Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Development and evaluation of a novel e-book

interface for scaffolding thinking context to learn
from writing examples

Gwo-Dong Chen, Chih-Kai Chang, Chin-Yeh Wang & Xiao-Lun Jian

To cite this article: Gwo-Dong Chen, Chih-Kai Chang, Chin-Yeh Wang & Xiao-Lun Jian
(2018) Development and evaluation of a novel e-book interface for scaffolding thinking context
to learn from writing examples, Interactive Learning Environments, 26:7, 970-988, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2018.1427113

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1427113

Published online: 01 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 330

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20
INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
2018, VOL. 26, NO. 7, 970–988
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1427113

Development and evaluation of a novel e-book interface for

scaffolding thinking context to learn from writing examples
Gwo-Dong Chena, Chih-Kai Chang b
, Chin-Yeh Wangc and Xiao-Lun Jiana
a
Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Central University, Jhongli City, Taiwan;
b
Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan; cSchool of
Educational Information Technology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Effective reading strategies, including using graphic organizers, question Received 12 June 2016
answering, and considering story structures, can help students improve Accepted 9 January 2018
reading comprehension. However, these reading strategies are not fully
KEYWORDS
supported by both printed books and e-books. Students who master Reading comprehension;
these reading strategies can learn effectively. By contrast, students e-book; reading strategy;
without effective reading strategies cannot grasp thinking contexts, thinking context; thinking
which leads to unfavorable learning outcomes. This paper presents a map
novel e-book interface that features thinking maps and a question
answering mechanism on the same page. The thinking maps and
question answering mechanism can stimulate students to reflect on
reading content, which in this study was college entrance exam
compositions, and help students to more effectively understand the
context of their reading content. After we developed our reading system,
61 participants were recruited for system evaluation. The results indicate
that students in the treatment group acquired significantly more
vocabulary and understood the story structure more competently than
did students in the control group. Treatment group participants
expressed that they were satisfied with the thinking maps and question
answering mechanism.

1. Research background and purposes

The U.S. National Reading Panel provides evidence of the effectiveness of seven reading strategies,
namely, graphic organizers, story structure, question generating, question answering, comprehen-
sion monitoring, cooperative learning, and summarization, as well as a combination of these
seven strategies (National Reading Panel, 2000). However, readers may not be familiar with these
strategies and most e-book models do not support them. Modern e-book models support page
turning, note taking, and highlighting, similar to traditional paper books, while reducing book
volume and overcoming the printed book’s shortcomings, such as the lack of search facility and
higher costs involved. Despite these advantages, e-book devices only replicate the content and
arrangement of printed books because of their design (Chesser, 2011). If the interface structure
and operation flow of e-books supported reading strategy–optimization features, student reading
efficiency would improve.
Because e-books and printed books involve similar reading modes, effectively taking advantage
of e-books for improving studying outcomes is difficult. For example, in textbooks in e-book format,
textual content is presented first, followed by presentations concerning related instruments and

CONTACT Chih-Kai Chang chihkai@mail.nutn.edu.tw Department of Information and Learning Technology, National
University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 971

explanations of the text structures or vocabulary used; this does not account for how students
acquire knowledge about deep structure and vocabulary. However, during the reading process,
knowledge schemas, which mean a patterns of mental structure that organizes categories of infor-
mation and the relationships among them, are not only collected but also have close relationships
with text reading comprehension. Much reading-related research has indicated that students do not
understand these knowledge schemas because they only try to understand the text on a word-by-
word basis, rather than because they do not attempt to understand its meaning on the basis of the
overall context (Levorato, Roch, & Nesi, 2007; Lundblom & Woods, 2012). For example, when we
read text containing idioms or quotations, we primarily attempt to understand the context of
the written material rather than the author’s diction for the situation; therefore, if we do not under-
stand the thinking structure and content, we may misunderstand the intentions behind the use of
these idioms and quotations.
Project Zero, of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University, suggests “making
learning visible.” Project Zero researchers identified the purpose of learning as learning how to
think and emphasizing the process of understanding. Through the thinking process, students
can acquire a deeper understanding of thinking (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011). Thinking
maps include eight types of assistive tools for thinking images, including Circle Map (used for
defining in context), Bubble Map (used for describing with adjectives), Flow Map (used for
sequencing and ordering events), Brace Map (used for identifying part/whole relationships),
Tree Map (used for classifying or grouping), Double Bubble Map (used for comparing and con-
trasting), Multi-flow map (used for analyzing causes and effects), and Bridge map (used for illus-
trating analogies).
Thinking maps were proposed by Hyerle and Alper (2011), who are co-directors of the Designs for
Thinking consulting group based in the Northeast USA representing Thinking Maps, Inc. They
suggested using images to present thinking flows and structures in order to make thinking
visible. Perkins (2008) stated that “learning is a result of thinking; effective thinking can lead stu-
dents to learn.” Previous studies have been conducted to enable students, through thinking pro-
cesses and presenting thinking structures, to see the establishment of the thinking process and
reflect on their thinking. Thinking maps and concept maps may seem be interchangeable, but
there are some differences in the way they are created and used. In our opinion, concept
mapping can leverage logical thinking while thinking maps, which serve as a type of language,
can improve the thought process of classification that might be used across grade levels, content
areas, and disciplines.
From the wider research perspective, multimedia learning is a broader research field to support
understanding and memorizing a given content by different sources of information (e.g. text and
graphics). Interactions of image and text, linear and nonlinear models of reading, and learning
process recording can be digitally provided to facilitate reading and learning. However, the tra-
ditional reading environment provided by printed books cannot support simultaneously reading
text and seeing its thinking flows and structures. Readers can neither effectively understand the
thinking flows of authors nor perceive the original meanings in authors’ thinking structures.
Although studies investigated effects of constructing graphic organizers, there is insufficient evi-
dence to determine the effects of proper interactive presentation ways of well-prepared graphic
organizers (i.e. thinking maps). This study focuses on using interactive graphic organizers demon-
strating authors’ cognitive skills to scaffold learners with effective reading strategies. Digital presen-
tation can follow the text’s structure to show corresponding content to facilitate the comprehension
of meanings of the whole context. We used the opportunities offered by e-books to present thinking
maps for authors and collect writing samples. By reading sample articles, users can ponder the
relationship between context and vocabulary (including idioms, poems, quotations, and allusions),
visualize the author’s thinking, and understand vocabulary that is expected to be used in students’
writing. By using e-books, we can easily present to learners both a text and the author’s thinking
structure.
972 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

