A clear distinction exists between cognitive and motivational explanations for hypotheses.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against
Psychological literature explicitly distinguishes between cognitive and motivational explanations or theories, such as in analyzing cognitive versus motivational functions or factors behind cognitive biases.
Abstract Adding representational pictures (RPs) to text-based items has been shown to improve students’ test performance. Focusing on potential explanations for this multimedia effect in testing , we propose two functions of RPs in testing, namely, (1) a cognitive facilitation function and (2) a motivational function . We found empirical support for both functions in this computer-based classroom experiment with N = 410 fifth and sixth graders. All students answered 36 manipulated science items that either contained ( text-picture ) or did not contain ( text-only ) an RP that visualized the text information in the item stem. Each student worked on both item types, following a rotated within-subject design. We measured students’ (a) solution success, (b) time on task (TOT), and identified (c) rapid-guessing behavior (RGB). We used generalized and linear mixed-effects models to investigate RPs’ impact on these outcome parameters and considered students’ level of test engagement and item positions as covariates. The results indicate that (1) RPs improved all students’ performance across item positions in a comparable manner ( multimedia effect in testing ). (2) RPs have the potential to accelerate item processing ( cognitive facilitation function ). (3) The presence of RPs reduced students’ RGB rates to a meaningful extent ( motivational function ). Overall, our data indicate that RPs may promote more reliable test scores, supporting a more valid interpretation of students’ achievement levels.
This study examined the effects of worked examples with different explanation types and novices’ motivation on cognitive load, and how this subsequently influenced their programming problem-solving performance. Given the study’s emphasis on both instructional approaches and learner motivation, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning served as the theoretical framework, as it integrates instructional design with motivational perspectives. The participants consisted of 75 university students who were non-computer majors and enrolled in their first programming course. A 2 × 2 between-subjects ANOVA design was employed, with two factors: explanation type (worked examples with instructional explanations vs. worked examples with guided questions to prompt self-explanations) and learner motivation level (high-motivated vs. less-motivated). The dependent variables included cognitive load components experienced by learners during learning and learning outcomes measured by retention and transfer performance. The results showed that (a) the worked example effect could reduce extraneous load and manage intrinsic load, thereby enhancing retention performance; (b) the combined effects of worked examples and guided self-explanations could benefit transfer learning, regardless of learners’ motivation; and (c) the role of motivation was evident, as high-motivated learners exhibited better retention and transfer performance by exerting more cognitive effort, regardless of instructional approach. The findings suggest that combining worked examples with guided questions to prompt self-explanations through in-code commenting is an effective and constructive activity, enabling novices to focus on actual learning without expending excessive cognitive effort.
cognitive and motivational theories, arguing that motivation creates the bias, but cognitive factors determine the size of the effect. Explanations in
Confirmation bias (also confirmatory bias, myside bias, or congeniality bias) is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs, values, or decisions. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their
Acc…
Everything we examined (3)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.