Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

An eye movement analysis of highlighting and graphic organizer study

aids for learning from expository text
Hector R. Ponce a,⇑, Richard E. Mayer b,1
a
Faculty of Management and Economics, University of Santiago of Chile, Av. L. B. O’Higgins 3363, Santiago, Chile
b
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study uses eye tracking technology to examine how study aids such as highlighting and graphic
Available online 28 September 2014 organizers affect cognitive processing during learning. Participants were 130 college students randomly
assigned to one of five experimental conditions. In the control group, students read a plain text; in two
Keywords: behaviorally passive conditions, students read a text with key words colored in red or read the same text
Highlighting along with a filled-in graphic organizer; and in two behaviorally active conditions, students either high-
Graphic organizers lighted key words in a text or filled in an empty graphic organizer. Students took tests of rote memory
Study strategies
(cloze test) and comprehension (summary test). Asking students to fill in a graphic organizer or providing
Eye tracking
Computer-based learning
a filled-in graphic organizer resulted in improvements in performance on both tests, whereas asking stu-
dents to highlight the text or providing highlighted text improved performance only in the rote memory
test compared to students who did not receive any study aids. Eye tracking measures showed that high-
lighting (in both conditions) primed the cognitive process of selecting: students spent more time fixating
on those words colored in red compared with the control condition. In contrast, eye tracking measures
showed that graphic organizers (in both conditions) primed the cognitive processes of selecting, organiz-
ing and integrating since the inclusion of an organizer substantially affected both where their eyes fixated
and moved (i.e. transitions) within the text.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Objective 2. Research on highlighting and graphic organizers

The goal of the present study is to examine how study aids such
as highlighting and graphic organizers affect learning from expos-
itory text, such as exemplified in Fig. 1, including both the process
and outcome of learning. This goal is in line with growing theoret-
ical demands for applying the science of learning to study strate-
gies (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013;
Mayer, 2011) as well as growing practical demands of reform
efforts such as the Common Core Standards in the U.S. to focus
more on expository text (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang,
2011). In this study, we use eye tracking measures (such as number
of fixations and eye fixation transitions, as summarized in the top
of Table 1) to provide a picture of the process of learning and we
use a multi-leveled posttest (consisting of tests of memory and
comprehension, as summarized in the bottom of Table 1) to pro-
vide a picture of the outcome of learning.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 27180716.
E-mail addresses: hector.ponce@usach.cl (H.R. Ponce), rich.mayer@psych.ucsb.
edu (R.E. Mayer).
1
Tel.: +1 805 8932472.
Highlighting text is part of a more general technique known as
typographical cuing that also includes underlining, boldface, capi-
talization, and colored types (Fowler & Barker, 1974). In this article,
we refer to this variety of text marking techniques as highlighting.
Among the advantages of highlighting text is that it is simple, easy
to use, and training is not necessary (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Impor-
tantly, several studies have found that highlighting text is among
the most common study techniques. For example, in a survey of
more than 500 medical students on spontaneous study strategies
conducted by Lonka, Lindblom-YlÄnne, and Maury (1994), stu-
dents reported the following study techniques as the most com-
monly used ones: underlining (88% of participants), note-taking
(68% of participants), and defining concepts (49% of participants).
Similarly, Wade, Trathen, and Schraw (1990) found that when col-
lege students were asked to study a text by using whatever tech-
nique they knew, most students employed some form of
highlighting followed by verbatim note-taking.
Research on highlighting and related signaling techniques can
be divided into (a) studies in which participants are asked to mark
words or sentences in a text (reader-generated highlighting), and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.010
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
(b) instructional design studies in which participants receive learn-
ing material with text already highlighted (experimenter-provided
highlighting). Research on the effectiveness on both types of
research designs has generated mixed results. Some studies have
found positive effects while others have found neutral or even det-
rimental effects (Bell & Limber, 2010; Dunlosky et al., 2013;
Hartley, Bartlett, & Branthwaite, 1980). Notably, one of the most
consistent findings is that highlighting can improve memory for
the text that has been highlighted (Lorch, 1989). For instance, in
a study conducted by Hartley et al. (1980), where sixth grade stu-
dents were asked to read either a passage that contained under-
lined text (experimenter-provided highlighting) or the same
passage but with plain text, they found that the group that read
the highlighted passage outperformed the group that read the
plain-text passage as measured by a cloze test administered imme-
diately and after a one-week delay.
Another study technique recommended to improve reading
comprehension is the use of graphic organizers (Fiorella & Mayer,
2015; National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000), although students do not tend to use them
as much as the highlighting technique. Graphic organizers are spa-
tial layouts that embed different types of text structures, usually
associated with expository texts, such as compare-and-contrast
(e.g. a matrix), sequence (e.g., flow-chart), and cause-and-effect
(e.g., fishbone) (Cook & Mayer, 1988; Ponce, López, & Mayer,
2012). The use of graphic organizers is intended to prime deeper
processing of the text in order to identify, first, the text structure
(e.g., compare-and-contrast, cause-and-effect, etc.), and, second,
the respective components and relationships within the text (e.g.,
similarities and differences, lists of causes and effects, etc.)
(Beyer, 1997).
Similar to the highlighting study technique, research on graphic
organizers can be divided into (a) studies in which students are
asked to complete an empty organizer along with a text (reader-
generated graphic organizers) and (b) studies in which students
are provided with filled in graphic organizers along with a text
(experimenter-provided graphic organizers). Meta-analyses have
concluded that graphic organizers are an effective study technique
for improving learning (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001;
Moore & Readence, 1984), although there are circumstances in
which the use of graphic organizers does not lead to better learn-
ing. For example, in a study conducted by Stull and Mayer
(2007), in which college students read a biology text along with
graphic organizers, the graphic organizers were effective in
improving learning in cases when a small number of organizers
were used (e.g., one or two per paragraph) but not effective when
Fig. 1. The steamboat passage in the text-only condition.
they were overused (e.g., more than two organizers per paragraph).
In a large scale study, Ponce et al. (2012) found that elementary
school students significantly improved their reading comprehen-
sion skills, measured through a standardized test, after they
received scaffolded practice in the use of graphic organizers and
when such practice was integrated within the language arts
curriculum.
3. Eye movement during reading
In the literature we did not find studies that examine eye move-
ment behavior that results from using specific reading comprehen-
sion strategies such as highlighting text or filling in a graphic
organizer. Most studies on eye movement during reading have
focused on cognitive processes directly associated with reading
texts (e.g., attention), the influence of textual variables (e.g., con-
ceptual density and semantic relationships between words), and
discourse factors (e.g., topic structure) (Hyönä, Lorch, & Kaakinen,
2002; Rayner, 1998).
Research on eye movement uses two main measures to study
reading patterns: saccade and fixation. A saccade corresponds to a
brief and a rapid movement of the eyes from one location to
another in the text (principally words). In contrast, a fixation is
the action of the eyes coming to rest on part of the text (a word
or part of a word) for a very short period of time (Rayner, 1998).
Fixation data reveal attention processes and it is only during fixa-
tions that information is encoded (Rayner, Chace, Slattery, & Ashby,
2006).
During reading, patterns of fixations and saccades are influ-
enced by text difficulty, task demands and use of graphics. For
example, eye movement studies demonstrate that reading difficult
texts requires more cognitive processing than reading simpler
texts. Difficult parts of the text (e.g., uncommon words or syntac-
tically complex sentences) demand more attention; which is
reflected in readers’ tendency to fixate more and for longer periods
of time; with an increase in regressions (i.e., backward saccades)
and decrease in saccade length (Rayner, 1995; Rayner et al., 2006).
Task demands also appear to influence attentional processes
during reading, as shown by Kaakinen and Hyönä (2010). In their
study, a group of students was instructed to read a text for proof-
reading purposes and another group to read a text for comprehen-
sion purposes. Students who were asked to proofread a text
showed an increase in the number of fixations, decrease in saccade
length and an increase in fixation duration compared with stu-
dents that were instructed to read for comprehension.
The spatial disposition of text and graphics affects cognitive
processing during learning as well. Johnson and Mayer (2012)
report three experiments that study the effects of the spatial con-
tiguity principle (i.e., placing text near the corresponding part of a
graphic tends to have a positive effect on learning) by examining
eye movement behavior. In one of the experiments, a group was
instructed to read and study a separated presentation (i.e., a dia-
gram of a braking system separated from a text explaining such
system) and another group was instructed to read and study an
integrated presentation (i.e., the same diagram but the text was
segmented and located next to each mechanism that constituted
the braking system). Eye movement data showed that participants
in the integrated condition made significantly more saccades
between the text and the diagram (i.e., indicating attempts to inte-
grate words and picture) and more saccades from the text to the
corresponding part of the diagram (i.e., indicating successful inte-
gration of words and picture) than participants in the separated
condition. No significant differences were observed in total fixation
time on diagrams and on text (i.e., indicating attentional focus on
words and pictures).
 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32 23

