Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers.

TLDR

The study investigates whether students learn more deeply from constructing their own graphic organizers (learning by doing) versus using author‑provided organizers (learning by viewing). Three experiments varied passage complexity and compared retention and transfer after students read passages with either author‑provided graphic organizers or with space/templates to construct their own, with 27, 18, and 10 organizers in the highest, intermediate, and lowest complexity conditions respectively. Results showed that transfer was significantly better for the author‑provided group (d = 0.24, ns; d = 0.43, p = .05; d = 0.84, p = .01) while retention did not differ, supporting cognitive load theory but contradicting activity theory.

Abstract

Do students learn more deeply from a passage when they attempt to construct their own graphic organizers (i.e., learning by doing) than when graphic organizers are provided (i.e., learning by viewing)? In 3 experiments, learners were tested on retention and transfer after reading a passage with authorprovided graphic organizers or when asked to construct graphic organizers. In Experiment 1 (highest complexity), there were 27 author-provided graphic organizers or margin space for constructing graphic organizers. In Experiment 2 (intermediate complexity), there were 18 author-provided graphic organizers or 18 corresponding graphic organizer templates. In Experiment 3 (lowest complexity), there were 10 author-provided graphic organizers or 10 corresponding graphic organizer templates. On transfer, the effect size favored the author-provided group (Experiment 1: d 0.24, ns; Experiment 2: d 0.43, p .05; Experiment 3: d 0.84, p .01). On retention, there were no significant differences. These results are consistent with cognitive load theory, which posits that excessive activity can create extraneous cognitive load, disrupting generative processing. These results are not consistent with activity theory, which posits that students learn by doing.