Andrew T. Stull

Learning by Doing Versus Learning by Viewing: Three Experimental Comparisons of Learner-Generated Versus Author-Provided Graphic Organizers

Three Experimental Comparisons of Learner-generated versus Author-provided Graphic Organizers Andrew T. Stull (stull@psych.ucsb.edu) Richard E. Mayer (mayer@psych.ucsb.edu) Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660 USA Keywords: graphic organizer; cognitive load; generative processes; learning. Introduction Science textbooks contain numerous pictures and illustrations, many of which may offer little more than seductive details (Harp & Mayer, 1998). In contrast, graphic organizers, visual-spatial structures that represent the conceptual organization of a body of text, are advocated to facilitate learning (Robinson & Kiewra, 1995) by helping learners select, organize, and integrate information with their existing knowledge (Mayer, 1979). Two graphic organizer strategies are commonly advocated 1) providing learners with author-provided graphic organizers and 2) having learners construct their own. Paradoxically, provided graphic organizers might not engage learners in generative processing (Alvermann, 1981; Katayama & Robinson, 2000) and learner-constructed graphic organizers might be cognitively overwhelming (Kiewra, K. A., N. F. DuBois, D. Christian, & A McShane, M. Meyerhoffer, & D. Roskelley, 1991). This paradox suggests a tradeoff between promoting generative processes to facilitate meaningful learning and reducing cognitive engagement to address the learners’ limited cognitive capacity (Chandler & Sweller, 1991). This study explores the paradox by testing the hypothesis that learners using author-provided graphic organizers will perform better on knowledge transfer than learners constructing graphic organizers because they will experience lower cognitive load. Method and Results In three experiments, performance on knowledge transfer was compared for learners randomly assigned to read passages that contained either author-provided graphic organizers, learner-constructed graphic organizers, or a control (Experiment 1) or that contained either author- provided graphic organizers, learner-completed graphic organizer templates, or a control (Experiments 2 and 3). In Experiment 1, there was no main effect of graphic organizer strategy, F(2, 153) = 1.317, p = .271. This result is attributed to excessive cognitive load caused by the passage design and the learners poor familiarity with the graphic organizer technique. In Experiments 2, passages were modified to reduce cognitive load and learners were given additional training on graphic organizer construction. There was a main effect of graphic organizer strategy, F(2,113) = 3.601, p = .030. Learners who used author-provided graphic organizers (M = 7.410, SD = 4.429) performed better than learners in the learner-completed group (M = 5.738, SD = 3.438), F(1,113) = 4.112, p = .045, d = 0.43. Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 but with a passage designed to further reduce cognitive load. There was a main effect of graphic organizer strategy, F(2,95) = 5.233, p = .007. Learners using author-provided graphic organizers (M = 9.182, SD = 4.066) performed better than those in the learner-completed group (M = 6.030, SD = 3.513), F(1,95) = 10.366, p = .002, d = 0.83. Discussion Author-provided graphic organizers have the potential to promote meaningful learning when they support generative processes without causing excessive cognitive load. Learner-constructed or -completed graphic organizers may cause excessive cognitive load, which limits the benefit of generative processing and inhibits learning. Increased physical activity of the learner should not be construed to indicate increased learning. References Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44-48. Harp, S. F. & R. E. Mayer. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 414- Katayama, A. D. & D. R. Robinson. (2000). Getting students partially involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, Kiewra, K. A., N. F. DuBois, D. Christian, & A McShane, M. Meyerhoffer, and D. Roskelley. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245. Mayer, R. E. (1979). Can advance organizers influence meaningful learning? Review of Educational Research, Robinson, D. H. & K. A. Kiewra. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 351-362.