Table 1
Measures of eye-tracking and learning outcomes.

Name Description Cognitive process

Measures of eye-tracking
Total fixation time (s)
Number of fixations
Up–down transitions
Left–right transitions
Measures of learning outcomes
Summary test score
Cloze test score
Total duration eyes spend looking at each AOI
Total number of fixations eyes spend on each AOI
Number of times eyes move from the top portion of the
passage to the bottom portion of the passage or vice versa
Number of times eyes move from the passage (top or
bottom) to the graphic organizer area or vice versa
Number of key comparisons recalled
Number of key verbatim terms filled in
Selecting: attentional focus on each AOI
Selecting: Attentional focus on each AOI
Organizing and integrating: Attempts to relate sentences in the top
section with sentences in the bottom section to establish a comparison
Organizing and integrating: Attempts to integrate the graphic organize
with the text and build a compare-and-contrast structure of the text
Comprehension based on a comparison-and-contrast composition.
Relational sentences
Memorization of pieces of information

Our goal in this study is to use eye movement metrics such as

number of fixations and number of transitions (as summarized in
the top of Table 1) to examine the effect of highlighting and graphic
organizers study aids on reading patterns and to use comprehen-
sion and memory tests (as summarized in the bottom of Table 1)
to examine the effects of highlighting and graphic organizers on
learning outcomes.

4. Theoretical framework

The present study extends the growing body of research on the

effectiveness of various types of text processing strategies, such as
note-taking (Kiewra, 1985; Peper & Mayer, 1978), text-signaling
techniques (Lorch, 1989), graphic organizers (Ponce et al., 2012;
Robinson et al., 2006) and outlining based on rhetorical structures
(Cook & Mayer, 1988; Meyer & Poon, 2001). The main hypothesis
(which we call the depth hypothesis) is that highlighting and gra-
phic organizer techniques foster qualitatively different cognitive
processes during learning and therefore produce qualitatively dif-
ferent learning outcomes. In particular, the depth hypothesis pro-
poses that some study techniques (e.g., highlighting) promote a
superficial processing of the text that improve rote memory of
the highlighted material whereas others techniques (e.g., graphic
organizer) promote a deeper processing of the text that foster dee-
per comprehension of the text.
The depth hypothesis draws on the idea that the quality of a
learning outcome depends on the kinds of the cognitive processes
that learners engage in during learning, as described in the cogni-
tive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 2009, 2011). The lear-
ner can engage in three different cognitive processes during
learning from an expository text such as shown in Fig. 1: the pro-
cess of selecting, that is, paying attention to relevant information
(e.g., highlighted text); the process of organizing, that is, building
a coherent structure of the incoming information (e.g., compare-
and-contrast structure); and the process of integrating, that is,
relating new information with existing relevant knowledge acti-
vated from long-term memory (e.g., text structure).
In reading the steamboat passage shown in Fig. 1, students
might adopt a default strategy of memorizing a list of isolated facts
or a constructive strategy of building an organized knowledge struc-
ture such as a compare-and-contrast matrix in which two elements
(eastern-style steamboats and western style steam boats) are com-
pared along several dimensions (e.g., rivers, type of hull, type of
engine, number of decks, etc.). Alternatively, students might not
put much effort into reading the passage regardless of their reading
strategy, and thereby not learn much of anything at all.
How can we prime students to engage in deep cognitive pro-
cessing during learning, such as structure building? A study aid
technique intended to foster structure building is to provide gra-
phic organizers to accompany the text (which we call static graphic
Fig. 2. The steamboat passage in the highlighted condition.
organizers as shown in Fig. 2) or to ask learners to fill in graphic
organizers (which we call interactive graphic organizers as shown
in Fig. 3). These kinds of study aids are intended to prime three
kinds of cognitive processes during learning: selecting relevant
information to put into a structure, organizing the relevant mate-
rial into a coherent structure (i.e., a matrix in this case), and inte-
grating the new knowledge with relevant prior knowledge (e.g.,
previous experience with compare-and-contrast structures). These
cognitive activities should be reflected in improvements both on
memory tests and comprehension tests.
In contrast, a study aid technique aimed mainly at memorizing
isolated facts is to highlight key material in red print (which we
call static highlighting as shown in Fig. 4) or to ask students to
highlight key material in red print (which we call interactive high-
lighting as shown in Fig. 5). These kinds of study activities are
intended mainly to prime the cognitive process of selecting, which
would be reflected in improvements on memory tests but not com-
prehension tests.
5. Hypotheses
In this study we primarily examine the depth hypothesis, which
holds that not only people learn more deeply from structure-build-
ing study aids (such as graphic organizers) than memorization
study aids (such as highlighting) but also that the learning process
is affected differently when these study aids are adopted, as shown
by the eye movement analysis. We define the predictions in terms
of eye movements and learning outcomes, as follows.
24 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32

Fig. 3. The steamboat passage and the filled in graphic organizer.