2. Literature review
2.1. Multimedia learning
The cognitive theory of multimedia learning is based on creating meaningful learning activities for
learners to engage in appropriate cognitive processing during learning (Clark & Mayer, 2016;
Mayer, 2009). Thinking maps or graphic organizers has been tested in multimedia learning studies
in some subject areas. For instance, Stull and Mayer (2007) compared graphic organizers constructed
(i.e. learning by doing) with graphic organizers provided (i.e. learning by viewing). Their results
showed that graphic organizers with properly designed and placed in the margins of a textbook
can promote generative processing that leads to superior knowledge transfer. Fiorella and Mayer
(2016) also suggested that observing the instructor draw diagrams is better that viewing already-
drawn diagrams while listening to a concurrent oral explanation. This study was designed for
reading comprehension based on aforementioned reports.

2.2. Making learning visible

Text in printed books follows a linear structure, which is not a structure that can easily communicate
the author’s thinking, ideas, and meanings. Project Zero, which Harvard University has operated since
1967, includes a project called “Making Learning Visible,” whose belief is that the most essential
purpose of learning is to learn how to think. Collins, Brown, and Holum (1991) promoted a similar
idea through cognitive apprenticeship: “Cognitive apprenticeship is a model of instruction that
works to make thinking visible.” Educators use concept maps as a tool for visualizing students’ con-
ceptions of learning. “The concept map instrument itself proved to be a robust instrument for unco-
vering students’ thinking about thinking” (Ritchhart, Turner, & Hadar, 2009).

2.3. Thinking maps

The meta-analysis of graphic organizers effects conducted by Dexter and Hughes (2011) showed that
the use of graphic organizers was associated with increases in vocabulary knowledge, comprehen-
sion, and inferential knowledge. Nesbit and Adesope (2006) concluded that concept mapping activi-
ties are more effective for attaining knowledge retention and transfer after surveying 55 studies
involving 5818 participants. Although some studies show contradictory results, concept maps, think-
ing maps, knowledge maps, and graphic organizers are all well-recognized as useful scaffolding tools
for learning.
The concept map or graphic organizer, which is a graphic and visual means of describing the
relationships among different concepts, terms, and ideas in learning, has been widely applied in
teaching and learning and has proved to be effective (Strangman, Hall, & Meyer, 2003). Projects
have involved comparing the eight thinking maps that were proposed by Hyerle with graphic orga-
nizers proposed by other researchers to identify their advantages and disadvantages. Many research-
ers advocate visible thinking and a learner-oriented mode, which can be facilitated by computer
graphic tools for making thinking visible (Hyerle & Williams, 2010). The eight types of thinking
maps are cyclic graphs, bubble maps, double bubble maps, tree maps, support charts, flow charts,
multiple flow charts, and bridge maps. For example, the main purpose of the tree map is to determine
a main idea and secondary details for providing guidance while reading or writing. The thinking struc-
ture of a tree map is shown in Table 1.
Thinking maps are a form of visual tool that present visual patterns for linking previous experi-
ences and content knowledge, establish abstract concepts and practical products during the thinking
process, and promote interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary mental patterns. Thinking maps can
assist students to organize thoughts and effectively improve their reading, writing, and thinking in
the long term. Using thinking maps, teachers can apply images to the organization, analysis, and
assessment of students in reading, writing, and thinking. When students use visual tools to exhibit
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 973

Table 1. Example of a tree map.

Name Purpose Question guide Thinking Map
Tree Determining the main ideas and related What is the main idea of
Map details in articles _____?
What are the supporting
ideas?

