Eva Rexigel, Jochen Kuhn, Sebastian Becker, Sarah Malone
{"title":"The More the Better? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Benefits of More than Two External Representations in STEM Education","authors":"Eva Rexigel, Jochen Kuhn, Sebastian Becker, Sarah Malone","doi":"10.1007/s10648-024-09958-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the last decades, a multitude of results in educational and psychological research have shown that the implementation of multiple external representations (MERs) in educational contexts represents a valuable tool for fostering learning and problem-solving skills. The context of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has received great attention because it necessitates using various symbolic (e.g., text and formula) and graphical representations (e.g., pictures and graphs) to convey subject content. Research has mainly explored effects of combining two representations, but the potential benefits of integrating more than two representations on students’ learning remain underexplored. This gap limits our understanding of promising educational practices and restricts the development of effective teaching strategies catering to students’ cognitive needs. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 46 studies and a meta-analysis that included 132 effect sizes to evaluate the effectiveness of using more than two representations in STEM education and to identify moderating factors influencing learning and problem-solving. A network diagram analysis revealed that the advantages of learning and problem-solving with MERs are also applicable to more than two representations. A subsequent meta-analysis revealed that the learning with more than two representations in STEM can have advantageous effects on students cognitive load (<span>\\({\\text{Hedges}}{^\\prime}g =0.324,~p<.001,~95\\%~\\text{CI}~[0.164, 0.484]\\)</span>) and performance (<span>\\({\\text{Hedges}}{^\\prime}g =0.118,~p<.001,~95\\%~\\text{CI}~[0.050, 0.185]\\)</span>) compared to learning with two representations without notable differences in learning time. The analysis of moderating factors revealed that benefits of learning with more than two representations primarily depend on the provision of appropriate support.</p>","PeriodicalId":48344,"journal":{"name":"Educational Psychology Review","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09958-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Over the last decades, a multitude of results in educational and psychological research have shown that the implementation of multiple external representations (MERs) in educational contexts represents a valuable tool for fostering learning and problem-solving skills. The context of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education has received great attention because it necessitates using various symbolic (e.g., text and formula) and graphical representations (e.g., pictures and graphs) to convey subject content. Research has mainly explored effects of combining two representations, but the potential benefits of integrating more than two representations on students’ learning remain underexplored. This gap limits our understanding of promising educational practices and restricts the development of effective teaching strategies catering to students’ cognitive needs. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 46 studies and a meta-analysis that included 132 effect sizes to evaluate the effectiveness of using more than two representations in STEM education and to identify moderating factors influencing learning and problem-solving. A network diagram analysis revealed that the advantages of learning and problem-solving with MERs are also applicable to more than two representations. A subsequent meta-analysis revealed that the learning with more than two representations in STEM can have advantageous effects on students cognitive load (\({\text{Hedges}}{^\prime}g =0.324,~p<.001,~95\%~\text{CI}~[0.164, 0.484]\)) and performance (\({\text{Hedges}}{^\prime}g =0.118,~p<.001,~95\%~\text{CI}~[0.050, 0.185]\)) compared to learning with two representations without notable differences in learning time. The analysis of moderating factors revealed that benefits of learning with more than two representations primarily depend on the provision of appropriate support.
期刊介绍:
Educational Psychology Review aims to disseminate knowledge and promote dialogue within the field of educational psychology. It serves as a platform for the publication of various types of articles, including peer-reviewed integrative reviews, special thematic issues, reflections on previous research or new research directions, interviews, and research-based advice for practitioners. The journal caters to a diverse readership, ranging from generalists in educational psychology to experts in specific areas of the discipline. The content offers a comprehensive coverage of topics and provides in-depth information to meet the needs of both specialized researchers and practitioners.