5.1. Eye movements hypotheses
Regarding eye tracking metrics involving number of eye fixa-
tions (as an indication of the process of selecting), the depth
hypothesis predicts more fixations on the important words colored
in red in the static highlighting condition (i.e., guide learner’s selec-
tive attention) compared with the text-only condition (Hypothesis
1). Additionally, we expect that participants in the static graphic
organizer condition will fixate less on the text compared with
the text-only group but will spend more time fixating on the gra-
phic organizer area, showing the activation of the cognitive pro-
cesses of selecting as well by guiding learner’s selective attention
to information found on the organizer (Hypothesis 2).
Regarding eye tracking metrics involving transitions, we con-
sider transitions between the top and bottom sections (i.e., up–
down transitions) of the steamboat passage as an indication that
attempts at making specific comparisons within the text are being
made and therefore the activation of the cognitive process of
organizing and integrating (i.e., given the structure of the steam-
boat passage it is necessary to relate sentences in the top section
with sentences in bottom section). Similarly, left–right transitions
also reflect attempts to integrate information. Consequently, the
depth hypothesis predicts more transitions per minute (as an indi-
cation of integrating) for the graphic organizer groups than the
highlighting groups (Hypothesis 3).
As a secondary hypothesis, the interactivity hypothesis is that
people learn more when they are primed to engage in hands-on
activity during learning through interactive study aids (such as
interactive highlighting and interactive graphic organizers) rather
than static study aids (such as static highlighting or static graphic
organizers). Based on the interactivity hypothesis, we expect to
observe more activity in terms of transitions between the top
and bottom sections (i.e., up–down transitions) and vice versa in
the interactive conditions compared with the static conditions.
Additionally, we expect to observe significantly more transitions
between the text and the graphic organizer area (i.e., right–left

Fig. 4. The steamboat passage and the interactive graphic organizer.