Naïve Cartography: How Intuitions about Display Configuration Can Hurt Performance

Abstract Map-making has traditionally been the domain of professional cartographers, but with the advent of interactive display systems, users now have the flexibility to create and configure their own digital maps and other visual displays. This flexibility can be beneficial only if users have good intuitions about which display configurations are effective or ineffective for different tasks. Here we examine peoples intuitions about display effectiveness and whether these intuitions match the actual effectiveness of different displays. Surveys of undergraduate students and post-graduate meteorology students reveal that they consistently prefer enhanced displays, especially those that add animation and realism. These naive intuitions contrast with the principles of cartography, which emphasize the importance of abstracting from the real world to create simple displays that make task-relevant information salient. Both a review of objective studies and a new study presented here support traditional princip...

Representational Translation with Concrete Models in Organic Chemistry.

In representation-rich domains such as organic chemistry, students must be facile and accurate when translating between different 2D representations, such as diagrams. We hypothesized that translating between organic chemistry diagrams would be more accurate when concrete models were used because difficult mental processes could be augmented by external actions on the models. In three studies, the task was to translate between different diagrams of molecules with or without a model. The model groups outperformed control groups, and students who received and used models outperformed those who received but did not use models. Uses of the model suggested that participants were performing external actions to support or replace difficult mental spatial processes. Spatial ability was a much weaker predictor of performance than model use. Results suggest that concrete molecular models can be an effective learning tool but some students need direct instruction to be able to take advantage of models.

Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction

Virtual models are increasingly common in the modern science classroom, however little is known about the relative effectiveness of virtual and concrete models. We developed a virtual modeling system and tested the benefit of haptic cue fidelity, controlling for many other perceptual differences between concrete and virtual models. In two studies we directly compared performance of students using this virtual model and using concrete models for tasks in the domain of organic chemistry. Students used either virtual or concrete models to match diagrams of molecules or compare the structures of molecules represented by models and diagrams. The results indicated similar levels of accuracy and similar ratings of usability for virtual and concrete models but no effect of haptic cue fidelity. Greater efficiency with virtual models was observed when students matched diagrams and models, and this efficiency transferred to later use of concrete models. The efficiency benefit is attributed to interactive constraints of the hand-held interface to the virtual model, which helped students identify task-relevant information in the model and limited them to performing the most task-relevant interactions with the models.

Effects of Mental and Manual Rotation Training on Mental and Manual Rotation Performance

Abstract: Previous research has shown that training can improve mental rotation performance and has found connections between mental and manual rotation. Here we examine how practice in mental or manual (virtual) rotation, affects performance on mental and manual rotation tasks, compared to a control condition. Experiment 1 examined improvement on a mental rotation task following practice in mental or manual rotation. Both mental and manual rotation practice led to more efficient posttest performance. Experiment 2 examined improvement on a manual rotation task. Practice in manual but not mental rotation led to improved performance. Analyses of the manual rotation trajectories revealed no evidence of strategy differences. These results suggest that manual rotation may require additional processes outside of those needed for mental rotation. In terms of training effects, manual rotation training improved both manual and mental rotation performance, whereas mental rotation only significant improved mental rotation performance.

Using transparent whiteboards to boost learning from online STEM lectures

Abstract Research is needed to understand how best to design online videos that foster learning. This study explored the effects of using transparent whiteboards, which allow the instructor to stand behind a transparent glass board and face the students to write and draw while providing a concurrent explanation of the material. Specifically, the affordances of transparent whiteboard lessons might better follow design principles of multimedia learning and foster social agency compared to conventional whiteboard lessons, thereby promoting learning. In two experiments, college students viewed a 20-min Organic Chemistry video lecture with the instructor using either a conventional whiteboard or a transparent whiteboard. Results indicated that students who viewed transparent whiteboard lessons performed better on immediate posttests (Experiment 1 and 2) at interpreting the configuration of spatial diagrams and at explaining key concepts. Students viewing transparent whiteboard lessons also reported more positive ratings of their lecture experience. However, Experiment 2 indicated that the benefits of learning from transparent whiteboards did not persist on a delayed posttest. Overall, this study provides the first systematic investigation of the effects of using transparent whiteboards in video-based instruction.