Advertisement

Is a Picture Truly Worth a Thousand Words? Infographics for Undergraduate Teaching

  • Riana SteynEmail author
  • Adriana Botha
  • Nita Mennega
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11284)

Abstract

Infographics, have emerged as an appealing academic tool. Supplementing traditional learning material such as textbooks, or PowerPoint slides, infographics allow for summarised versions of the same material.

Millennials want access to relevant information literally at the click of a button. As educators, we have to find a way of engaging these students with new teaching practices and new learning styles. The researchers commenced on a quest to see how they could engage these students, not only by teaching them the relevant knowledge, but also by allowing these students to use a simple infographic, which covers an entire study theme, and testing the students’ perception of the use of infographics as a substitute for or even to replace “traditional” PowerPoint slides. The infographic was guided based on the 5 principles of the Gestalt theory.

The study was conducted on 210 student participants, with limited prior experience of infographics.

The infographic was perceived as a great tool and of good quality, which they would prefer to use as a study method over PowerPoint slides.

As educators, we need to find ways in which to incorporate infographics as a learning approach, to enhance the learning experience of students.

It is recommended that educators explore visual tools to enhance the learning experience and to retain the knowledge to which our students have been exposed. It is further recommended that infographics should be evaluated based on the five principles of Gestalt to not only improve designs, but also student experience.

Keywords

Infographic Visual communication tool Learning tool Hybrid learning Traditional learning approaches 

References

  1. 1.
    Puttnam, L.: Creative learning through technology. In: Wright, S., Kieffer, J., Holden, J., Newbigin, J. (Eds.) CreativityMoneyLove: Learning for the 21st Century (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashraf, B.: Teaching the Google-eyed YouTube generation. Educ. Train. 51(5/6), 343–352 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pullan, M.C.: Student support services for millennial undergraduates. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 38(2), 235–253 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turpie, J.: Creative engineers. In: Wright, S., Kieffer, J., Holden, J., Newbigin, J. (Eds.) CreativityMoneyLove: Learning for the 21st Century (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wikipedia: Generation Z (2017). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/generation_Z. Accessed 9 Feb 2017
  6. 6.
    Kalantzis, M.: Changing subjectivities, new learning. Pedag.: Int. J. 1(1), 7–12 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bradshaw, M.J., Porter, S.: Infographics: a new tool for the nursing classroom. Nurse Educ.: Technol. Corner 42(2), 57–59 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkwood, A., Price, L.: Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: what do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Stud. High. Educ. 30(3), 257–274 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirkwood, A., Prince, L.: Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learn., Media Technol. 39(2), 6–36 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laurillard, D.: The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 4, 5–20 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steyn, R., Millard, S., Jordaan, J.: The use of a learning management system to facilitate student-driven content design: an experiment. In: Huang, T.-C., Lau, R., Huang, Y.-M., Spaniol, M., Yuen, C.-H. (eds.) SETE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10676, pp. 75–94. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71084-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davidson, N., Major, C.H., Michaelsen, L.K.: Small-group learning in higher education - cooperative, collaborative, problem-based and team-based learning: an introduction by guest editors. J. Excell. Coll. Teach. 25(3&4), 1–6 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vanichvasin, P.: Enhancing the quality of learning through the use of infographics as visual communication tool and learning tool. In: ICQA 2013 International Conference on QA Culture: Cooperation or Competition, Bangkok (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yildirim, S.: Infographics for educational purposes: their structure, properties and reader approaches. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 15(3), 98–110 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonk, C.J., Graham, C.R.: The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bender, T.: Discussion-Based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning: Theory, Practice, and Assessment, 2nd edn, p. 256. Stylus Publishing, LLC, Virginia (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woods, R., Baker, J.D., Hopper, D.: Hybrid structures: faculty use and perception of web-based courseware as a supplement to face-to-face instruction. Internet High. Educ. 7, 281–297 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenberg, M.J.: Knowledge management and learning: perfect together. In: Reiser, R.A., Dempsey, J.V. (eds.) Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Pearson, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilson, R.W.: In-class-online hybrid methods of teaching planning theory: assessing impacts on discussion and learning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 28, 237–246 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sudakov, I., Bellsky, T., Usenyuk, S., Polyakova, V.V.: Infographics and mathematics: a mechanism for effective learning in the classroom. Probl., Resour., Issues Math. Undergrad. Stud. 26(2), 158–167 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Behrens, R.R.: Art, design and gestalt theory. Leonardo 31(4), 299–303 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wertheimer, M., Riezler, K.: Gestalt theory. Soc. Res. 11(1), 78–99 (1944)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams, F.M.: Diversity, thinking styles, and infographics. In: 12th International Conference of Women Engineers and Scientists (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, L.: Gestalt principles for information design. In: HOW Magazine (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Saunders, D.H., Horrel, A., Murray, A.: Infographics for students assessment: more than meets the eye. BJSM (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staff: Gestalt theory in typography & design principles. In: HOW Magazine (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    AnswerGarden: Answer Garden (2018). https://answergarden.ch/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations