想象策略能促进多媒体的学习么?元分析的视角

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.02263

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

想象策略, 即要求学习者在脑海中生成学习的内容, 是一种重要的学习策略, 但它对学习是否具有积极的影响目前研究结论尚不一致。本研究采用元分析技术, 以保持、理解、迁移、花费时间和认知负荷作为结果变量, 探究想象策略对学习的影响, 并通过将学习材料是否可见、想象策略使用时机和被试年龄段作为调节变量以探索想象策略的边界条件。通过文献筛选, 最终选定了20篇论文, 生成了65个效应量。结果发现, 想象策略可以提高保持、理解和迁移的成绩, 但对学习时间和认知负荷的影响不显著。调节效应分析发现：想象策略在一定程度上受到材料可见性的影响, 在材料可见的情况下, 想象策略对学习有积极的影响, 但当材料不可见时, 想象策略对学习有消极的影响。

关键词: 想象策略, 学习策略, 认知负荷理论, 生成性学习理论

Abstract:

Learning by imagining, which refers to learners forming mental images corresponding to learning materials in their minds, is an essential generative learning strategy. Whether the imagination strategy has a positive impact on multimedia learning has yet to be consistent. Generative learning theory holds that the imagination strategy can enhance learners' memory and understanding of learning materials by encouraging them to produce a structured well-connected mental image in mind. However, according to the cognitive load theory, the formed mental images will occupy a large number of cognitive resources, thus leading to cognitive overload and hindering learning. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis to explore whether the imagination strategy can affect learning performance, time spent, and cognitive load. Based on relevant studies, it was found that the manipulative way of imagination strategy (learning material visibility, timing of use) and the learner’s individual characteristics (learner’s age) might be the factors for the effect of the imagination strategy. So we further explored several moderators (i.e., learning material visibility, the timing of imagination strategy, and learner’s age) that may have contributed to the boundary conditions of the imagination strategy. We found 20 articles met the inclusion criteria and generated 65 effect sizes. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the imagination strategy could positively facilitate learning performance (g _retention = 0.40, g _{comprehension} = 0.27, g _transfer = 0.43). But there is no significant effect on learning time and cognitive load. This result confirmed the hypothesis of generative learning theory that the imagination strategy can promote meaningful learning by helping learners to attend, organize and integrate relevant materials. Furthermore, moderator analysis found that the learning material visibility moderated the impact of imagination strategy. When the material was visible, the imagination strategy could positively impact learning (g _retention = 0.42). But when the material was not visible, the imagination strategy had a negative impact on learning (g _retention = -0.26). This result could be explained by the cognitive load theory. When learning materials were not visible, learners needed to spend more cognitive resources on recall and retrieval, which might cause cognitive overload. So it could not promote learning and even have a negative impact. In addition, no moderating effect was found on the timing of using imagination strategy and learner’s age. There might be other factors that need further exploration. In conclusion, the imagination strategy plays a positive role in multimedia learning. In educational practice, educators should encourage learners to adopt the imagination strategy for learning. Allowing learners to view the material while imaging will lead to better learning performance. Due to the limited number of articles, this study did not set a more detailed baseline. Future research should focus on boundary conditions, neural mechanisms, and ecological validity to further explore the mechanism of imagination strategies.

Key words: learning by imagining, learning strategy, cognitive load theory, generative learning theory

中图分类号:

B849: G44

杨九民, 章仪, 杨荣华, 皮忠玲. (2023). 想象策略能促进多媒体的学习么?元分析的视角. 心理科学进展 , 31(12), 2263-2274.

YANG Jiumin, ZHANG Yi, YANG Ronghua, PI Zhongling. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of imagination strategy on multimedia learning. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(12), 2263-2274.