 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
Fig. 5. The steamboat passage in the editor for highlighting.
transitions) in the IGO group compared with the SGO since partic-
ipants in the IGO group need to read the text more often to fill in
the graphic organizer (Hypothesis 4).
5.2. Learning outcomes hypotheses
Regarding the memory test (which we consider a reflection of
the cognitive process of selecting), the depth hypothesis predicts
that the graphic organizer groups (i.e., IGO and SGO groups) and
the highlighting groups (i.e., static and interactive highlighting
groups) will all outperform the text-only group (Hypothesis 5). In
contrast, on the comprehension test (which is intended to reflect
the cognitive process of integrating as well as selecting and orga-
nizing), the depth hypothesis predicts that the graphic organizer
groups will score significantly higher than the text-only group
but the highlighting groups will not (Hypothesis 6).
Finally, the interactivity hypothesis predicts that the interactive
highlighting group will outperform the static highlighting group
(Hypothesis 7) and the IGO group will outperform the SGO group
(Hypothesis 8) on the comprehension test and the memory test.
It should be noted that the depth hypothesis does not make this
prediction because behavioral activity does not guarantee appro-
priate cognitive activity.
6. Method
6.1. Participants and design
The participants were 130 college students recruited from the
Psychology Subject Pool at the University of California, Santa Bar-
bara. The average age of the participants was 19.45 years
(SD = 1.26) and the proportion of females was 0.83. Forty-five per-
cent of the participants were freshmen (first year), 29% were soph-
omores (second year), 16% were juniors (third year) and 10% were
seniors (fourth year). The mean rating on self-rated prior knowl-
edge about steamboats was 1.68 (SD = 0.75) in a scale of 1–5,
which is in the very low range.
There were five groups based on a between-subject design, with
26 participants in each group: text-only group, which read a plain
text; static highlighting group, which read a text with key words
colored in red; interactive highlighting group, which read a text
with an editor so learners could highlight portions in red; static
graphic organizer (SGO) group, which read a text along with a filled
in graphic organizer; and interactive graphic organizer (IGO)
25
group, which read a text along with an empty graphic organizer
for learners to fill in.
The groups did not differ significantly from one another (at
p < .05) in mean age, self-rated prior knowledge of steamboats, or
proportion of men and women.
6.2. Materials
The instructional materials consisted of five versions of a 123-
word expository passage on steamboats adapted from Meyer and
Poon (2001), and implemented in PowerPoint as shown in Fig. 1.
This text compares two types of steamboats (i.e., eastern-style
and western-style) along several dimensions (e.g., river depth,
cargo storage engine type, etc.), so the rhetorical structure of this
text is compare-and-contrast (Cook & Mayer, 1988). The first 6 sen-
tences of the passage describe eastern-style steamboats and the
last 7 sentences describe western-style steamboats. The Flesch
reading ease index was 0.48 and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level
was 10; indicating that the steamboat passage can easily be under-
stood by students in 10th grade (i.e., 15–16 years old students).
As shown in Fig. 1, in the text-only version (control group), the
steamboat passage was presented as the only window on the
screen. As shown in Fig. 2, the static highlighting version was iden-
tical to the text-only condition except that 28 words were high-
lighted in red. The highlighted words were the elements being
compared between eastern-style and western-style steamboats
(e.g., Hudson River vs. Missouri, Ohio and Mississippi, deep vs. flat,
low-pressure vs. high-pressure, etc.). The objective was to direct
readers’ attention to these words in order to make readers more
easily aware of the comparisons.
As shown in Fig. 3, the static graphic organizer (SGO) version
contained the steamboat passage on the left side and a filled in gra-
phic organizer on the right side of the screen. On the top section of
the graphic organizer, ‘‘eastern-style steamboat’’ was printed in
the left corner and ‘‘western-style steamboat’’ was printed on the
right corner. In the middle section, each attribute or dimension
was explicitly indicated with the respective value for each type
of steamboat. The same values that appear in red in the highlighted
condition were presented in the graphic organizer, although the
comparison is made more explicit in the graphic organizer by pro-
viding additional structural information.
As shown in Fig. 4, the interactive highlighting version presents
the steamboat passage within an editor application with function-
alities to highlight text. The interactive highlighting editor is an
26 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
application developed in Adobe Flash. The editor implements func-
tions to highlight text in various colors but students were asked to
highlight only with the color red. This version also has functional-
ity to undo any piece of highlighted text once the participant has
already colored part of the text, if required.
As shown in Fig. 5, the interactive graphic organizer (IGO) ver-
sion presents the steamboat passage on the left side and an embed-
ded graphic organizer on the right side. The graphic organizer was
implemented in Adobe Flash so it was simple to integrate into
PowerPoint as an embedded object. The interactive graphic orga-
nizer was presented with empty boxes so the learner could type
in the two elements to be compared, could add information about
one dimension and its respective values. Learners could add as
many additional dimensions as they wished, and type in the name
of each dimension and its values for the eastern-style and western-
style steamboats.
The test materials consisted of a cloze test and a summary test.
The cloze test was devised to measure verbatim memory of the les-
son. The cloze test consisted of a sheet of paper containing the
steamboat passage but with 13 words eliminated and replaced
with blank spaces for participants to fill in. The following words
were eliminated: Hudson, deep (three times), below, low-pressure,
shallow, Missouri, Ohio, Mississippi, flat, on, high-pressure (as
shown in Appendix A). These are the words that were highlighted
in red in the highlighted version of the lesson or used in the cells of
the graphic organizer in the graphic organizer version of the lesson.
One point was given for each exact word that was filled in cor-
rectly, yielding a maximum score of 13 points.
The summary test was devised to measure comprehension of
the text and was presented on a computer screen. The summary
test consisted of a computer-based blank MS-Word document that
participants used to type a summary of the steamboat passage
without access to the original version. The exact instruction to par-
ticipants was: ‘‘Please write a summary of the steamboat lesson.
You have a maximum of 5 min.’’ To score the summary, we created
a 9-item rubric consisting of comparisons between the eastern
steamboat and the western steamboat on each of nine dimensions
(as shown in Appendix B). One point was given for each complete
comparison in the summary, either written in one complete sen-
tence (e.g., eastern steamboats have deep hulls and western steam-
boats have flat hulls) or written in two separate sections (e.g., as in
the original text). The maximum score was 9 points.
The informed consent form described the experiment, summa-
rized the participant’s rights, and contained a space for the partic-
ipant’s signature. The participant pre-questionnaire solicited basic
demographic information concerning age, sex, and year in college.
The participant post-questionnaire consisted of five statements
that asked for ratings on a 5-point scale about previous knowledge
of steamboats, difficulty and effort in learning the steamboat les-
son, and satisfaction and motivation by asking participants their
level of agreement with the following statements ‘‘I like using this
computer program’’ and ‘‘I would like more lessons like this one’’.
The apparatus consisted of a Tobii T-60 eye tracking system
used to present the passage and record eye movements and a Dell
computer where the Tobii Studio software was installed.
6.3. Measures
6.3.1. Measures of eye movements
First, we computed total fixation time and number of fixations
in the regions analyzed for each area of the screen (as summarized
as the first two measures in Table 1). Second, we established areas
of interest (AOIs), which are defined as regions in the stimulus
where a researcher focuses his/her attention to examine eye move-
ment patterns (e.g. words, sentences, and images), and we counted
the number of transitions (or saccades) between AOIs (Holmqvist
et al., 2011).
In our study, the steamboat passage was divided into two AOIs:
the top section of the text (i.e., the first 6 sentences) and bottom
section of the text (i.e., the last 7 sentences) (see Fig. 1). The reason
for this two initial AOIs is that in order to make a comparison
between different attributes (e.g., hull types) associated with the
steamboats it is necessary to locate the information in the top sec-
tion and later to compare it with the respective information in the
bottom section. This processing takes place in working memory,
which has limited capacity, so numerous fixations and transitions
on key parts of the texts may be required. In addition, for the static
and interactive graphic organizer groups, the graphic organizer (on
the right side of the screen) was defined as a third area of interest.
Finally, an orthogonal set of AOIs was constructed to compare
highlighted words (i.e., the red words in the static highlighting
group) and the non-highlighted words.
We counted two types of transitions: (1) transitions between
top and bottom sections and vice versa of the steamboat passage
(which we refer to as up–down transitions) and (2) transitions
