Advertisement

DO THE SPATIAL FEATURES OF AN ADJUNCT DISPLAY THAT READERS COMPLETE WHILE READING AFFECT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM?

  • Matthew T. McCruddenEmail author
  • Montana K. McCormick
  • Erin M. McTigue
Article

ABSTRACT

We varied the spatial features of adjunct displays that depicted a complex scientific system (i.e. human circulatory system). University students (n = 47), who were assigned randomly to a display condition before reading, selected relevant information from the text and wrote it (a) next to a list of definitions (list condition), (b) inside boxes organized to coincide with the sequence of blood flow (chart condition), or (c) on a picture of the heart (pictorial condition). Students in the chart and pictorial conditions had higher scores on 2 learning tests. Results supported the nonequivalence hypothesis, which states that a spatial display can promote learning more effectively than a list because a display’s nonverbal (e.g. spatial) features explicitly depict relationships among a system’s components. The results have implications for science educators.

KEY WORDS

adjunct display science text text learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balluerka, N. (1995). The influence of instructions, outlines, and illustrations on the comprehension and recall of scientific texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle, J. R. & Weishar, M. (1997). The effects of expert-generated versus student-generated cognitive organizers on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(4), 228–235.Google Scholar
  4. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carney, R. N. & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Darch, C. & Gersten, R. (1986). Direction-setting activities in reading comprehension: A relation of two approaches. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 9, 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. David, P. (1998). News concreteness and visual–verbal association: Do news pictures narrow the recall gap between concrete and abstract news? Human Communication Research, 25, 180–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 401–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glenberg, A. & Langston, W. (1992). Comprehension of illustrated text: Pictures help to build mental models. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K. & Muth, K. D. (1985). Text-comprehension strategies based on outlines: Immediate and long term effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 129–135.Google Scholar
  12. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T. & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graesser, A. C., Leon, J. A. & Otero, J. (2002). Introduction to the psychology of science text comprehension. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guastello, E. F., Beasley, M. & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects on science content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 356–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katayama, A. D. & Robinson, D. H. (2000). Getting students “partially” involved in note-taking using graphic organizers. Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F. & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373–401.Google Scholar
  19. Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mautone, P. D. & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Cognitive aids for guiding graph comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 640–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E. & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mayer, R. E., Mathias, A. & Wetzell, K. (2002). Fostering understanding of multimedia messages through pre-training: Evidence for a two-stage theory of mental model construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S. & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miyake, A. & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mousavi, S., Low, R. & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nesbit, J. C. & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 76, 413–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 937–949.Google Scholar
  28. Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson, D. H. (2002). Spatial text adjuncts and learning: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 307–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Sadoski, M. & Paivio, A. (2004). A dual coding theoretical model of reading. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Vol. 5, pp. 1329–1362). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  39. Schmid, R. F. & Telaro, G. (1990). Concept mapping as an instructional strategy for high school biology. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 78–85.Google Scholar
  40. Schnotz, W. (2002). Toward an integrated view of learning from text and visual displays. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. A. (2008). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  42. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., Roelofs, E. & Erkens, G. (2002). Collaborative concept mapping: Provoking and supporting meaningful discourse. Theory Into Practice, 41, 40–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Meter, P. & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vekiri, I. (2002). What is the value of graphical displays in learning? Educational Psychology Review, 14, 261–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winn, W. D. (1980). The effect of block-word diagrams on the structuring of concepts as a function of general ability. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew T. McCrudden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Montana K. McCormick
    • 2
  • Erin M. McTigue
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Education, School of Educational Psychology and PedagogyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Towson UniversityTowsonUSA
  3. 3.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations