Abstract
Three experiments compared the learning potential of text versus outline and matrix displays. In Experiments 1 and 2, college students read or heard a passage about fish and then studied the text, an outline, or a matrix. In Experiment 3, students heard a passage about wildcats, and then studied text, outline, or matrix displays. In all experiments, the text, outline, and matrix formats were informationally equivalent. However, the two-dimensional matrix appeared more computationally efficient than the linear organized text or outline because it (a) positioned related information about fish or wildcats in closer proximity so that local relations within a single category (such as “size”) were learned, and (b) organized information spatially so that global relations across categories (such as size and diet) were learned. The learning potential of text, outline, and matrix displays was also examined in combination with variations in thematic organization, amount of study time, and time of testing. The most important and consistent findings were that (a) outline and matrix displays produced greater relational learning than the text, and (b) matrix displays produced greater relational learning than outlines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Day, R.S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. Bower, ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 22, pp. 261–303.
Friedman, M.P. & Greitzer, F.L. (1972). Organization and study time in learning from reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 609–616.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (1988). Impact of diagrams on recalling sequential elements in expository texts. Reading Psychology 9: 121–139.
Hawk, P.P. (1986). Using graphic organizers to increase achievement in middle school life science. Science Education 70: 81–87.
Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K. & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Representing, Conveying, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kauffman, D.F. & Kiewra, K.A. (1998). The Matrix Organizer Boosts Relational Learn-ing more than Text or Outlines. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Kiewra, K.A. (1994). The matrix representation system: Orientation, research, theory, and application. In R. Perry, ed., Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press.
Kiewra, K.A., DuBois, N.F., Christian, D. & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: A comparison of three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 595–597.
Kiewra, K.A., DuBois, N.F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M. & Roskelley, D. (1991). Notetaking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology 83: 240–245.
Kiewra, K.A. & Gubbels, P. (1997). Are educational psychology courses educationally and psychologically sound? What textbooks and teachers say. Educational Psychology Review 9: 121–149.
Kiewra, K.A., Levin, J.R., Kim, S., Meyers, T., Renandya, W.A. & Hwang, Y. (1994). Fishing for Text Facilitators: The Lure of the Mnematrix. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.
Kintsch, W. (1970). Models for free recall and recognition. In D.A. Norman, ed., Models of Human Memory (pp. 331–373). New York: Academic Press.
Larkin, J.H. & Simon, H.A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11: 65–99.
Mandler, J. (1983). Stories: The Function of Structure. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, CA.
Mayer, R.E. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist 19: 30–42.
McCormack, P.D. (1972). Recognition memory: How complex a retrieval system? Canadian Journal of Psychology 26: 19–41.
Meyer, B.J.F. (1985). Signaling the structure of text. In D.H. Jonassen, ed., Technology of Text, Vol. 2. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Robinson, D.H. & Skinner, C.H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computationally effective indexing? Contemporary Educational Psychology 21: 161–180.
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.
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.
Schwartz, S.H. (1971). Modes of representation and problem solving: Well evolved is half solved. Journal of Experimental Psychology 91: 347–350.
Schwartz, S.H. & Fattaleh, D.L. (1972). Representation in deductive problem solving: The matrix. Journal of Experimental Psychology 95: 343–348.
Winn, W. (1988). Recall of the pattern, sequence, and names of concepts represented in instructional diagrams. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 25: 375–386.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kiewra, K.A., Kauffman, D.F., Robinson, D.H. et al. Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science 27, 373–401 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003270723360
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003270723360