Application: classification
Application: finding relations

their cognitive strategies, they practice metacognition, which is used to describe the thinking
process, how to organize content knowledge into images, and how to resolve problems (Hyerle,
1996, 2000, 2008, 2014).
In addition to facilitating learning metacognition, thinking maps assist students to see the thinking
process involved in answering questions. Through thinking maps, learners can express their ideas
and explain how their ideas formed. The advantages of thinking maps for students include the fol-
lowing: (a) students can acquire deeper understanding through visual images, (b) thinking maps
provide effective tools that can facilitate analysis of complex text and understanding of mathematical
concepts, and (c), they can establish a form and purpose of writing. The advantages of thinking maps
for teachers include the following: (a) teachers can share their teaching, (b) a consistent tool can
satisfy all the needs of students, and (c) teachers can assess students more effectively by considering
their learning records.
Thinking maps have been proven to promote reading comprehension, especially for understand-
ing vocabulary and text (Hyerle & Alper, 2011). Vocabulary learning is a network process: it includes
not only vocabulary study strategies and repeatable practice but also learning from different corpora
(sample articles) of “real world” text. Because our brain continually generates networks for all infor-
mation and the network map helps construct related vocabulary, the semantic and word net defines
context. Thinking maps establish diverse thinking routes so that students acquire vocabulary with the
visualized network that presents text in context. The eight types of thinking maps are the most effec-
tive tools for understanding vocabulary. Whether a concept is presented through simile or metaphor,
they function as scaffolds in article context construction. Regarding text comprehension, when
readers read printed books, we cannot ascertain what they are thinking during the reading
process. However, graphical text organization and thinking maps can assist students to confirm
article structure, whereas visual tools can help students to focus on article structure during
reading, provide a visual context for articles, and assist students to write an effective conclusion.
In addition, thinking maps have been widely applied in Mandarin Chinese writing classes. Yang
(2014) discussed applying thinking maps as an effective teaching method for Mandarin Chinese
writing classes in primary and middle schools; Chen (2014) researched the influence of thinking
maps on the reading comprehension of fifth-grade students who used them during Mandarin
Chinese classes and discussed the study of narrative writing by integrating thinking maps into text.
Since 1990, the thinking map method has been applied in more than 5000 schools worldwide and
has been widely applied in the science, reading, and writing fields (Hyerle, 2014). Thinking maps
benefited the teachers by helping them organize content and assess student learning. Thinking
maps have now been implemented through teacher professional development and systematic
follow-up coaching. Hyerle and Alper (2011) obtained valuable results from the language, reading
comprehension, writing, math, science, technology, and other fields. “Since Thinking Maps can be
utilized across all grade levels and content areas, they are an invaluable resource for teachers”
(Long & Carlson, 2011). Although much research exists on the application of thinking maps in
974 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

curriculum design, it focuses on creating thinking maps on paper; no research has discussed appli-
cations for e-books.

2.4. Reading comprehension scaffolding on e-book

The previous study had examined how people construct and use cognitive maps in e-Book reading
(Li, Chen, & Yang, 2013). Readers incidentally construct a mental representation of the mapping
between the document content and their structure during reading processes and consult the rep-
resentation for many aspects of text use, such as rereading and knowledge updating. Certain
reading and navigational facilities such as structure overview and reflective questions have been
proven to improve reading and navigational performance in hypertext reading because the facilities
promote the construction of cognitive maps. Contextual cues, defined as the manner in which the
human brain gathers information from visual elements and its surroundings, are the objects
around target objects, the spatial layout of target objects, or the trajectories of target objects.
When searching or memorizing for an object, they locate the object by recalling related contextual
cues.
Accordingly, this study created a new e-book interface that can simultaneously present text and
thinking structure. In addition, we used past exemplary composition exam papers as samples to
assess whether our e-book interface improves the reading comprehension and vocabulary of
users. In this study, the research questions that arose from the teaching experiments for designing
and implementing systems were as follows:
Research Question 1: How should we design the e-book interface for simultaneous presentation of text, thinking
structure, and thinking flows?

Research Question 2: Does our e-book interface improve readers’ understanding of thinking structure
relationships?

Research Question 3: Is the e-book interface effective at allowing readers to reflect on and draw materials from an
article?

In the next section, we introduce the design and implementation of this new e-book interface and
then analyze the system specifications to answer Question 1. In addition, in Section III.2, we analyze
our results (including text structure and vocabulary) to answer Questions 2 and 3. By discussing these
problems, we can determine the role and efficiency of thinking maps in digital reading.

3. Research methods
3.1. System design and implementation of e-book interface
The supporters of Project Zero advocate stimulating the curiosity of students to promote their think-
ing in class. There are two purposes: first, fostering students’ thinking abilities; second, deepening the
content of learning. Thinking maps are useful, but students may not know how to apply them. Con-
sequently, thinking routines were proposed for guiding student learning, thinking, and reflection by
applying thinking maps (Ritchhart et al., 2011; Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008). Thinking routines support
teachers in facilitating students’ thinking activities in class and are usually brief and easy. There are
seven criteria for developing each thinking routine: (a) A thinking routine is goal oriented in that it
targets specific types of thinking. (b) A thinking routine is used repeatedly in the classroom (c). A
thinking routine consists of only a few steps (d). A thinking routine is easy to learn and teach (e).
A thinking routine is easy to support when students are engaged in the routine (f). A thinking
routine can be used across a variety of contexts (g). A thinking routine can be used by a group or
by an individual.
Project Zero has proposed four principal thinking routines, namely, Headlines, Connect-Extend-
Challenge, See-Think-Wonder, and Compass Points. In designing our e-book, we used these thinking
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 975

