Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays

Three experiments compared the learning potential of text versus outline and matrix displays. In Experiments 1 and 2, college students read or heard a passage about fish and then studied the text, an outline, or a matrix. In Experiment 3, students heard a passage about wildcats, and then studied text, outline, or matrix displays. In all experiments, the text, outline, and matrix formats were informationally equivalent. However, the two-dimensional matrix appeared more computationally efficient than the linear organized text or outline because it (a) positioned related information about fish or wildcats in closer proximity so that local relations within a single category (such as “size”) were learned, and (b) organized information spatially so that global relations across categories (such as size and diet) were learned. The learning potential of text, outline, and matrix displays was also examined in combination with variations in thematic organization, amount of study time, and time of testing. The most important and consistent findings were that (a) outline and matrix displays produced greater relational learning than the text, and (b) matrix displays produced greater relational learning than outlines.

[1]  R. Mayer Aids to text comprehension , 1984 .

[2]  Steven H. Schwartz,et al.  Representation in Deductive Problem Solving: The Matrix. , 1972 .

[3]  Kenneth A. Kiewra,et al.  Providing study notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. , 1988 .

[4]  Parmalee P. Hawk,et al.  Using graphic organizers to increase achievement in middle school life science , 1986 .

[5]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  11 – Models for Free Recall and Recognition1 , 1970 .

[6]  Sarah Guri‐Rozenblit,et al.  Impact of Diagrams on Recalling Sequential Elements in Expository Texts. , 1988 .

[7]  Kenneth A. Kiewra,et al.  Are Educational Psychology Courses Educationally and Psychologically Sound? What Textbooks and Teachers Say , 1997 .

[8]  Steven H. Schwartz,et al.  Modes of representation and problem solving: Well evolved is half solved. , 1971 .

[9]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[10]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. , 1995 .

[11]  Nelson F. DuBois,et al.  Note-taking functions and techniques. , 1991 .

[12]  J. Mandler Stories: The Function of Structure. , 1983 .

[13]  William Winn,et al.  Recall of the pattern, sequence, and names of concepts presented in instructional diagrams , 1988 .

[14]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge , 1993 .

[15]  Gregory Schraw,et al.  Computational Efficiency through Visual Argument: Do Graphic Organizers Communicate Relations in Text Too Effectively?. , 1994 .

[16]  Daniel H. Robinson,et al.  Why Graphic Organizers Facilitate Search Processes: Fewer Words or Computationally Efficient Indexing? , 1996 .

[17]  P. D. Mccormack,et al.  Recognition memory: How complex a retrieval system? , 1972 .

[18]  Frank L. Greitzer,et al.  Organization and Study Time in Learning From Reading. , 1972 .