Abstract
The current experimental study examined the effects of graphic organizers in a collaborative learning context where students constructed knowledge during online discussions. As the results could vary depending on how students interacted with the graphic organizers, this study compared two different approaches: instructor-provided versus student-generated graphic organizers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of receiving or generating graphic organizers on students’ engagement in online discussions. Thirty-six graduate students enrolled in an online graduate course participated in the study. While analyzing an instructional design case, students were asked to discuss design issues in a randomly assigned group. There were three conditions: control condition without graphic organizers, instructor-provided, and student-generated graphic organizers. Major findings revealed that both generating and receiving graphic organizers facilitated students’ higher levels of cognitive engagement, and encouraged students to consider alternative views during the discussions. Without the graphic organizer, students tended to simply summarize previous messages or raise new issues rather than elaborating on previous topics. There was a significant finding regarding the ways of interacting graphic organizers. Students discussed more topics when they were given instructor’s graphic organizers rather than when they were asked to generate them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029–1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10107.
Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science, 29(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026471702353.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046669.
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(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968609547562.
Beckmann, J., & Weber, P. (2016). Cognitive presence in virtual collaborative learning: Assessing and improving critical thinking in online discussion forums. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2015-0034.
Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval-based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035934.
Bradley, M. E., Thom, L. R., Hayes, J., & Hay, C. (2008). Ask and you will receive: How question type influences quantity and quality of online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 888–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00804.x.
Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.182.
Cable, G. (2001). Enhancing causal interpretations of quality improvement interventions. Quality in Health Care, 10(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100179.
Celentin, P. (2007). Online education: Analysis of interaction and knowledge building patterns among foreign language teachers. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 21(3), 39–58.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1.
Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412293.
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005.
DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(4), 306–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350040201.
Erickson, T., Halverson, C., Kellogg, W. A., Laff, M., & Wolf, T. (2002). Social translucence: Designing social infrastructures that make collective activity visible. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/505248.505270.
Ertmer, P. A., Quinn, J., & Glazewski, K. D. (2013). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Eryilmaz, E., Van der Pol, J., Ryan, T., Clark, P., & Mary, J. (2013). Enhancing student knowledge acquisition from online learning conversations. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 113–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9163-y.
Figueira, Á. R., & Laranjeiro, J. B. (2007). Interaction visualization in web-based learning using igraphs. Paper presented at the the ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, Manchester, UK.
Frey, B. A., Sass, M. S., & Alman, S. W. (2006). Mapping MLIS asynchronous discussions. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 3(1), 3–16.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071.
Gibbs, W. J., Olexa, V., & Bernas, R. S. (2006). A visualization tool for managing and studying online communications. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 232–243.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001.
Gunawardena, C. N., Lowe, C. A., & Anderson, T. (1997). Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 397–431. https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG.
Hara, N., Bonk, C., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional Science, 28(2), 115–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003764722829.
Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00244.x.
Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (Vol. 90, pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer.
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.012.
Hewitt, J. (2005). Toward an understanding of how threads die in asynchronous computer conferences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 567–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1404_4.
Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2014). Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.006.
Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning—The quality of discussions and a stage of perspective taking in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1076/ilee.10.1.1.3613.
Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 89–121). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885.
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299477.
Jyothi, S., McAvinia, C., & Keating, J. (2012). A visualisation tool to aid exploration of students’ interactions in asynchronous online communication. Computers & Education, 58(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.026.
Keller, T., Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Garsoffky, B. (2006). Information visualizations for knowledge acquisition: The impact of dimensionality and color coding. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.006.
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(5), 373–401. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003270723360.
Kwon, K., & Park, S. J. (2017). Effects of discussion representation: Comparisons between social and cognitive diagrams. Instructional Science, 45(4), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9412-6.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 65–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6708.1987.tb00863.x.
Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers & Education, 41(3), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00050-2.
Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005.
Leutner, D., Leopold, C., & Sumfleth, E. (2009). Cognitive load and science text comprehension: Effects of drawing and mentally imagining text content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 284–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.010.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6.
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2000). Cognitive engagement and higher order thinking through computer conferencing: We know why but do we know how? The 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. Retrieved from http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/events/conferences/tlf/tlf2000/mcloughlin.html.
Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00076-4.
Murphy, E., & Coleman, E. (2004). Graduate students’ experiences of challenges in online asynchronous discussions. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology. https://doi.org/10.21432/T27G7N.
Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56–77.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377984.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92.
Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D., Aqui, Y., & Poliquin, A. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1.
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002). Knowledge maps as scaffolds for cognitive processing. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013132527007.
Pena-Shaff, J. B., & Nicholls, C. (2004). Analyzing student interactions and meaning construction in computer bulletin board discussions. Computers & Education, 42(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.003.
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(3), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.455.
Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally efficient indexing? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0014.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asynchronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive processing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 957–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025.
Schmeck, A., Mayer, R. E., Opfermann, M., Pfeiffer, V., & Leutner, D. (2014). Drawing pictures during learning from scientific text: Testing the generative drawing effect and the prognostic drawing effect. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.07.003.
Schwamborn, A., Thillmann, H., Opfermann, M., & Leutner, D. (2011). Cognitive load and instructionally supported learning with provided and learner-generated visualizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.028.
Seufert, T. (2003). Supporting coherence formation in learning from multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00022-1.
Stull, A. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.808.
Suresh, K. P. (2011). An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences, 4(1), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82352.
Suthers, D. D. (2014). Empirical studies of the value of conceptually explicit notations in collaborative learning. In A. Okada, S. J. Buckingham-Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 1–22). London: Springer.
Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_2.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
Thomas, M. J. W. (2002). Learning within incoherent structures: The space of online discussion forums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.03800.x.
Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3.
Vaughan, N., & Garrison, D. R. (2005). Creating cognitive presence in a blended faculty development community. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.11.001.
Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. Paper presented at the Euro CSCL 2001, Maastricht: McLuhan institute, University of Maastricht.
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003.
Wu, B., Wang, M., Grotzer, T. A., Liu, J., & Johnson, J. M. (2016). Visualizing complex processes using a cognitive-mapping tool to support the learning of clinical reasoning. BMC Medical Education, 16(1), 216. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0734-x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, K., Shin, S. & Park, S.J. Effects of graphic organizers in online discussions: comparison between instructor-provided and student-generated. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 1479–1503 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9617-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9617-7