routines as references. First, for applicable participants, we used writing as an example. Our aim was
to apply our system to classes, ensure that learning and teaching it is easy, and that it is applicable in
different environments. Finally, we designed a two-column interface to help teachers use the routines
to deepen student thinking to not only ensure that students understand the text that they are
reading but also ensure that they understand the concepts, developing their cognitive awareness
and positive attitudes toward thinking and learning, and finally attaining the goal of improving stu-
dents’ thinking routines. Many studies have shown that these routines effectively improve students’
thinking abilities and help them to understand what thinking is. The routines also enable them to
visualize their thinking through reflection (Salmon, 2008; Salmon & Lucas, 2011).
Text in printed books is presented in a linear structure. To assist students in deep reading, the
description of reading content should have a conceptual structure. Students who read competently
can determine authors’ ideas and thoughts by themselves, whereas less competent students require
more guidance. Therefore, when students are reading, they must follow the authors’ thinking struc-
tures, reflecting on their own misunderstandings. This study employed thinking maps developed by
experts with some leading questions and helped students link existing knowledge to create new
knowledge structures by answering questions about reflections. In other words, this study applied
thinking maps to realize four prominent thinking routines: Headlines, Connect-Extend-Challenge,
See-Think-Wonder, and Compass Points (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2008). Table 2 shows the relationship
between thinking maps and thinking routines.
This system supports the reading interface on a desktop or laptop computer. When students use a
desktop computer, the size of the reading interface is 20–27 in. (50.8–68.6 cm); when they use a
laptop computer, its size is 12–15 in. (30.5–28.1 cm). Because the reading content is mainly text
with a few images, normal computer hardware and networks can be used as learning tools.
The design principle of the e-book interface combined both cognitive load theory (Sweller, Ayres,
& Kalyuga, 2011) and cognitive theory of multimedia learning (i.e. principles of spatial and temporal
proximity). When designing the interface, we considered that students must simultaneously read and
compare experts’ thinking maps. On the basis of dual-coding theory from multimedia learning, text
with accompanying images nearby on the same page reduces cognitive load and improves memory
maintenance. Allan Paivio has developed a dual-coding theory of information processing. According
to this model, cognition involves the coordinated activity of a nonverbal system and a verbal system
while dealing with language (Clark & Paivio, 1991). The nonverbal system is hypothesized to have
developed earlier in evolution. Visual images of the nonverbal system are processed more efficiently,
almost twice as memorable. Furthermore, the verbal and nonverbal systems are additive. Hence, one
can improve memory by using both types of information during learning.
Based on dual-coding theory, we designed the page space of the reading interface, dividing it into
two equally sized columns, the left presenting the linear structure of the text and the right presenting
thinking maps and reflecting questions. This design supports students in effectively comparing text
and comprehending deep meanings. Without turning or scrolling through pages and under lower
cognitive loads for short-term memory, students can focus on deep thinking when reading articles
and link it to their knowledge to achieve more favorable learning outcomes. Moreover, one of the
cognitive load-reduction method is presenting narration and corresponding animation simul-
taneously to minimize need to hold representations in memory. In other words, students understand
a multimedia presentation better when animation and narration are presented simultaneously rather

Table 2. Association between thinking maps and thinking routines.

Thinking Routine Relationship Thinking Map
Headlines Capture the glossary Create Map Nodes
Connect-Extend-Challenge Make connections Select Thinking Map Type
See-Think-Wonder Stimulate curiosity and inquiry Design Map Structure
Compass Points Explore various facets Set Visual Anchor
976 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

than successively. That cognitive load-reduction method comes from the temporal contiguity effect
(Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
Our e-book interface, with the support of a graphical structure, gradually presents the article struc-
ture, from the core idea to the details, and presents the circumstances and flow of articles, for
example, with a flowchart showing the time flows of thinking or a tree map that specifically describes
the details in different timelines. Therefore, we can employ the context structure and vocabulary of
writing examples to reproduce the original thinking flows and structures with graphical support. To
ensure that readers understand the relationship between text and the thinking structure, we adopted
an interactive design for e-books, which allows users to follow guidelines and flows of the interface,
from word meanings to context, and then to a complete thinking map, with highlighting in the back-
ground. This design allows users to make connections between the text and the thinking structure
and clearly presents the relationship between the two.
The main design of the system interface is shown in Figure 1. To present text content and the
thinking structure, the design is in a two-column format, with the left column for text reading and
the right column presenting the title, main idea, thinking map, and questions and answers for reflec-
tion. When a user enters the main reading interface, to prevent confusion, it first presents textual
content in the left column to ensure user comprehension. After the user has finished reading, the
system leads the user to the right column where thinking flows are displayed. The user can construct
a thinking map of the article by reading the main idea and using the instruments to make thinking
visible.
To ensure that readers remember and reflect on the material’s structure, we incorporate vocabu-
lary and glossary in materials into thinking maps and constructing links of network. In addition to
discussing original vocabulary from articles, we provide questions to allow readers to reflect on
whether there are different materials and vocabulary in their learning background. Through this,
readers not only learn the original materials and vocabulary but also reflect on their thinking structure
and vocabulary. We chose high-quality samples from past writing composition papers for college
entrance examinations provided by the College Entrance Examination Center (CEEC) in Taiwan
and other specific examinations for this study. Our system presents the title, main idea, derivative
meaning, material standpoint structure, used corpus, and standpoint and reflection Q&A. Specific
descriptions of each item are listed as follows:

. Title: The title specified in the composition assessment.

. Main idea: The central theme of the article and the expression of the author.

Figure 1. Interface framework of the innovative e-book system.