图/表 5

参考文献 41

	(带*的为纳入元分析的文献)
[1]	徐珂. (2020). 学习策略对教学视频学习的影响* (硕士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[2]	Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191 pmid: 847061
[3]	Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
[4]	Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
[5]	Cheng, L., & Beal, C. R. (2020). Effects of student- generated drawing and imagination on science text reading in a computer-based learning environment. Educational Technology Research Development*, 68, 225-247. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09684-1
[6]	Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145-182.
[7]	Clark, L. V. (1960). Effect of mental practice on the development of a certain motor skill. Research Quarterly of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, & Recreation, 31, 560-569.
[8]	Cooper, G., Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learning by imagining. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 7(1), 68-82. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.1.68 URL
[9]	Cromley, J. G., Du, Y., & Dane, A. P. (2020). Drawing-to- Learn: Does meta-analysis show differences between technology-based drawing and paper-and-pencil drawing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 216-229. doi: 10.1007/s10956-019-09807-6
[10]	de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Pass, F. (2020a). Effects of spatial distance on the effectiveness of mental and physical integration strategies in learning from split-attention examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 110*, 106379. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106379 URL
[11]	de Koning, B. B., Rop, G., & Pass, F. (2020b). Learning from split-attention materials: Effects of teaching physical and mental learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology*, 61, 101873. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101873 URL
[12]	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(1), 4-58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266 pmid: 26173288
[13]	Eielts, C., Pouw, W., Ouwehand, K., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., & Paas, F. (2020). Co-thought gesturing supports more complex problem solving in subjects with lower visual working-memory capacity. Psychological Research, 84, 502-513. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1065-9 pmid: 30066133
[14]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 URL
[15]	Fiorella, L., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1115-1137. doi: 10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8
[16]	Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology*, 96(3), 424-436. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424 URL
[17]	Huang, X., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding self-efficacy features to an online statistics lesson. Journal of Educational Computing Research*, 57(4), 1003-1037. doi: 10.1177/0735633118771085
[18]	Ignatova, O., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). The imagination effect when using textual or diagrammatic material to learn a second language. Language Teaching Research*, 27(4), 995-1015. doi: 10.1177/1362168820971785 URL
[19]	Lachner, A., Backfisch, I., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2020). Timing matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students’ learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 841-853. doi: 10.1037/edu0000396 URL
[20]	Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load and the imagination effect. Apply Cognitive Psychology*, 18(7), 857-875.
[21]	Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied*, 11(4), 266-276. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.266 URL
[22]	Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2008). The imagination effect increases with an increased intrinsic cognitive load. Applied Cognitive Psychology*, 22(2), 273-283. doi: 10.1002/acp.v22:2 URL
[23]	Leopold, C. (2022). The Imagination Principle in Multimedia Learning.In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 370-380). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[24]	Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107*(1), 47-63. doi: 10.1037/a0037142 URL
[25]	Leopold, C., Mayer, R. E., & Dutke, S. (2019). The power of imagination and perspective in learning from science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111*(5), 793-808. doi: 10.1037/edu0000310
[26]	Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior*, 25(2), 284-289. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010 URL
[27]	Lin, L., Lee, C. H., Kalyuga, S., Wang, Y., Guan, S., & Wu, H. (2017). The effect of learner-generated drawing and imagination in comprehending a science text. The Journal of Experimental Education*, 85(1), 142-154. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2016.1143796 URL
[28]	Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
[29]	Ploetzner, R., & Fillisch, B. (2017). Not the silver bullet: Learner-generated drawings make it difficult to understand broader spatiotemporal structures in complex animations. Learning and Instruction*, 47, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.002 URL
[30]	Pouw, W., van Gog, T., Zwaan, R. A., Agostinho, S., & Paas, F. (2018). Co-thought gestures in children’s mental problem solving: Prevalence and effects on subsequent performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 66-80. doi: 10.1002/acp.v32.1 URL
[31]	Sackett, R. S. (1934). The influence of symbolic rehearsal upon the retention of a maze habit. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 376-398. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1934.9917742 URL
[32]	Scheiter, K., Gerjets, P., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Making the abstract concrete: Visualizing mathematical solution procedures. Computers in Human Behavior*, 22(1), 9-25. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.009 URL
[33]	Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275-286. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003 URL
[34]	Schmidgall, S. P., Eitel, A., & Scheiter, K. (2019). Why do learners who draw perform well? Investigating the role of visualization, generation and externalization in learner- generated drawing. Learning and Instruction*, 60, 138-153. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.006
[35]	Sibley, L., Fiorella, L., & Lachner, A. (2022). It's better when I see it: Students benefit more from open‐book than closed-book teaching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(6), 1347-1355. doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.6 URL
[36]	Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture:Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 295-325). American Psychological Association.
[37]	Tindall-Ford, S., & Sweller, J. (2006). Altering the modality of instructions to facilitate imagination: Interactions between the modality and imagination effects. Instructional Science*, 34(4), 343-365. doi: 10.1007/s11251-005-6075-5 URL
[38]	Toth, A. J., McNeil, E., Hayes, K, Moran, A. P., & Campbell, M. (2020). Does mental practice still enhance performance? A 24 Year follow-up and meta-analytic replication and extension. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101672. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101672 URL
[39]	van Meer, J. P., & Theunissen, N. C. M. (2009). Prospective educational applications of mental simulation: A meta- review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(2), 93-112. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9097-8 URL
[40]	Wang, B., Ginns, P., & Mockler, N. (2022). Sequencing Tracing with Imagination. Education Psychology Review*, 34, 421-449. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09625-6
[41]	Watanabe, H., Tanaka, H., Sakti, S., & Nakamura, S. (2020). Synchronization between overt speech envelope and EEG oscillations during imagined speech. Neuroscience Research, 153, 48-55. doi: S0168-0102(18)30677-1 pmid: 31005564

