Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 495–513 | Cite as

An examination of postgraduate students’ use of infographic design, metacognitive strategies and academic achievement

  • Suleyman Eren Yuruk
  • Rabia M. YilmazEmail author
  • Sinan Bilici


This study aims to investigate postgraduate students’ academic achievement, the metacognitive strategies they use and their infographic design scores while studying with infographics. The relationships between these variables and students’ views about this process are also examined. A total of 15 postgraduate students were studied from the Computer Education and Instructional Technology Department of a large east Anatolian university in Turkey. Four different data collection instruments were employed. Results showed that students’ metacognitive strategy scores tended to increase as time progressed over a four-week period. However, there was found to be no regular increase in infographic scores. A relationship between all variables was revealed in this study. While each variable had a relationship with academic achievement, there was no relationship between students’ infographic scores and metacognitive strategies. Also, there were significant differences between students’ academic achievements in terms of metacognitive strategies. Students who were above the average in their use of metacognitive strategies showed better academic achievement than the others. Consequently, we conclude from this study that an infographic creation-based training process has a significant effect on academic achievement and metacognitive skills, especially on facilitating the management of the learning process.


Improving classroom teaching Media in education Teaching/learning strategies 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Allen, K. D., & Hancock, T. E. (2008). Reading comprehension improvement with individualized cognitive profiles and metacognition. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(2), 124–139.Google Scholar
  2. Amzil, A. (2014). The effect of a metacognitive intervention on college students’ reading performance and metacognitive skills. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 27–45.Google Scholar
  3. Aydemir, M. (2014). An investigation of metacognitive activities in distance education in terms of the students’ study process and metacognitive skills. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Atatürk University, Erzurum. [Online].
  4. Babakhani, N. (2011). The effect of teaching the cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies (self-instruction procedure) on verbal math problem-solving performance of primary school students with verbal problem-solving difficulties. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 563–570.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, M., & Wade, S. M. (2012). Improving family and community engagement through sharing data. Briefing paper.Google Scholar
  6. Birjandi, P., Mirhassani, A., & Abbasian, G. (2006). Setting-based metacognitive strategy use. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 49(198), 39–87.Google Scholar
  7. Bleed, R. (2005). Visual literacy in higher education. Educause Learning Initiative, 1, 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Borkin, M. A., Vo, A. A., Bylinskii, Z., Isola, P., Sunkavalli, S., Oliva, A., et al. (2013). What makes a visualization memorable? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12), 2306–2315.Google Scholar
  9. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (p. 65e116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Çifçi, T. (2016). Effects of infographics on students achievement and attitude towards geography lessons. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(1), 154.Google Scholar
  14. Coutinho, A. S. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and academic success. The Journal of Doctoral Research in Education, 1(7), 39–47.Google Scholar
  15. Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  16. Derry, S. J., & Murphy, D. A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From theory to practice. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  17. Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435–447.Google Scholar
  18. Dignath, C., & Büttner, G. (2008). Components of fostering self-regulated learning among students. A meta-analysis on intervention studies at primary and secondary school level. Metacognition and Learning, 3(3), 231–264.Google Scholar
  19. Donker, A. S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk, C. C., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11(2014), 1–26.Google Scholar
  20. Dur, B. I. U. (2014). Data visualization and infographics in visual communication design education at the age of information. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(5), 39.Google Scholar
  21. Erskine, D. L. (2009). Effect of prompted reflection and metacognitive skill instruction on university freshmen’s use of metacognition. Published doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906.Google Scholar
  23. Flynt, E. S., & Brozo, W. (2010). Visual literacy and the content classroom: A question of now, not when. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 526–528.Google Scholar
  24. Ghode, R. (2012). Infographics in news presentation: A study of its effective use in Times of India and Indian Express the two leading newspapers in India. Journal of Business Management and Social Sciences Research, 1(1), 35, 43.Google Scholar
  25. Harvard Business School. (2003). Business communication. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  26. Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1989). Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
  28. Kaya, S. (2012). The effects of cognitive and metacognitive strategy activities on pre-service teachers’ achievements ininstructional designcourse and their levels of cognitive and metacognitive strategy usage. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University, Ankara. [Online]. Retrieved May, 2017 from