 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 977

. Derived meaning: The meaning expressed by the central theme derived on the basis of the title of
the article and the main idea and replaced by the central words.
. Material standpoint structure: On the basis of the comments in specific articles and positive and
negative standpoints, we present an article’s structure using a “thesis, antithesis, experience or
transition” framework depending on changes in content. This framework presents positive and
negative standpoints in a corresponding relationship instead of a direct relationship; for
example, many articles describe life experiences and goals. During the pursuit of goals, people
may encounter difficulties, and this is called a negative standpoint. The pursuit process is called
experience or transition and the goal achieved is called a positive standpoint. However, this
kind of structure is one of many various expression modes. We chose this structure type for dis-
cussion in this study.
. Used corpus: The idioms, poems, allusions, and quotations that are used in articles. The definitions
of vocabulary words and glossary are based on the Revised Chinese Dictionary (http://dict.revised.
moe.edu.tw/cbdic/), an online Chinese word database provided and maintained by the Ministry of
Education, Taiwan. This online database incorporates information from the Chinese Dictionary
(Revised Edition), the Chinese Proverb Dictionary, the Hanzi Attribute Dictionary, and other diction-
aries for user support and learning.
. Standpoint and reflection Q&A: For different standpoints, we present knowledge related to the
article through a Q&A, for example, the life experiences of the author, quotations, and allusions.
We then raise questions to ensure that readers reflect on whether they possess their own knowl-
edge schemas for the specific standpoint (Figure 2).

When users establish a systemic structure, the interactive system design provides them with a
dynamic presentation of article titles, the derived meanings of the titles, and the material structure
of articles through interface manipulation. In addition, students’ reading records were considered
when we designed the system. Students can simultaneously read the text and review the thinking
structure and then view the reflection Q&A; furthermore, while reading, students see the notes of
the used corpus and can search for vocabulary meanings and related explanations. After students
finish reading and answering reflection questions, the interface displays the reading record page.
Thinking maps are similar to a metalanguage because they disclose the thinking content and
thinking mode of sample articles. As human beings, all cognitive skills have a foundation of funda-
mental cognitive structures such as sequencing, categorizing, comparing, etc. Moreover, those cog-
nitive skills are already existed before the invention of the word. Hence, the universality of the
cognitive skill should be existed in the visual-spatial, nonlinguistic forms across cultures and readings.
Learners can not only reflect on the content but also reflect on the thinking process of the author. For
example, students can redraw thinking maps to apply new structures to their own compositions
(Figure 3).

Figure 2. Sample article (left) and design of the thinking map (right).
978 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 3. Flowchart of interactive thinking map design.

Through interaction with the presented content, users can see the thinking structure of articles
gradually. This study refers to the three-stage “thesis, antithesis, and experience or transition”
theory from the argument map. When the reader clicks on the negative button (at the third level
of the tree map), guiding questions that relate to authors’ statements from a negative standpoint
are displayed and hints are provided for discussion of content; subsequently, the reader answers
questions (Figure 4). These questions include, (a) what stories of self were cited by the authors in
the relevant text as counterexamples, experiences, or examples? (b) What well-known stories cited
by the authors are counterexamples, experiences, or examples? (c) What quotations cited by the
authors are counterexamples, experiences, or examples? After users click on these questions, the
system displays the answers to inform users what knowledge is provided for the relevant text and
then asks readers whether they have similar experiences or vocabulary for the situation described
in the article, providing an thinking mode that allows readers to reflect on their own background
knowledge.
For different standpoints, yellow highlighting appears in articles (Figure 5). When users reflect on
questions and discuss authors’ statements for a specific standpoint, related passages of text are high-
lighted in yellow to facilitate the review of content. During article reading, the system can highlight
vocabulary, quotations, idioms, poems, and allusions, which appear in red and are underlined (Figure
5). The reflection Q&A incorporates the corpus used by authors to ensure that readers understand
deep meanings under thinking structures and reflect on their own knowledge. When we designed
these two functions for our interface, we considered the principles of spatial and temporal proximity
for multimedia learning, and we decided to present related knowledge content using our e-book
interface to reduce the cognitive load to facilitate learners’ reading comprehension. After answering
the reflection Q&A at this stage, users can click the “Next” button to proceed to the subsequent
standpoint (Figure 6). After the user proceeds to a negative standpoint, thinking maps return to

Figure 4. Questions and hints below the interactive thinking map.

 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 979

Figure 5. Highlighting feature for facilitating review.

Figure 6. Interface after clicking on the negative standpoint.

980 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

the standpoint structure, which allows users to repeat the learning period of the negative standpoint
for experience or transition, the used corpus, and the reflection Q&A.

3.2. Experiment design

The research involved both the design and construction of an e-book interface for demonstrating
articles and the thinking context of articles, enabling users to read articles and evaluate their thinking
structures simultaneously. The experiment’s purpose was not to verify the effectiveness of thinking
maps; therefore, both the treatment group and the control group used thinking maps. The collabora-
tive action research method was used in this studies. Our study group includes teachers, system
developers, and university professors. The purposes of our study group are to build reflective par-
tition, to develop greater mastery of teaching, and to make continuous progress in system develop-
ment. The main purpose of this experiment was to determine whether e-books that feature thinking
maps and contexts allow readers to understand the thinking structure and words more clearly than
do on traditional e-books interface. In other words, we designed our experiment to collect and
analyze data to determine the satisfaction of learners who used the e-book interface that simul-
taneously displays articles, the thinking structure, and the thinking process and to determine the
interface’s effectiveness. Our research participants were 61 students from National Central University
and other colleges. We randomly separated the participants into a treatment group of 31 people and
a control group of 30 people. The participants all spoke Mandarin Chinese as their native language
and reported that they had never operated the novel e-book system designed for our study.
Students’ learning effectiveness and responses about the reading interface are expected in the
measurement. Thus, we derived three hypotheses for our experiment on the basis of the objective
of the experiment:

1. Using our e-book interface to read articles and visualize thinking contexts with thinking maps
helps learners recall the thinking structure of the acquired articles.
2. Using our e-book interface to read articles and visualize thinking contexts with thinking maps
helps learners to recall words used in the acquired articles.
3. Learners have no significant difference in preferences for using conventional e-book systems or
using our proposed e-book interface.

