Department of Psychology, MS 2051, Psychology Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409-2051, USA.
Memory. 2010 Oct;18(7):698-711. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2010.506441. Epub 2010 Aug 19.
In two experiments we systematically explored whether people consider the format of text materials when judging their text learning, and whether doing so might inappropriately bias their judgements. Participants studied either text with diagrams (multimedia) or text alone and made both per-paragraph judgements and global judgements of their text learning. In Experiment 1 they judged their learning to be better for text with diagrams than for text alone. In that study, however, test performance was greater for multimedia, so the judgements may reflect either a belief in the power of multimedia or on-line processing. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and also included a third group that read texts with pictures that did not improve text performance. Judgements made by this group were just as high as those made by participants who received the effective multimedia format. These results confirm the hypothesis that people's metacomprehension judgements can be influenced by their beliefs about text format. Over-reliance on this multimedia heuristic, however, might reduce judgement accuracy in situations where it is invalid.
在两项实验中,我们系统地探讨了人们在判断文本学习时是否会考虑文本材料的格式,以及这样做是否会不恰当地影响他们的判断。参与者学习了有图表(多媒体)的文本或只有文本的内容,并对段落和整体的文本学习进行了判断。在实验 1 中,他们认为有图表的文本比只有文本的学习效果更好。然而,在该研究中,多媒体的测试表现更好,因此这些判断可能反映了对多媒体的力量的信念或在线处理。实验 2 复制了这一发现,并增加了第三组阅读没有提高文本表现的图片的文本。这一组的判断与接受有效多媒体格式的参与者的判断一样高。这些结果证实了这样一种假设,即人们的元理解判断可以受到他们对文本格式的信念的影响。然而,过度依赖这种多媒体启发式可能会降低在无效情况下的判断准确性。