between the steamboat passage and the graphic organizer area
and vice versa (which we refer to as left–right transitions). We
view up–down transitions as an indication of the cognitive process
of organizing and integrating since the learner is attempting to
relate specific sentences from the top and bottom sections of the
steamboat passage to establish comparisons (as summarized in
the third measure in Table 1). Similarly, we consider left–right tran-
sitions as attempts to integrate the graphic organizer with the text
and construct a compare-and-contrast structure of the steamboat
passage (as summarized in the fourth measure in Table 1).
In previous studies, transition measures have been used to
reflect attempts at integrating information from two or more AOIs.
For instance, Johnson and Mayer (2012) counted the number of
transitions between an AOI containing a text and an AOI containing
a picture (about a braking system) as attempts at engaging in the
cognitive process of integrating during learning. Similarly, Mason,
Pluchino, and Tornatora (2013) used second-pass fixation time as
a measure of transitions between a text and a picture which repre-
sents cognitive efforts at integrating written and pictorial
representations.
To facilitate and compare eye tracking measures, the text was
formatted exactly in the same way for the text-only, static high-
lighting, and static graphic organizer groups in terms of font type
and size, space between words and sentences, and location of the
text on the screen. In case of the interactive graphic organizer
group, the font of the text was slightly smaller than the previous
conditions to create more space and better accommodate the func-
tionalities of the graphic organizer. Finally, due to the restricted
functionalities of the editor application used in the interactive
highlighting group, the size and location of the text on the screen
were slightly different; so the AOIs were defined separately for this
version of text. Data from one participant in the highlighting con-
dition was excluded in the eye movement analysis due to the low-
quality of eye tracking data.
6.3.2. Measures of learning outcomes
Two measures of learning outcomes were used: rote memory,
measured via a cloze test, and reading comprehension, measured
by asking the learner to write a summary (as summarized as the
fifth and sixth measures, respectively, in Table 1). The cloze test
is intended as a test of verbatim memory, and hence is referred
to as a memory test; the summary test is intended as a test of
how the material is organized, and hence is referred to as a com-
prehension test. Cloze tests and summary tests have been used
before as a measure of memory and reading comprehension
respectively in studies involving the highlighting (Hartley et al.,
 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
1980) and graphic organizer techniques (Kiewra, Kauffman,
Robinson, Dubois, & Staley, 1999; Ponce & Mayer, 2014).
6.4. Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the five groups
and were tested individually. As the participant arrived, he or she
was seated in the testing room in front of the Tobii’s computer
screen. The experimenter explained the aims of the study—to
examine eye movement patterns while students read a text.
Participants were asked to read and sign the consent form (which
explained human subject protections) and to complete the partic-
ipant pre-questionnaire (which solicited basic demographic infor-
mation concerning age, sex, and year in school).
Next, the experimenter explained the eye tracking technology
and proceeded with eye tracking calibration for the participant.
Upon completion of calibration, the participant received verbal
and written instructions on how to proceed based on his or her
treatment group. In the text-only, static highlighting, and static
graphic organizer groups, all participants were asked to read and
study the text for a maximum of 2 min. In the interactive highlight-
ing group and the interactive graphic organizer group, the experi-
menter gave each participant a brief explanation of the
functionalities of the highlighting editor or graphic organizer appli-
cation, respectively. For training purposes, participants were asked
to read a brief text that compared Arizona and Rhode Island in
terms of population, climate and size. Participants in the highlight-
ing conditions were asked to highlight key ideas on the practice
text by first selecting a word or group of words and color them
in red (using the respective function in the application). Similar
to the interactive highlighting group, participants in the interactive
graphic organizer group were asked to fill in the graphic organizer
by using the same practice text. In both cases, the training sessions
lasted about 5 min. After the training session, each participant
received verbal and written instructions to read and study the
steamboat text for a maximum of 4 min, using the highlighting
editor or graphic organizer application corresponding to his or
her treatment group. Participants in all five groups were also told
that after studying the text they would be tested on the material.
For each condition, immediately after each participant studied
the steamboat passage and the eye tracking recording was finished,
the participant was asked to write a short summary of the text by
typing directly into a MS-Word document on a computer. The
experimenter informed the participant that the time limit to write
the summary was 4 min. The participants were not allowed to
review the original text, their own highlighted text, or their graphic
organizer. After writing the summary, the paper-based cloze test
was administered, with instructions that participants had 2 min
to fill in the blank spaces in the test.
The final stage was to complete the post-questionnaire, in
which participants rated their previous knowledge on steamboats,
perceived difficulty and effort in performing the task, and satisfac-
tion with the application. Finally, participants were debriefed,
thanked, and dismissed. We adhered to standards for treatment
of human subjects.
7. Results
7.1. Eye tracking results
The primary concern in this study is whether highlighting and
graphic organizer study techniques prime different cognitive pro-
cessing as shown by eye movement analysis. Our main hypothesis
is that highlighting primes the cognitive process of selecting (i.e.,
focus learner’s attention on memorizing isolated facts) whereas
27
graphic organizers prime the cognitive processes of selecting, orga-
nizing and integrating (i.e., encourage learners to build knowledge
structures). We view eye fixations (time and number) as an indica-
tion of the cognitive process of selecting and transitions between
AOIs as an indication of the cognitive processes of organizing and
integrating.
7.1.1. Eye fixations as an indication of the cognitive process of selecting
First, we compared eye fixation time and number between sta-
tic highlighting and text-only groups. Highlighting is intended
mainly to guide the learner’s selective attention to the highlighted
material. Table 2 shows that the mean number of fixations and the
mean total fixation time on the highlighted words in the text were
greater for students in the static highlighting group than those in
the text-only group. A t-test conducted on the fixation data sum-
marized in Table 2 shows that the groups differed significantly
on number of fixations, t(49) = 2.53, p < .05, d = 0.70, indicating
that the static highlighting group outscored the text-only group.
Additionally, a t-test conducted on the total fixation time data
summarized in Table 2 shows that the groups differed significantly
on total fixation time, t(49) = 2.18, p < .05, d = 0.61, indicating that
static highlighting group outscored the text-only group. Consistent
with the depth hypothesis (Hypothesis 1), these patterns of results
provide some validation of the idea that the highlighting technique
serves to guide the cognitive process of selecting.
Eye fixation data show that the graphic organizer also primes
the cognitive process of selecting, as previously predicted (Hypoth-
esis 2). Table 3 shows the mean total fixation time on each AOI for
of the text-only and SGO groups. It can be observed that partici-
pants in the SGO group fixated in average significantly less on
the text compared with the text-only group, with t(50) = 5.64,
p < .001. The SGO spent a substantial amount of time fixating on
the filled-in graphic organizer, with 58.2% on the text and 41.8%
on the graphic organizer. Consequently, these results confirm that
the graphic organizer serve to guide learners’ selective attention to
the information provided on the organizer.
7.1.2. Transitions as an indication of the cognitive processes of
organizing and integrating
We view up–down transitions (and left–right transitions, where
applicable) as measures of the deeper cognitive processes of orga-
nizing and integrating. The depth hypothesis predicts that graphic
organizers will prime more transitions than highlighting (Hypoth-
esis 3). Table 4 summarizes the number of transitions and the
number of transitions per minute for each group. We computed
the mean number of transitions per minute in order make compar-
isons between groups that received 2 min of study time (text-only,
static highlighting, SGO) and those that received 4 min (interactive
highlighting, and IGO).
First, we tested whether reading a highlighted text induces
more transitions than reading a plain text. If a larger number of
up–down transitions were observed for the highlighted group in
comparison with the text-only group it would be indicative of
the cognitive process of organizing and integrating, since it would
show that the reader is attempting to integrate and organize differ-
ent sections of the text by making specific comparisons (e.g., top
section: ‘‘cargo was stored . . . below the main deck’’ vs. bottom
Table 2
Means and standard deviations on time and number of fixations on highlighted text.
Group N Time (s) Number of fixations
M SD M SD
Text-only 26 24.27 4.82 90.88 19.87
Static highlighting 25 28.06 7.38 108.64 29.59
28 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32