The experimental material was past Chinese composition writing papers that were graded highly
from the Advanced Subjects Test and General Scholastic Ability Test in 2014. These articles had the
composition titles “Faraway” and “Password,” each of which provided 15 writing examples. In the
experiment, we randomly selected one article titled “Faraway” and two articles titled “Password” –
three articles in aggregate – which were sourced from the Research Center for Psychological and
Educational Testing of National Taiwan Normal University and the College Entrance Examination
Center (also available at the study123 web page: http://goo.gl/S8cTRq). The treatment group and
the control group read the three articles. The treatment group read them using the e-book designed
for our study, whereas the control group read them conventionally (i.e. through PDF documents, which
featured a single-column, interaction-and-glossary-free layout under the main article; Figure 7). The
abstract structure was due to layout limitations.
To discuss the effectiveness of the interface in enhancing reading comprehension, we conducted
three sessions with participants reading different articles, with a 1–2-day interval between each
session. The experimental processes for the treatment group and the control group were identical
(Figure 8) apart from the different reading systems. For each stages in the experiment, we asked
the participants to conduct systematic reading in a computer lab; when the participants were
reading, we recorded their reading behaviors, with the system recording their reading durations.
Prior to the experiment, we explained the experiment’s objectives and procedures and adminis-
tered questionnaires to the participants to survey their backgrounds, including basic information and
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 981

Figure 7. Linear reading mode for the control group using a conventional e-book.

reading and composition experience. The stages 1, 2, and 3 were developed in the action research
process. In the first stage, we began by asking the participants to register a new account to
ensure that our system could record their reading histories. After logging in, they read the introduc-
tion and tutorial on the front page, and then read the first writing example, entitled “Password,” and
the user conditions for the behind-desktop recording software. The system began recording the time
when the participants began reading and ended recording after recording the time at which they
stopped reading. In the second stage, we first required our participants to review their reading
records to provide them with necessary knowledge and, after they had read it, we asked that they
read the second writing example entitled “Password” and the system automatically recorded the
use status and reading duration by data logging feature. In the third stage, we asked the participants
to read their previous reading records, read the third article, entitled “Faraway,” and record the use
status and reading duration. After the third reading session, we tested the participants on the content
of the first “Password” article, providing them with the article’s subject and description and
requested their opinion on the article’s structure and points of view. Lastly, we administered a ques-
tionnaire and interviewed the participants on the basis of questionnaire feedback and experiment
content (Figure 9).
982 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

Figure 8. Experimental process of the treatment and control groups (linear reading).

Figure 9. Experiment snapshot: participants view thinking maps in treatment (left) and control groups.

4. Results and discussion

The test and questionnaires were employed to evaluate students’ capability to acquire an article’s
thinking structure, the knowledge schema vocabulary under the thinking structure, and ratings for
our e-book interface. Because thinking structure and vocabulary knowledge were evaluated
through a posttest, we hoped that the students would note the context and content of the first
article, the contents of other articles that they had read, and opinions they had written. The posttest
procedure emphasized learning effectiveness and included the following:
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 983

1. Drawing the graphic thinking structure (4 points)

Deriving a definition on the basis of the structure and the three perspectives of “thesis, antithesis,
experience or transition.” One point each, 4 points in total.
2. Writing down the vocabulary used in an article (10 points)
Writing down the experiences and quotations expressed in the original article. Ten sentences can
be found in the first article, 10 points in total.
3. Writing down words participants had entered (%)
Comparing words entered in the system with words written in the test.
(Numerator: words written down in the test; denominator: words entered in the system.)
4. Words in other read articles (1 extra point if answered).

Analysis of the posttest results in learning effectiveness for the treatment and control groups is
beneficial for answering Hypothesis I and Research Question 2 (whether our e-book interface can
facilitate readers’ comprehension of the relationship between the article and the thinking structure)
as well as Hypothesis II and Research Question 3 (whether our e-book interface helps readers to
reflect and refer to thinking maps). Moreover, the questionnaire results can help determine
whether Hypothesis III was supported (whether learners prefer the new e-book design or not).

4.1. Experimental results

We used a t test to analyze participants’ test scores (Table 3) and determined that the participants
reading with our system scored significantly higher in thinking structure drawing than did those
using the conventional system, meaning that reading using a simultaneous display of the article
and thinking structure can yield a more complete view of an author’s thinking. Additionally, using
our system, words on thinking maps were recalled by readers exhibit a significant difference com-
pared with those in the conventional reading mode. Table 3 shows that the treatment group and
control group exhibited large standard deviations – 1.84 and 1.93, respectively. After reviewing
the test answers, we found that the participants who reported personal experiences and quotations
within the stories of self and articles separately scored higher. However, a minority of participants
wrote their personal experiences and quotations, whereas a majority of participants merely copied
words under the structures on the basis of three-stage argumentation within the article. This is
likely why standard deviations of the grades were generally high. As for the score for the
“whether words written by them were in use” component, no significant differences were found.
We discovered that most participants rewrote the new knowledge content on the basis of the original
structure, which explained the lack of a difference in repetitive word use between the two groups.
Last, the study investigated whether words from other articles were written. In the test, no explicit
statement required the participants to record content from other articles that they recalled, and
only a few people recorded content from other articles, with the third article having the highest pro-
portion of such notes. This was likely because the participants had just finished the third article.

Table 3. Learning effectiveness result analysis.