结果变量	k	n	Hedges’s g	95% CI	异质性
结果变量	k	n	Hedges’s g	95% CI	Q	p	I²
保持	12	1041	0.40^****	0.19, 0.61	27.41	0.004	59.87
理解	6	525	0.27^**	0.09, 0.45	4.30	0.51	0.000
迁移	28	1758	0.43^***	0.23, 0.63	104.92	<0.001	74.27
学习时间	8	642	-0.27	-1.01, 0.47	123.06	<0.001	94.31
认知负荷	11	928	-0.09	-0.44, 0.33	73.45	<0.001	86.38

结果变量	k	n	Hedges’s g	95% CI	异质性
结果变量	k	n	Hedges’s g	95% CI	Q	p	I²
保持	12	1041	0.40^****	0.19, 0.61	27.41	0.004	59.87
理解	6	525	0.27^**	0.09, 0.45	4.30	0.51	0.000
迁移	28	1758	0.43^***	0.23, 0.63	104.92	<0.001	74.27
学习时间	8	642	-0.27	-1.01, 0.47	123.06	<0.001	94.31
认知负荷	11	928	-0.09	-0.44, 0.33	73.45	<0.001	86.38

结果变量	调节变量		k	g	95% CI	异质性
结果变量	调节变量		k	g	95% CI	Q_B	p
保持	材料可见性	可见	8	0.42	[0.25, 0.58]	9.25	0.010
		不可见	1	-0.26	[-0.67, 0.16]
		未明确	3	0.53	[-0.13, 1.19]
	时机	中	10	0.47	[0.25, 0.69]	1.34	0.246
	时机	后	2	0.08	[-0.56, 0.70]	1.34	0.246
	年龄段	儿童	1	1.16	[0.26, 2.06]	2.82	0.093
	年龄段	成人	11	0.36	[0.16, 0.57]	2.82	0.093
迁移	材料可见性	可见	19	0.40	[0.15, 0.65]	0.21	0.899
		不可见	6	0.49	[-0.03, 1.08]
		未明确	3	0.52	[-0.02, 1.05]
	时机	中	19	0.50	[0.28, 0.66]	0.74	0.391
	时机	后	9	0.26	[-0.26, 0.77]	0.74	0.391
	年龄段	儿童	13	0.49	[0.11, 0.88]	0.20	0.654
	年龄段	成人	15	0.39	[0.15, 0.63]	0.20	0.654
认知负荷	材料可见性	可见	4	0.07	[-0.32, 0.47]	5.77	0.056
		不可见	3	-0.82	[-1.73, 0.09]
		未说明	4	0.30	[0.04, 0.56]
	时机	中	9	-0.17	[-0.62, 0.27]	1.46	0.227
	时机	后	2	0.28	[-0.30, 0.86]	1.46	0.227
	年龄段	儿童	2	-0.55	[-2.53, 1.43]	0.30	0.586
	年龄段	成人	9	0.01	[-0.30, 0.31]	0.30	0.586

结果变量	调节变量		k	g	95% CI	异质性
结果变量	调节变量		k	g	95% CI	Q_B	p
保持	材料可见性	可见	8	0.42	[0.25, 0.58]	9.25	0.010
		不可见	1	-0.26	[-0.67, 0.16]
		未明确	3	0.53	[-0.13, 1.19]
	时机	中	10	0.47	[0.25, 0.69]	1.34	0.246
	时机	后	2	0.08	[-0.56, 0.70]	1.34	0.246
	年龄段	儿童	1	1.16	[0.26, 2.06]	2.82	0.093
	年龄段	成人	11	0.36	[0.16, 0.57]	2.82	0.093
迁移	材料可见性	可见	19	0.40	[0.15, 0.65]	0.21	0.899
		不可见	6	0.49	[-0.03, 1.08]
		未明确	3	0.52	[-0.02, 1.05]
	时机	中	19	0.50	[0.28, 0.66]	0.74	0.391
	时机	后	9	0.26	[-0.26, 0.77]	0.74	0.391
	年龄段	儿童	13	0.49	[0.11, 0.88]	0.20	0.654
	年龄段	成人	15	0.39	[0.15, 0.63]	0.20	0.654
认知负荷	材料可见性	可见	4	0.07	[-0.32, 0.47]	5.77	0.056
		不可见	3	-0.82	[-1.73, 0.09]
		未说明	4	0.30	[0.04, 0.56]
	时机	中	9	-0.17	[-0.62, 0.27]	1.46	0.227
	时机	后	2	0.28	[-0.30, 0.86]	1.46	0.227
	年龄段	儿童	2	-0.55	[-2.53, 1.43]	0.30	0.586
	年龄段	成人	9	0.01	[-0.30, 0.31]	0.30	0.586