Table 3
Means and standard deviations on total fixation time in each area of interest (in seconds).

Group N Top Bottom GO Total time

M SD M SD M SD M SD
Text-only 26 51.76 13.00 48.64 11.29 – – 100.39 20.61
Static graphic organizer 26 33.80 12.28 32.09 13.95 47.29 23.46 113.18 16.65

Table 4
Means and standard deviations on the transitions between AOIs.

Group N Up–down transitions Left–right transitions Total transitions Transitions per minute
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Text-only 26 13.08 6.37 – – 13.08 6.37 7.63 3.30
Static graphic organizer 26 5.46 3.80 12.46 8.68 17.92 8.89 9.35 4.13
Static highlighting 25 16.20 8.42 – – 16.20 8.42 9.31 4.44
Interactive graphic organizer 26 24.92 7.10 68.31 19.48 93.23 21.99 28.29 6.54
Interactive highlighting 26 31.81 14.07 – – 31.81 14.07 10.23 3.81

section: ‘‘cargo was carried on the main deck’’). Yet, the depth the SGO condition is to examine both areas (i.e. text and graphic
hypothesis predicts that participants in the static highlighting con- organizer) as independent areas. In contrast, the need to fill in
dition would make similar number of up–down transitions com- the graphic organizer in the IGO condition makes it necessary to
pared with the text-only group. This hypothesis was confirmed, fully integrate the text and graphic organizer area, as shown by
with t(49) = 1.50, p > .05, indicating that participants in the static the large number of transitions.
highlighting conditions made few attempts to organize and inte-
grate different sections of the text. 7.2. Learning outcomes results
Second, we tested whether the SGO group induced more transi-
tions than the text-only and static highlighting groups. It was The eye movement analysis is consistent with the idea that the
observed that the total number of transitions per minutes was highlighting study aid primes the cognitive process of selecting
not significantly different, with F(2, 74) = 1.56, p > .05; however, whereas the graphic organizer study aid primes the cognitive pro-
the nature of such transitions was considerably different. Analyz- cess of selecting, organizing and integrating. We examine in this
ing the transitions between the text and graphic organizer (i.e., section differences on learning outcomes generated by these study
left–right transitions in Table 4) for the SGO condition; it seems aids. Thus, the cloze test was intended to measure rote memory for
that participants actively used the graphic organizer for organizing pieces of information in the lesson (indicating the degree to which
and constructing a comparison-and-contrast mental representa- the learner engaged in the cognitive process of selecting during
tion of the steamboat passage. The average number of left–right learning). The summary test was intended to measure comprehen-
transitions was significantly higher than the average number of sion of the lesson (indicating the degree to which the learner
up–down transitions in the SGO condition, with t(25) = 3.56, engaged in the cognitive processes of selecting, organizing and
p < .01, which is consistent with the depth hypothesis. integrating during learning).
Third, according to the interactivity hypothesis, we expect more
cognitive processing when hands-on activities are used to study a
lesson (Hypothesis 4). Therefore, we tested whether highlighting 7.2.1. Depth hypothesis
text induces more transitions than highlighted text. As shown in According to the depth hypothesis, we predicted that all four of
the up–down transition column of Table 4, the interactive high- the treatments would promote the cognitive process of selecting as
lighting group made considerable more transitions than the static compared to the control group and therefore improve performance
highlighting group. However, if we take time on task into account, on the cloze test (Hypothesis 5). The left side of Table 5 shows the
it can be observed that the difference between these two groups in mean score (and standard deviation) of each group on the cloze
terms of transitions per minutes was not statistically significant, test. An ANOVA showed a significant difference among groups,
t(49) = .80, p > .05. F(4, 125) = 6.08, p < .001. As predicted, follow-up post hoc analysis
Fourth, we tested whether asking students to filling in a graphic using a Dunnett test revealed that all four instructional treatment
organizer to analyze a text induce more transitions than given groups outperformed the text-only group with p < .05. Consistent
them a filled in graphic organizer. In this case, the proportion of with predictions, the effect sizes were large for the static graphic
transitions was examined. In relation to the total number of tran-
sitions between AOIs, the proportions of up–down transitions were Table 5
30% and 27% in the static and interactive graphic organizer condi- Means and standard deviations on cloze test and summary test for each group.
tions, respectively; meanwhile, the proportions of left–right transi-
Group N Cloze test Summary test
tions were 70% and 73%, respectively. These proportions were not
M SD d M SD d
statistically different between groups (p > .05). Therefore, the eye
movement analysis appears to show that the graphic organizer Text-only 26 4.19 2.79 – 2.69 2.15 –
affected reading patterns in similar fashion in both conditions. Static graphic organizer 26 6.62* 3.01 .84 4.42* 2.58 .89
Static highlighting 26 6.88* 3.39 .87 3.92 2.43 .49
However, the number of transitions per minutes shows that the Interactive graphic 26 8.27* 2.82 1.45 5.35* 1.94 1.17
IGO group performed significantly more transitions than the SGO organizer
group, with t(50) = 12.48, p < .001 and d = 3.46. In the SGO condi- Interactive highlighting 26 6.54* 3.14 .79 3.50 2.20 .33
tion there is no need to make as many transitions between the text Note: Effect size (d) computed in relation to the text-only group.
and graphic organizer area as in the IGO condition. The tendency in *
Group scored significantly higher than the text-only group.
 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
organizer (d = 0.84), IGO group (d = 1.45), static highlighting group
(d = 0.87), and interactive highlighting group (d = 0.79).
The depth hypothesis predicts that the two graphic organizer
groups would outperform the text-only group on the summary test
but the two highlighting groups would not outperform the text-
only group on the summary test (Hypothesis 6). The right side of
Table 5 shows the mean score (and standard deviation) of each
group on the summary test. As an initial step, an ANOVA showed
a significant difference among groups, F(4, 125) = 5.00, p < .001.
As predicted by the depth hypothesis, follow-up post hoc analysis
using a Dunnett test showed that the SGO and IGO groups signifi-
cantly outperformed the text-only group with p < .05, whereas the
other groups did not. Also consistent with predictions of the depth
hypothesis large effect sizes were obtained for the SGO group
(d = 0.89) and the IGO group (d = 1.17) but smaller effect sizes were
obtained for the static highlighting group (d = 0.49) and the inter-
active highlighting group (d = 0.33).
Overall, the pattern of results shown in Table 5 is most consis-
tent with the depth hypothesis that highlighting primes the cogni-
tive process of selecting (reflected in improvements on the cloze
test) whereas graphic organizers prime the cognitive processes of
selecting, organizing and integrating (reflected in improvements
on both the cloze test and the summary test).
7.2.2. Interactivity hypothesis
According to interactivity hypothesis, asking students to high-
light a text (i.e., interactive highlighting) should result in better
learning than designing a lesson with experimenter-provided high-
lighted text (i.e., static highlighting) (Hypothesis 7). We did not
find evidence to confirm this hypothesis. A t-test revealed that stu-
dents in the static highlighting group did not obtain significantly
different scores than students in the interactive highlighting group
on the cloze test, t(50) = .38, p > .05, nor on the summary test,
t(50) = .66, p > .05. Also in contrast to the interactivity hypothesis,
the effect size favoring the static highlighting group was d = 0.10
on the cloze test and d = 0.18 on the summary test, which are
regarded as inconsequential.
Furthermore, according to the interactivity hypothesis, asking
students to actively fill in a graphic organizer (i.e., IGO) should
result in better learning when giving them a lesson with author-
provided filled-in graphic organizer (i.e., SGO) (Hypothesis 8). Con-
sistent with predictions, on the cloze test, students in the IGO
group significantly outperformed students in the SGO group,
t(50) = 2.05, p < .05, yielding an effect size of d = 0.57, favoring
the IGO group. On the summary test, the difference was not signif-
icant, t(50) = 1.46, p > .05, and the effect size favoring the IGO
group was d = 0.41.
Overall, based on the results reported in this section, we con-
clude that the interactive activity hypothesis was not supported
in its most stringent form. In short, learner activity per se does
not necessarily cause learning. It appears that interactivity may
not be effective for unstructured tasks such as highlighting in
which the learner may engage in unproductive activities but may
be effective for structured tasks such as filling in a graphic orga-
nizer as long as the learner engages in productive activities.
In order to better pinpoint when interactivity might contribute
to learning, we examined how well participants used the interac-
tive highlighting and graphic organizer learning strategies and its
effects on learning outcomes. To assess the highlighting strategy,
first, we counted the total number of words highlighted by the par-
ticipants using the color red, and second, we counted how many of
these words corresponded to those colored in red in the static
highlighting condition (i.e. common words). Third, we computed
a ratio between total of highlighted words divided by common
words (i.e. proportion of corresponding words). Fourth, we com-
puted a correlation between this ratio and the cloze and summary
29
scores. The Pearson correlation between the proportion of corre-
sponding words and cloze score was r(26) = .51, p < .05, and with
the summary score, it was r(26) = .28, p > .05.
In relation to the IGO condition, we counted the number of cor-
rect dimensions and respective values filled in the graphic orga-
nizer by each participant. The mean number of dimensions and
respective values identified by the participants was 4.15
(SD = 1.57), out of a maximum score of 7.0 (i.e., corresponding to
the seven dimensions contained in the static graphic organizer).
The Pearson correlation between correctly identified dimensions
and values on the graphic organizer and cloze score was
r(26) = .71, p < .001, and with the summary score, it was
r(26) = .76, p < .001.
Overall, this correlational analysis suggests that the highlight-
ing study strategy mostly prime memorization of isolated facts
(i.e., as measured by a cloze test) whereas the study strategy of cre-
ating a graphic organizer tends to support both building a coherent
cognitive structure (i.e., as measured by the summary test) and
memorization of the facts that go into it (i.e., as measured by a
cloze test).
7.3. Effort, motivation, difficulty and satisfaction
Finally, this section presents the results on the post-question-
naire that asked students to rate (on a 5-point scale) their level
of effort and difficulty in learning the steamboat lesson and moti-
vation and satisfaction with the lesson.
Based on the study aid hypothesis, adding a study aid to a les-
son such as a graphic organizer or highlighted text is expected to
increase cognitive processing compared with reading a plain text
and therefore require more mental effort. On the other hand, study
aids are expected to decrease extraneous processing compared
with reading a text without aids and consequently reduce the per-
ceived difficulty of the lesson. The first two columns of Table 6
show the average results (and standard deviation) for perceived
effort and difficulty. Contrary to expectation, we did not find a sig-
nificant difference for perceived effort. Regarding difficulty, stu-
dents in the text-only condition perceived the highest level of
difficult with the lesson. In a pair-wise comparison, using a Dun-
nett test, the IGO group was the only one that showed a significant
difference in terms of difficulty compared with the text-only group
(p < .05) and with an effect size of 0.71.
Another aspect measured was a dimension of motivation (third
column in Table 6) with the question ‘‘I would like more lesson like
this one,’’ which was devised to measure persistence on a learning
task (an aspect of motivation) (third column in Table 6). We did not
find significant differences between groups. The last item mea-
sured was overall satisfaction with the lesson (see last column in
Table 6) with the question ‘‘I like using this computer program.’’
In average, the group that showed the least satisfaction with the
lesson was the text-only group. In a pair-wise comparison, using
a Dunnett test, the SGO group was the only one that showed a sig-
nificant difference in terms of satisfaction compared with the text-
only group (p < .05) and with an effect size of d = 0.98. The IGO
group resulted with an effect size of 0.58, followed by the static
highlighting (d = 0.45) and interactive highlighting (d = 0.34).
8. Discussion
8.1. Empirical contributions
First, we found evidence to support the depth hypothesis, which
holds that shallow study aids promote low-level processing
(Hypothesis 1) such as selecting relevant information whereas dee-
per study aids such as graphic organizers promote both low-level
30 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
Table 6
Mean ratings and standard deviations on effort, difficulty, motivation, and satisfaction.
Group Effort
M SD
Text-only 3.15 0.88
Static graphic organizer 3.35 0.80
Static highlighting 3.38 0.80
Interactive graphic organizer 3.19 0.85
Interactive highlighting 3.27 0.67
*
Group scored significantly higher than the text-only group.
processing (Hypothesis 2) and high-level processing such as orga-
nizing relevant information (Hypothesis 3). Thus, adding study aids
such as highlighting and graphic organizer to a lesson improves
learning outcomes significantly more compared to a lesson with-
out such aids (i.e., text-only) when the test taps rote memory for
the presented material (Hypothesis 5), but only graphic organizers
(both static and interactive) produce improvements when the test
taps comprehension (Hypothesis 6). This pattern is consistent with
previous empirical studies that have found that highlighting text
tends to improve memory of the text that has been marked
(Hartley et al., 1980; Lorch, 1989) but it does not support focusing
on connections between ideas in the text (Dunlosky et al., 2013).
Our analysis of eye tracking measures further supports this find-
ing: students in the highlighting conditions spent significantly
more time looking at that part of the text that was highlighted in
comparison with the text-only group, with medium effect sizes
of 0.70 for number of fixations and 0.61 for fixation time (Hypoth-
esis 1).
Second, interactivity per se, that is, adding hands-on activities
such as asking students to highlight text or fill in a graphic orga-
nizer does not automatically lead to better learning compared with
the static (experimenter-provided) versions of the same study aids
(Hypotheses 7 and 8). Unstructured tasks such highlighting appear
to engage students in unproductive activity, such as extraneous
cognitive processing (Mayer, 2009; Sweller, 1999) that is, addi-
tional cognitive processing which does not lead to building a
coherence structure of the text. This was observed when partici-
pants highlighted sections of the text that were not relevant for
the comparison, such as ‘‘Eastern-style steamboat became a finan-
cial success in 1807’’. Eye tracking measures show that participants
in the interactive highlighting group made the highest number of
up–down transitions; however, such transitions did not result in
attempting to make connections between these two parts of the
text, as shown by the small effect size in the summary test
(d = 0.33) (Hypothesis 4). Consequently, providing highlighted text
appears to be more efficient in terms of cognitive processing than
asking students to highlight text.
On other hand, structured tasks such as filling a graphic orga-
nizer appear to promote productive learning activity, such as gen-
erative cognitive processing (Mayer, 2009; Sweller, 1999). Our eye
tracking measures support these findings, particularly with the
interactive graphic organizer. In this case, significantly more up–
down and left–right transitions per minute were observed com-
pared with its static version, with a very large effect size equal to
3.46 (Hypothesis 4). This shows that students that filled in the gra-
phic organizer followed its embedded structure (i.e., compare-and-
contrast) to read and comprehend the steamboat passage, as
shown also by large effect size in the summary test (d = 1.17).
8.2. Theoretical contributions
Consistent with the depth hypothesis, findings from the learn-
ing outcome and eye tracking measures show that each study aid
Difficulty Motivation Satisfaction
M SD M SD M SD
2.77 0.91 3.77 0.71 3.31 0.62
2.50 0.71 3.96 0.66 3.92* 0.63
2.38 0.75 3.77 0.65 3.58 0.58
2.15* 0.83 3.77 0.59 3.65 0.56
2.42 0.86 3.69 0.79 3.54 0.71
technique explored in this study—highlighting and graphic orga-
nizer—appear to activate different cognitive processes during
learning as described in the cognitive theory of multimedia learn-
ing (Mayer, 2009, 2011). Eye movement patterns show that both
the static and interactive highlighting techniques prime only the
cognitive process of selecting during studying a text such as the
steamboat passage. Compared with the control group (i.e., text-
only) eye movement patterns were not substantially modified by
the inclusion of the highlighting study aid, except for attention
(i.e., shown by fixation duration and number of fixations) on
important words (i.e., those colored in red in the static condition).
On the other hand, eye movement patterns demonstrate that
both the static and interactive graphic organizers prime the cogni-
tive processes of selecting, organizing and integrating by providing
a structure that modifies substantially where the eyes fixate and
move (i.e. transitions) within the steamboat passage. This was
more evident with the interactive graphic organizer in which eye
movements showed that in order to fill in each component (i.e.,
an empty text-box) of the organizer readers tended to read the text
following the structure of the graphic organizer. In case of the filled
in graphic organizer (static version), eye movement measures (i.e.,
transitions) showed less integration between the text and graphic
organizer compared with the interactive version. One possible
explanation is that the information is already in the graphic orga-
nizer within an easy-to-read compare-and-contrast structure, so
there is little need to revisit the text too often (Beyer, 1997;
Ponce & Mayer, 2014).
8.3. Practical contributions
Two relevant practical contributions can be derived from this
study. First, from a teaching point of view, choosing the appropri-
ate study technique to instruct students on how to process expos-
itory text can have important consequences on learning outcomes.
Teaching students to highlight text without appropriate structures
(e.g., cause-and-effect or comparison-and-contrast) may help stu-
dents select what to highlight, but not help them organize the
selections in working memory and to integrate them with previous
knowledge from long-term memory. The advantage of graphic
organizers is that they provide structures that embed specific pro-
cedure on what to select, and how to organize and integrate the
learning material (Robinson & Skinner, 1996).
A second important contribution relates to the instructional
design of multimedia learning applications (Mayer, 2005). High-
lighting important words in texts, which is easier to implement
in a multimedia application, can improve retention of information.
However, if the goal is to improve comprehension of texts, more
elaborated instructional design aids must be included that show
not only what is important in the text (e.g. key concepts) but also
its underlying structure (e.g., comparison-and-contrast). We have
demonstrated that appropriate inclusion of graphic organizers
can have a significant impact on improving comprehension of
expository texts.
 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32 31

