What makes a matrix so effective? An empirical test of the relative benefits of signaling, extraction, and localization

Instructional Science

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 679-705

  Kauffman, Douglas F ^a   Kiewra, Kenneth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Graphic organizers; Matrix organizer; Study materials; Studying; Text processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958460176     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-009-9095-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi: 10. 1037/0033-2909. 112. 1. 155.
2. Day, R. S. (1988). Alternative representations. In G. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 261-303). New York: Academic Press.
3. Igo, L. B., & Kiewra, K. A. (2007). How do high-achieving students approach web-based copy and paste note taking? Selective pasting and related learning outcomes. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 512-529.
4. Igo, L. B., Kiewra, K. A., & Bruning, R. B. (2008). Individual differences and intervention flaws: A sequential explanatory study of college students' copy-and-paste note taking. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 149-168.
5. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Helping students soar to success on computers: An investigation of the SOAR study method. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6. Jairam, D., & Kiewra, K. A. (in press). An investigation of the SOAR study method. Journal of Advanced Academics.
7. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
8. Kauffman, D. F. (1998). Theoretical constructs and practical applications of graphic organizers: Is the matrix more effective than text with review questions? Unpublished masters thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
9. Kauffman, D. (2004). Self-regulated learning in Web-based environments: Instructional tools designed to facilitate self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 139-162. doi: 10. 2190/AX2D-Y9VM-V7PX-0TAD.
10. Kauffman, D. F., & Kiewra, K. A. (1998). The matrix organizer boosts relational learning more than text or outlines. San Diego, CA: American Educational Research Association. April.
11. Kauffman, D. F., Zhang, G., & Yang, A. (2004). Web-based note taking and metacognitive prompts: A self-regulated learning perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
12. Kiewra, K. A. (1994). The matrix representation system: Orientation, research, theory, and application. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. New York: Agathon.
13. Kiewra, K. A. (2009). Teaching how to learn: The teacher's guide to student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14. Kiewra, K. A., Dennison, R. S., & Benton, S. T. (1995). How studying text supplements affects prose processing. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA (April).
15. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christian, D., & McShane, A. (1988). Providing study notes: Comparison of three types of notes for review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 595-597. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 80. 4. 595.
16. Kiewra, K. A., Dubois, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 240-245. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 83. 2. 240.
17. Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. F., Dubois, N. F., & Staley, R. K. (1999). Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science, 27, 373-401.
18. Kiewra, K. A., Lang, J., Phifer, M., & Schraw, G. (1995b). How graphic organizers affect learning from a chapter-length passage. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association.
19. Kiewra, K. A., Schraw, G., Lang, J., & Phifer, M. (1994). How graphic organizers affect text learning: Factual, relational, and transfer effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
20. Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65-99. doi: 10. 1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5.
21. Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209-234. doi: 10. 1007/BF01320135.
22. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
23. McCrudden, M., Schraw, G., Hartley, K., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). The influence of presentation, organization, and example context on text learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 289-306. doi: 10. 3200/JEXE. 72. 4. 289-306.
24. Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. H., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103. doi: 10. 2307/747349.
25. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 156-163. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 94. 1. 156.
26. Robinson, D., Katayama, A., DuBois, N., & DeVaney, T. (1998). Interactive effects of graphic organizers and delayed review on concept acquisition. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 17-31.
27. Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Odom, S., Beth, A., Hsieh, Y. P., & Vanderveen, A. (2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note-taking using a partial graphic organizer task. The Journal of Educational Research, 100, 103-111. doi: 10. 3200/JOER. 100. 2. 103-111.
28. 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. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 87. 3. 455.
29. Robinson, D. H., & Schraw, G. (1994). Computational efficiency through visual argument: Do graphic organizers communicate relations in text too effectively? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 91, 399-415. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1994. 1029.
30. Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why do graphic organizers facilitate search processes: Fewer words or computational efficiency? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 166-180. doi: 10. 1006/ceps. 1996. 0014.
31. Schmidt, S. (1991). Can we have a distinctive theory of memory? Memory & Cognition, 19, 523-542.
32. Titsworth, S., & Kiewra, K. A. (2004). Organizational lecture cues and student notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447-461. doi: 10. 1016/j. cedpsych. 2003. 12. 001.
33. van Djik, T. A., & Kintch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
34. Winn, W. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 211-247. doi: 10. 1007/BF01320077.