  29. Krauss, J. (2012). Infographics: More than words can say. Learning and Leading with Technology, 39(5), 10–14.Google Scholar
  30. Krum, R. (2013). Cool infographics: Effective communication with data visualization and design. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Lei, P. L., Sun, C. T., Lin, S. S., & Huang, T. K. (2015). Effect of metacognitive strategies and verbal-imagery cognitive style on biology-based video search and learning performance. Computers and Education, 87, 326–339.Google Scholar
  32. Mehrdad, A. G., Ahghar, M. R., & Ahghar, M. (2012). The effect of teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension across proficiency levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3757–3763.Google Scholar
  33. Meshkatie, H., Allahvirdiyani, K., Kahnamouei, S. B., & Lohrasbi, A. (2011). An assessment of the effect of training in cognitive and metacognitive strategies on academic achievement of the first-year high school students with academic weakness in Southern Khorasan province. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3032–3034.Google Scholar
  34. Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In SITE conference (pp. 5–236).Google Scholar
  35. Movahed, R. (2014). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on listening performance, metacognitive awareness and listening anxiety of beginner Iranian EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(2), 88.Google Scholar
  36. Nosratinia, M., & Adibifar, S. (2014). The effect of teaching metacognitive strategies on field-dependent and independent learners’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1390–1399.Google Scholar
  37. Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Retrieved June 21, 2007 from http://cmap.ihmcus/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf.
  38. Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. L., & Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, c2005. 1 v. (various pagings): illustrations.Google Scholar
  39. Ott, C., Robins, A., Haden, P., & Shephard, K. (2015). Illustrating performance indicators and course characteristics to support students’ self-regulated learning in CS1. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 174–198.Google Scholar
  40. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  41. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.Google Scholar
  42. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.Google Scholar
  43. Pintrich, P. R., & Groot, E. V. D. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
  44. Poitras, E., Lajoie, S., & Hong, Y. J. (2012). The design of technology-rich learning environments as metacognitive tools in history education. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1033–1061.Google Scholar
  45. Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286.Google Scholar
  46. Rahimi, M., & Abedi, S. (2014). The relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1454–1460.Google Scholar
  47. Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). The role of metacognitive listening strategies awareness and podcast-use readiness in using podcasting for learning English as a foreign language. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1153–1161.Google Scholar
  48. Rahimirad, M. (2014). The impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening performance of university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1485–1491.Google Scholar
  49. Sandall, L., Mamo, M., Speth, C., Lee, D., & Kettler, T. (2014). Student perception of metacognitive activities in entry-level science courses. Natural Sciences Education, 43, 25–32.Google Scholar
  50. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition Learning, 4, 33–45.Google Scholar
  51. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475.Google Scholar
  52. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.Google Scholar
  53. Senemoğlu, N. (2005). Gelişim öğrenme ve öğretim: Kuramdan uygulamaya. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  54. Smiciklas, M. (2012). The power of infographics: Using pictures to communicate and connect with your audiences. Carmel: Que Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. Spalter, A. M., & Van Dam, A. (2008). Digital visual literacy. Theory Into Practice, 47(2), 93–101.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, R. (2007). Metacognition: An intervention for academically unprepared college students. Minneapolis, MN: Capella University.Google Scholar
  57. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.Google Scholar
  58. Vanichvasin, P. (2013). Enhancing the quality of learning through the use of infographics as visual communication tool and learning tool. In Proceedings ICQA 2013 international conference on QA culture: Cooperation or competition (p. 135).Google Scholar
  59. Weaver, S. O. (2012). The effects of metacognitive strategies on academic achievement, metacognitive awareness, and satisfaction in an undergraduate online education course. Published doctoral thesis, University of South Alabama.Google Scholar
  60. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. In Innovation abstracts (Vol. 5, No. 32, p. 32).Google Scholar
  61. Yang, C. (2009). A study of metacognitive strategies employed by English listeners in an EFL setting. International Education Studies, 2(4), 134–139.Google Scholar
  62. Zhussupova, R., & Kazbekova, M. (2016). Metacognitive strategies as points in teaching reading comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 593–600.Google Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329–339.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suleyman Eren Yuruk
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rabia M. Yilmaz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sinan Bilici
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyFirat UniversityElazigTurkey

Personalised recommendations