and Procedure. Participants were given 40 minutes to study the information. To
measure conceptual understanding of chemistry, we used three instruments of the chemical literacy
tests developed by Shwartz, Ben-zvi and Hofstein (2006). All activities of the participants were
recorded in log files. We calculated the proportional time (PT) spent observing each representation,
and we calculated the proportional number (PN) of visits to each representation. Similar to Seufert
(2003), we compared three groups of prior knowledge, using the 33rd and 66th percentile of the scores
on the pre-test.
Results
We used multiple stepwise regression path analysis to test hypothesis 1 and 2. When learners received
aids (self-explanatory prompts and note-taking), they gave more attention to symbols (increased PT),
less to texts (decreased PT). Submicroscopic representations (PN) influenced learning gains, but pathanalysis indicates that no aid helped to focus on those representations. To test hypothesis 3, we
performed a 3 x 2 x 3 factorial ANOVA. There are no main effects of instructional aid, F(2,139) =
1.575, p=.212, ηp²=.022, or note-taking: F(1,139) = 1.438, p =.230, ηp²=.010. There is a main effect of
PK (prior knowledge), F(2,139) = 31.184, p=.000, ηp²=.310 and there is a significant interaction effect
for note-taking and PK, F(2,139) = 5.487, p = .005, ηp² = .073. The success of note-taking depends on
the level of PK, and only the LPK (low prior knowledge) students benefitted from note-taking
according to Scheffé post-hoc analysis.
Discussion
When learning with MER, LPK learners seem to be capable of using aids to help focus on symbols
and increase their understanding. The same tools do not help higher level learners. Only the LPK
students benefited from adding a self-explanation-prompt to the learning environment, or from taking
notes. These aids helped because they guided the attention away from texts, towards symbols (i.e.,
increased PT), and we could conclude from this that participants tried to understand and link symbolic
and textual representations. We assume that, based on our regression analysis, our higher knowledge
learners could have increased their understanding if they had received instructional aids that would
have guided their attention more towards submicroscopic representations and increased their linking
behavior between text, symbols and submicroscopic representations, such as the assignment to draw
the molecules (e.g., Chittleborough & Treagust, 2008).
Seufert (2003) found – also in chemistry, with similar tests and a similar group of students that only middle level prior knowledge students were helped by instructional aids, whereas we found
that the LPK students were positively affected by instructional aids (it could however be that her MPK
level participants were equal to our LPK participants). A second decisive difference is that Seufert also
used the subject of chemistry to understand learning behavior with MER, but she solely focused on
symbolic and textual representations, while according to our results, it is the use of submicroscopic
representations (measured as increased PN) that is most relevant for achieving what she calls
‘coherence forming’ in chemistry, i.e. making links between MER (see also Rappaport & Ashkenazi,
2008).
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations.
Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198.
Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple
representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 70–87.
Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagrams requires transforming
from one level of representation to another. Research in Science Education, 38, 463–482.
Corradi, D., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2012). Understanding and enhancing the use of multiple external
representations in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Online First. doi:
10.1007/s10956-012-9366-z
Fisher, J. L., & Harris, M. B. (1973). Effect of note-taking and review on recall. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 66(3), 321-325.
Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances
for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.
Rappoport, L. T., & Ashkenazi, G. (2008). Connecting levels of representation: Emergent versus submergent
perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1585–1603.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 227–237.
Shwartz, Y., Ben-Zvi, R., & Hofstein, A. (2006). The use of scientific literacy taxonomy for assessing the
development of chemical literacy among high-school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice,
7(4), 203–225.
Van der Meij, J. (2007). Support for learning with multiple representations. Designing simulation-based
learning environments.(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl