Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions on concept classification performance

  • Articles
  • Published:
ECTJ Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of an innovative method for presenting coordinate definitions on learning defined concepts. A text that arranged definitions and examples of seven coordinate concepts in a tree-like diagram was contrasted with a text that arranged these same definitions and examples in a standard textbook format. In addition, this study examined a method of creating concept examples that required different levels of discrimination and generalization, called a rational set generator. Forty-six junior and senior high school physics students participated. Results confirmed the predicted interaction between text method and reading ability, with the lower ability students benefiting more from the diagram method than their counterparts exposed to the textbook format.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1976).Language, memory and thought. New Jersey: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C. (1973). Learning principles from text.Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. (1970). Organizational factors in memory.Cognitive Psychology, 1, 18–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, E. D. (1978) Long-term retention of information following learning from prose.Review of Educational Research, 48 629–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1977).The conditions of learning (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979).Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky, R. L. (1980).Human memory: Structures and processes (2nd ed.). San Francisco: William H. Freeman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klausmeier, H. J., Ghatala, E. S., & Frayer, D. A. (1974).Conceptual learning and development: A cognitive view. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa, L. (1974).Algorithimization in learning and instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Reigeluth, C. M., & Faust, G. W. (1979). The instructional quality profile: A curriculum evaluation and design tool. InProcedures for instructional systems development. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. (1975).They teach concepts, don't they? Invited address to the American Educational Research Association.

  • Markle, S. M. (1977). Teaching conceptual networks.Journal of Instructional Development, 1, 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M., & Tiemann, P. (1969).Really understanding concepts, or in fruminous pursuit of the jabberwock. Chicago: Tiemann Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, O. (1984). Example comparison strategy versus attribute identification strategy in concept learning.American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Gagne, R. M. (1982) Characteristics of media selection models.Review of Educational Research, 52(4), 499–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J. (1972). Some aspects of the correspondence between content structure and cognitive structure on physics instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 525–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Boutwell, R. C. (1974). Methodology for the sequencing of instances in classroom concept teaching.Educational Technology, 14, 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Chao, J. N., & Younger, J. (1981). Concept learning effectiveness using prototype and skill development presentation forms.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 326–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., & Park, S. I. (1984). Process learning time as an adaptive design variable in concept learning using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 452–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D., Woolley, F. R., & Merrill, M. D. (1972). Exemplar and nonexemplar variables which produce correct concept classification behavior and specified classification errors.Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 144–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, W. C., Merrill, M. D., & Black, H. B. (1981). Effect of teaching a conceptual hierarchy on concept classification performance.Journal of Instructional Development, 5(1), 8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, F. R., & Tennyson, R. D. (1972). Conceptual model of classification behavior.Educational Technology, 12, 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tessmer, M., Driscoll, M.P. Effects of a diagrammatic display of coordinate concept definitions on concept classification performance. ECTJ 34, 195–205 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02767401

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02767401

Keywords

Navigation