In this study, we present the newly developed Misconceptions about Multimedia Learning Questionnaire (MMLQ), we evaluate its psychometric properties (item difficulties, scale reliabilities, and internal structure), and we use it to examine the prevalence of four different misconceptions about multimedia learning in student teachers and teachers. A total of 311 participants (176 teachers and 135 student teachers) responded to the items of the MMLQ. The results revealed moderate reliabilities of the MMLQ scales. Moreover, an a priori assumed four-factor structure of misconceptions about multimedia learning was most compatible with teachers’ and student teachers’ answers to the MMLQ items. These four factors were learning styles (multimedia instruction needs to be adapted to students’ learning styles [visual or auditory]), hemispheric isolation (multimedia instruction enables hemispheric communication), naïve summation (multimedia instruction is more effective the more sensory channels are used), and motivation primacy (multimedia instruction is mainly effective because it is motivating). The majority of teachers and student teachers endorsed three of the four misconceptions about multimedia learning (i.e., learning styles [78.1%], hemispheric isolation [58.8%], and naïve summation [81.4%]) as assessed by the MMLQ. This finding may provide valuable information for teacher education and training regarding this specific issue.

Prior research indicates that student teachers frequently have misconceptions about multimedia learning. Our experiment with N = 96 student teachers revealed that, in contrast to standard texts, refutation texts are effective to address misconceptions about multimedia learning. However, there seems to be no added benefit of making “concessions” to student teachers’ prior beliefs (i.e., two-sided argumentation) in refutation texts. Moreover, refutation texts did not promote the selection of appropriate multimedia material. This study suggests that refutation texts addressing multimedia-learning misconceptions should be applied in teacher education. Yet, further support seems needed to aid the application of the corrected knowledge.

In this study, we investigated whether drawing after learning supports metacognitive monitoring especially when students are supported in their drawing efforts. Therefore, eighty-eight participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups. They were asked to learn from a text comprising five paragraphs about the formation of auroras. After reading each of the five paragraphs, one group had to mentally imagine the contents (control group), a second group had to draw from scratch, and a third group had to draw with the help of spatial scaffolds. All participants provided judgments of learning (JOL) for each paragraph, and took a knowledge test afterwards. Results revealed that students who drew, both with and without scaffold, monitored their learning more accurately on an absolute level. Even though there were no differences between the two drawing conditions for monitoring accuracy, JOLs were based on the actual drawing quality only when students drew with the help of spatial scaffolds. Results thus hint towards the potential of (scaffolded) drawing to support metacognitive monitoring. Reasons for why drawing with spatial scaffolds did not improve monitoring compared to drawing from scratch are discussed.

To achieve deeper understanding when learning from multiple representations, learners should actively select, organize and integrate the relevant information from text and graphics within a coherent mental representation. However, as learners often fail to select and integrate all relevant information, especially from graphics, they need specific instructional support. The current study investigated the effects of instructional support in the form of adjunct aids (i.e. fill-in-the blank tasks) with references to the graphics (e.g. "see Figure X") on retention and understanding. In our study, 106 learners (N) received multimedia instructional materials about the formation of auroras either with or without adjunct aidsthe former with references to graphics (signals), or with none. In line with our hypotheses, adjunct aids with signals led to deeper understanding, as reflected by higher scores in the comprehension test. In contrast, adjunct aids with signals did not lead to higher scores in the retention test. Thus, our results are in line with previous research, showing that instructional support for integrating text and graphics specifically fosters deeper understanding. Possible boundary conditions and implications for future research are discussed.

No abstract