8.4. Limitations and future directions Appendix B. (continued)

Two relevant limitations can be recognized in our study. First, Attribute Value Example Score
the steamboat passage is a short and well-structured expository western rivers
text, so it would difficult to extrapolate our results to longer texts were shallow
that may need other reading strategies for their comprehension. A4 Hull type Deep vs. flat The hull on the
Second, other structures found in expository texts (e.g., cause- eastern
and-effect, sequence, and hierarchy) may also show distinct read- steamboat was
ing patterns that may require the construction of different eye deep meanwhile
tracking measures (e.g., transitions between AOIs) compared to on the western
the ones used in this study. Therefore, these limitations open the steamboat the
option to expand this study to longer texts and incorporate texts hull was flat
with different structures. A5 Cargo In deep hull The cargo on the
storage below main eastern
Appendix A. Cloze test deck vs. on main steamboat was
deck stored in deep
Please fill in the missing words: hulls while on
Eastern-style steamboats became a financial success in 1807. the western
These one-story boats operated on the _____________ River and steamboat was
other eastern rivers. These rivers were _____________ and suited stored on the
perfectly the _____________ hulls of the eastern steamboat. The main deck
cargo was stored in these _____________ hulls _____________ the A6 Number of One-story vs. 1 Eastern
main deck. The eastern steamboats used _____________ engines. floors or 2 floors steamboat were
Western-style steamboats, however, were different. They churned one-story while
their way up the _____________ waters of the _____________, western
_____________, and _____________ Rivers. Their hulls were steamboat were
_____________, without room for cargo. The cargo was carried 1 or 2 floors
_____________ the main deck or on the superstructure, one or A7 Engine Low-pressure The engine on
two floors above the main deck. More efficient and dangerous type vs. high the eastern
_____________ engines were used and often burned up to 32 cords pressure steamboat was
of wood a day. low-pressure
meanwhile on
Appendix B. Summary scoring rubric the western
steamboat was
The following rubric was used to score the summaries. Essen- high-pressure
tially, it consists of the possible comparisons made in the steam- A8 Engine High-pressure High-pressure
boat text. Each comparison receives one point, with a maximum efficiency engine more engines were
of 9 points. efficient than more efficient
low-pressure than low-
Attribute Value Example Score pressure engines
A9 Engine High-pressure High-pressure
A1 Steamboat Eastern-style The passage is safety engine more engines were
type and western- about the dangerous than more dangerous
style were differences low-pressure than low-
different between pressure engines
eastern-style
and western- Final score
style steamboats
A2 Rivers of Eastern rivers: Eastern
operation Hudson river vs. steamboat
western rivers: operated on References
Missouri, Ohio, eastern rivers
Bell, K. E., & Limber, J. E. (2010). Reading skill, textbook marking, and course
Mississippi such as Hudson performance. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(1), 56–67.
River meanwhile Beyer, B. K. (1997). Improving student thinking: A comprehensive approach. Boston,
western MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cook, L. K., & Mayer, R. E. (1988). Teaching readers about the structure of scientific
steamboat text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 448–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
operated on 0022-0663.80.4.448.
western rivers Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013).
Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising
such as Missouri, directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in
Ohio, and the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Mississippi Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning
strategies that promote understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
A3 River Deep vs. Eastern rivers Fowler, R. L., & Barker, A. S. (1974). Effectiveness of highlighting for retention of text
depth shallow were deep material. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3), 358–364. http://dx.doi.org/
meanwhile 10.1037/h0036750.
Hartley, J., Bartlett, S., & Branthwaite, A. (1980). Underlining can make a difference:
Sometimes. The Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 218–224. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/27539753.
32 H.R. Ponce, R.E. Mayer / Computers in Human Behavior 41 (2014) 21–32
Holmqvist, K., Nystrom, M., Anderson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H., & van de
Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyönä, J., Lorch, R. F., & Kaakinen, J. K. (2002). Individual differences in reading to
summarize expository text: Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(1), 44–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.94.1.44.
Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). An eye movement analysis of the spatial
contiguity effect in multimedia learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 18(2), 178–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
10.1037/a0026923.
Kaakinen, J. K., & Hyönä, J. (2010). Task effects on eye movements during reading.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(6),
1561–1566. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020693.
Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing
alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23–32.
Kiewra, K. A., Kauffman, D. F., Robinson, D. H., Dubois, N. F., & Staley, R. K. (1999).
Supplementing floundering text with adjunct displays. Instructional Science,
27(5), 373–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1003270723360.
Lonka, K., Lindblom-YlÄnne, S., & Maury, S. (1994). The effect of study strategies on
learning from text. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 253–271. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0959-4752(94)90026-4.
Lorch, R. F. Jr., (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and
memory processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209–234. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01320135.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement (p. vi, 178 p).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., & Tornatora, M. C. (2013). Effects of picture labeling on
science text processing and learning: Evidence from eye movements. Reading
Research Quarterly, 48(2), 199–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrq.41.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn &
Bacon.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and
signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 141–159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.141.
Moore, D. W., & Readence, J. E. (1984). A quantitative and qualitative review of
graphic organizer research. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(1), 11–17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27540086.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington,
DC.
Peper, R. J., & Mayer, R. E. (1978). Note taking as a generative activity. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 70(4), 514–522.
Ponce, H. R., López, M. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a
computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies.
Computers & Education, 59(4), 1170–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2012.05.013.
Ponce, H. R., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Qualitatively different cognitive processing
during online reading primed by different study activities. Computers in Human
Behavior, 30, 121–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.054.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The
new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11405038.
Rayner, K. (1995). Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and cognitive processes.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 36(1), 57–58. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0084725.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years
of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.124.3.372.
Rayner, K., Chace, K. H., Slattery, T. J., & Ashby, J. (2006). Eye movements as
reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading,
10(3), 241–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3.
Robinson, D. H., Katayama, A. D., Beth, A., Odom, S., Hsieh, Y.-P., & Vanderveen, A.
(2006). Increasing text comprehension and graphic note taking using a partial
graphic organizer. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 103–111.
Robinson, D. H., & Skinner, C. H. (1996). Why graphic organizers facilitate search
processes: Fewer words or computationally efficient indexing? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21(2), 166–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
ceps.1996.0014.
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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.448.
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Australia: ACER
Press.
Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 147–166. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/747599.