Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites?

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In three experiments, we investigated the optimal presentation of graphic organizers (GOs) and text by having undergraduates read a chapter-length text in its entirety, a few pages at a time, or a few sentences at a time, before or after viewing seven GOs in their entirety (large bites), one at a time (small bites), or one cell at a time (animated). Large bites were better than small bites for learning concept relations and applying that knowledge, and for recalling macropropositions when the GOs were presented before text. Animated GOs offered no advantages over the large-bites GOs at first presentation and considerably extended total study time. Presenting several GOs first, followed by the entire text, appears to be optimal in directing students’ attention to across-chapter relations in text.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvermann, D. (1980). Effects of graphic organizers, textual organizers, and reading comprehension level on recall of expository prose.Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3963A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. (1981). The compensatory effect of graphic organizers on descriptive text.Journal of Educational Research, 75, 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A.D. (1986).Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, R.F. (1969). The use of vocabulary as an advance organizer. In H.L. Herber & R.T. Vacca (Eds.),Research in reading in the content areas: First year report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Reading and Language Arts Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, R.F. (1979). Research for the classroom teacher: Recent developments on the structured overview as an advance organizer. In H.L. Herber & J.D. Riley (Eds.),Research in reading in the content areas: The fourth report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Reading and Language Arts Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, R.F., & Cooper, R. (1973). Effects of advance organizers and grade level upon information acquisition from an instructional level general science passage. In P.L. Nacke (Ed.),Diversity in mature reading: Theory and research (pp. 78–82). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.

  • Barron, R.F., & Stone, V.F. (1974). Effect of student-constructed graphic post organizers upon learning vocabulary relationships. In P.L. Nacke (Ed.),Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult reading (pp 172–175). Twenty-thrid Yearbook of the National Reading Conference.

  • Bean, T.W., Singer, H., Sorter, J., & Frazee, C. (1986). The effect of metacognitive instruction in outlining and graphic organizer construction on students’ comprehension in a tenth-grade world history class.Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship, J., & Dansereau, D.F. (2000). The effect of animated node-link displays on information recall.The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothby, P.R., & Alvermann, D.E. (1984). Classroom training study: The effects of graphic organizer instruction of fourth graders’ comprehension.Reading World, 23, 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cedrus Corporation (1989–1991).Superlab: General purpose psychology testing package.

  • Clark, J.M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education.Educational Psychology Review, 3, 149–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff, L.L. (1976).Introduction to Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 398–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R.A. (1969). Use of structured overview in mathematics classes. In H.L. Herber & P.L. Sanders (Eds.),Research in reading in the content areas: First-year report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educational Psychology Review. (2002). [Special issue].

  • Estes, T.H., Mills, D.C., & Barron, R.F. (1969). Three methods of introducing student reading-learning task in two content subjects. In H.L. Herber & P.L. Sanders (Eds.),Research in reading in the content areas: First-year report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R.H., Dansereau, D.F., & Skaggs, L.P. (1992). Knowledge maps and the presentation of related information domains.The Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R.H., & Sidio-Hall, M.A. (1994a). The effect of color enhancement on knowledge map processing.The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R.H., & Sidio-Hall, M.A. (1994b). The effect of student color coding of knowledge maps and test anxiety on student learning.The Journal of Experimental Education, 62, 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huard, S.D. (1983). The effect of graphic postorganizer training on learning from text.Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 477A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katayama, A.D., & Robinson, D.H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers.Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katayama, A.D., Robinson, D.H., Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, N., & Jonassen, D. (2001). Facilitating text learning with adjunct displays.The Journal of Research in Education, 11, 54–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K.A., Dubois, N.F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: Relation of three types of notes for review.Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 595–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K.A., Kauffman, D., Robinson, D.H., Dubois, N.F., & Staley, R.K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct aids.Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L., & Chissom, B.S. (1975).Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy enlisted persomed. Research Branch Report 8-75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis.

  • Lambiotte, M.G., & Dansereau, D.G. (1992). Effects of knowledge maps and prior knowledge on recall of science lecture content.Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E. (2002).Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R., Boire, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B., & McConkie, G.W. (1973). What is recalled after hearing a passage?Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 109–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D.W., and readance, J.E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of graphic organizer research.Journal of Educational Research, 78, 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rewey, K.L., Dansereau, D.F., Dees, S.M., Skaggs, L.P., & Pitre, U. (1992). Scripted cooperation and knowledge map supplements: Effects on the recall of biological and statistical information.The Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H. (1998). Graphic organizers as aids to text learning.Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H. (Ed.). (2002). Spatial text adjuncts and learning. [Special issue].Educational Psychology Review, 14.

  • Robinson, D.H., Katayama, A.D., Dubois, N.F., & Devaney, T., (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept acquisition.Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H., Katayama, A.D., & Fan, A. (1996). Evidence for conjoint retention of information encoded from spatial adjunct displays.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H., & Kiewra, K.A. (1995). Visual argument: Graphic organizers are superior to outlines in improving learning from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 455–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H., & Molina, E. (2002). The relative involvement of visual and auditory working memory when studying adjunct displays.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 118–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H., Robinson, S.L., & Katayama, A.D. (1999). When words are represented in memory like pictures: Evidence for spatial encoding of study materials.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, Z., & McNeil, E.B. (1981).The psychology of being human. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 468–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? [Special issue.]Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D.S., West, S.W., Ware, A., & Dansereau, D.F. (1998). The effect of knowledge maps that incorporate gestalt principles on learning.The Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmann, D.A., Dansereau, D.F., McCagg, E.C., Rewey, K.L., & Pitre, U. (1992). Effects of knowledge map characteristics on information processing.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

    Daniel H. Robinson, Stephanie B. Corliss, Angela M. Bush, Stephan J. Bera & Tommy Tomberlin

Authors
  1. Daniel H. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie B. Corliss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela M. Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephan J. Bera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tommy Tomberlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robinson, D.H., Corliss, S.B., Bush, A.M. et al. Optimal presentation of graphic organizers and text: A case for large bites?. ETR&D 51, 25–41 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504542

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504542

Keywords

Search

Navigation