Average Standard deviation
Treatment Control Treatment Control Cohen’s
group group group group P d
Drew the structure (4 points) 2.90 1.62 0.93 0.94 .000*** 1.369
Recall words on thinking maps (10 points) 3.58 2.12 1.84 1.93 .004** 0.774
Recall words within personal experiences (%) 0.33 0.22 0.29 0.26 .110 0.399
Read words from other articles 0.39 0.34 0.67 1.17 .863 0.052
***refers to p < .001
**refers to p < .01
*refers to p < .05
984 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

4.2. Questionnaire results

The reliability of the questionnaire employed in this study was estimated using Cronbach’s α
reliability test; Cronbach’s α values were .843 for the treatment group and .747 for the control
group – both greater than 0.7, meaning that the questionnaire achieved a high reliability level.
Hypothesis III (whether learners prefer the new e-book design) was tested using this questionnaire
on the basis of the following dimensions: the system’s reading mode, thinking structure, text func-
tionality, drawing thinking maps by the system, and acceptance of the system’s overall use. The 5-
point Likert scale was used for all 23 questions on the questionnaire, and the questions were categor-
ized as follows: four reading mode questions, eight thinking structure questions, three text function-
ality questions, two material drawing under the structure questions, and six overall system rating
questions. Detailed questionnaire content is shown in the appendix. For both the sub functions
and the overall system, the participants had a clear and comprehensive view of the instruction
steps on the front page, with no differences between the treatment group and the control group.
In other words, regarding Hypothesis III, the acceptance levels of the e-book reading interface
design used in our research and the conventional e-book are similar. Consequently, we show only
some results for the reading interface design dimension of our questionnaire. Questionnaire analysis
(Table 4) shows that when two-column reading was used by the treatment group, the participants
attained a more complete understanding. By contrast, the experimental value (3.31) from the
control group merely corresponds to the degree of article comprehension. Moreover, the control
group exhibited a lower acceptance level than did the treatment group (4.23 > 3.31). Although the
two groups had a large difference on average, the statistical test results did not reach a significant
difference level because of the limited number of participants.

4.3. Discussion
In our study, we designed and built an e-book interface that simultaneously displays the text and
thinking structure, allowing students to read an article and see the article’s structure at the same
time. We determined from the results that with the aid of this novel e-book interface, users can ident-
ify the thinking within the article and, by referring to the thinking structure, users can remember the
knowledge schemas under the structure. Furthermore, users can increase their vocabulary by answer-
ing reflection questions. Most users found that reading while aware of the author’s thinking structure
led to a more complete understanding of the article and the author’s thoughts. Moreover, where a
three-stage structure was applied in reading or composition, half of the participants thought that the
measure corresponds to the requirements of current examinations because such a structured
method can facilitate thinking and content composition. Nonetheless, some users thought that
reading and writing in this manner constrains thinking. Furthermore, we believe that thinking

Table 4. Questionnaire analysis – Reading interface design.

Average Standard deviation
Treatment Control Treatment Control Cohen’s
Question group group group group d
1. I can understand the article content more completely 4.23 3.31 0.72 1.00 1.056
through two-column reading than through single-
column reading.
2. I cannot focus on content with the two-column (single- 3.81 2.86 0.98 0.95 0.984
column) reading method.
3. Compared with the conventional e-book (single-column 3.87 2.86 1.09 1.19 0.885
reading), I prefer two-column reading.
4. I do not like to be limited to reading only articles in the 3.16 2.62 1.04 0.94 0.545
beginning of the experiment.
Average 3.765 2.91 0.955 1.021
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 985

using the tree-based thinking map is only one approach among many thinking frameworks. Our
system used past exam composition papers as an example; if the style is different, different thinking
processes and structures are expected. Overall, with the aid of a structure graph, we can see the
author’s thinking as well as our own. In accordance with our observation, in reading time, although
no major difference was discovered between the two groups, the posttest scores of the treatment
group exhibited a significant difference, which shows that reading using our system assists people
to memorize the structures in the article and its knowledge schemas.
We interviewed the participants; most expressed a positive opinion of the system and stated that
they are willing to read articles using the system and promote its use. As for system interface design,
most users stated that the inconveniences of reading can be reduced by using our system. In contrast
to conventional reading methods, our interface provides reading aid features without increasing the
cognitive burden. The participants opined that paragraphs related to the article should be high-
lighted so that readers notice article sections and thinking contents when searching or answering
reflection questions. For the body text notes in the template, most users opined that although glos-
saries can easily be seen, use of the online dictionary can be unsuitable and thus some quotes cannot
be searched; we should consider this in future designs. Last, participants want to see other users’
entered content as a reference when reading. In the future, we will consider this, because if
readers can access content entered by peers, diverse conceptions could be facilitated.
The theoretical contribution of this study is to demonstrate that the interactive ways to showing
graphic organizers is an alternative besides viewing and constructing graphic organizers. Although
studies investigated effects of graphic organizers by viewing or constructing them, the interactive
presentation of graphic organizers is still a gap in the literature evidence. There is insufficient evi-
dence to determine proper interactive presentation ways of graphic organizers across educational
levels, subject areas, and specific settings (e.g. devices). This study helps to identify gaps and area
for further research. From practical perspective, the study demonstrates an interactive interface to
visualize the thinking context in an e-Book. Future research could investigate other interactive inter-
face in the same settings.

5. Conclusion and suggestions

In our study, we designed and built a novel e-book interface that simultaneously displays the thinking
process by text and thinking structure by graph, allowing people to read an article and see the
article’s structure at the same time. A two-column page is presented along with the thinking
process text, thinking structure graph, and list of vocabulary in the article, assisting students in acquir-
ing the vocabulary. We conducted a comparative evaluation between our system and conventional
reading to determine whether the e-book interface that we designed effectively presents articles and
the thinking structure. We determined that when using the e-book reading system designed for our
study, the treatment group scored higher in thinking structure and vocabulary than did the control
group because the treatment group’s two-column reading mode facilitates interaction and content
presentation. The control group participants did not have simultaneously access to the content and
the structure graph, and could not easily understand the article’s thinking structure when reading.
When using the system designed for our study, after reading the article, readers could see the
article structure and assimilate knowledge schemas.
In the future, our novel e-book interface will not be limited to exam composition–style articles. In
addition, the visualization of thinking should not be limited to one framework. We hope to establish
different structural graphic modes that are capable of being applied to different articles and the
thinking behind them, and that facilitate building unconventional thinking maps, thus enabling
readers to find thinking structures and knowledge schemas by reading. Furthermore, instructors
should be able to edit and create materials for the novel e-book interface. Students will be able to
progressively remove the scaffolding of thinking maps, become familiar with thinking structures,
and develop thinking structures of their own.
986 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [Grant numbers MOST 105-2511-S-024-007-MY3
and MOST 104-2628-S-024-001-MY3].

Notes on contributors
Dr. Gwo-Dong Chen is a professor at the Department of Computer Science & Information Engineering, National Central
University, Taiwan. He is a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. His research interest includes electronic book, drama-based
learning, digital learning playground, and digital theater for learning.
Dr. Chih-Kai Chang is a professor at the Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of
Tainan, Taiwan. He received his Ph.D. degree in computer science and information engineering from the National
Central University, Taiwan. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning, mobile learning, compu-
ter science education, and educational technology.
Dr. Chin-Yeh Wang is an associate professor at the School of Educational Information Technology, Central China Normal
University, Wuhan, P.R. China. He is a Ph.D. in computer science & information engineering. His research interest includes
ebook, learning portfolio analysis, science education, and science communication.
Xiao-Lun Jian was a graduate student at the Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National
Central University, Taiwan. She received her Master degree in computer science & information engineering from the
National Central University, Taiwan, in June, 2015.

ORCID
Chih-Kai Chang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3695-4474

References
Chen, I.-C. (2014). Effect of teaching with multi graphic organizers and concept maps on science learning for fifth grade stu-
dents (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chesser, W. D. (2011). The e-textbook revolution. Library Technology Reports, 47(8), 28–40.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–210.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of
multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–
11.
Dexter, D. D., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 51–72.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia mess-
ages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546.
Hyerle, D. (1996). Thinking maps: Seeing Is understanding. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 85–89.
Hyerle, D. (2000). Thinking maps: Visual tools for activating habits of mind. In A. L. Costa & B. Kallick (Eds.), Activating and
engaging habits of mind (pp. 46–58). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hyerle, D. (2008). Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hyerle, D. (2014). Thinking Maps®: A visual language for learning. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.),
Knowledge cartography (pp. 73–87). London: Springer.
Hyerle, D., & Williams, K. (2010). Bifocal assessment in the cognitive age: Thinking maps for assessing content learning and
cognitive processes. The New Hampshire Journal of Education, XII, 32–28.
Hyerle, D. N., & Alper, L. (2011). Student successes with thinking maps®: school-based research, results, and models for
achievement using visual tools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Levorato, M. C., Roch, M., & Nesi, B. (2007). A longitudinal study of idiom and text comprehension. Journal of Child
Language, 34(03), 473–494.
Li, L. Y., Chen, G. D., & Yang, S. J. (2013). Construction of cognitive maps to improve e-book reading and navigation.
Computers & Education, 60(1), 32–39.
Long, D. J., & Carlson, D. (2011). Mind the map: How thinking maps affect student achievement. Networks: An Online
Journal for Teacher Research, 13(2), 262–262.
 INTERACTIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 987

Lundblom, E. E., & Woods, J. J. (2012). Working in the classroom improving idiom comprehension through classwide peer
tutoring. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 33(4), 202–219.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38
(1), 43–52.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of The national
reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Nesbit, J. C., & Adesope, O. O. (2006). Learning with concept and knowledge maps: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 76(3), 413–448.
Perkins, D. (2008). Smart schools: From training memories to educating minds. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and
independence for all learners. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. (2008). Making thinking visible. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 57–61.
Ritchhart, R., Turner, T., & Hadar, L. (2009). Uncovering students’ thinking about thinking using concept maps.
Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 145–159.
Salmon, A. K. (2008). Young English language learners making thinking and language visible. Colombian Applied
Linguistics Journal, 10, 126–141.
Salmon, A. K., & Lucas, T. (2011). Exploring young children’s conceptions about thinking. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 25(4), 364–375.
Strangman, N., Hall, T., & Meyer, A. (2003). Graphic organizers and implications for universal design for learning: Curriculum
enhancement report. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
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.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Explorations in the learning sciences, instructional systems
and performance technologies. New York: Springer.
Yang, B.-H. (2014). Combining Thinking Maps with Summarizing Strategies in Reading Comprehension - A Case Study on
Teaching Mandarin Narratives Lessons for the Fourth Grade Students of Primary School (Unpublished master’s thesis).
National Hsinchu University of Education, Taiwan.
988 G.-D. CHEN ET AL.

Appendix